It seems to me that it's a way to keep women from capitalizing on the area in which they have unique value over men.
Obviously I'm not talking about forced sex - or forced anything. Kidnapping, slavery, and rape are illegal and certainly apply in forced prostitution.
But in cases when it's a choice freely made by all parties concerned legal status can only help make it safer for all.
If I was a purist I'd say "no". Using those weapons might be.
Not being a purist I'm happy to make exceptions for probable use or effect of the activity. So:
Selling weapons to people likely to commit crimes is a reasonable exception to the simple version above.
Prostitution, where the probable outcome is a mutually satisfying service involving ONLY the parties involved is not a reasonable exception.
> But in cases when it's a choice freely made by all parties concerned ...
Presumably the targets of isis’s weapons are “parties” and don’t want to be shot at.
Then again, what about hiring police: the robber is a “party” too and presumably does not consent to being caught!
I can imagine lots of extreme edge cases and semantic word play on this - and I guess phrasing things to take in every conceivable situation is why lawyers make so much.
I'll stick with "the spirit of the notion".
If others don't agree with such transactions they needn't participate.
For instance, videotaping the action and then blackmailing people with it. Or otherwise causing trouble outside of the direct transaction. And of course, the other side of it, "services" to prevent that from happening outside of the legal system.
Also I feel like I'm pointing out something that's both disgusting and obvious, but I feel like it needs pointing out. More than a bit of sex is painful. For both sexes, but especially for women. There are reasons for that, which boil down to there being a limit to how much friction skin can take, no matter the amount of lubrication (which obviously doesn't tend to be 100% in order, because while you are "the best ever", so is everyone else). This means that sex work other than perhaps really high class escorts is not voluntary, and even then ... It also means that sex workers quickly gravitate to other options than direct intercourse, of which there are thankfully many.
But making matters worse, this is not the sort of activity that is executed in the calmest and politest of settings, and by it's nature does not promote reasoned discussion. Or to put it more to the point: you're going to get hit hard, accidentally, and you're going to get beaten up, non-accidentally, and you're going to have to beat up people. It's just going to happen. Also, the whole point is to let self-control go for at least a while, which can lead to an otherwise reasonable party being unwilling to stop, say, twisting an arm until a certain event that may take a minute or two to occur.
Thirdly, like anything that involves a lot of endorphins, you can get addicted to it. It can get bad: you can literally get addicted to the pain of overdoing it (as in people who cut themselves open during sex, sometimes without telling the "other side of the transaction" they're going to do this). Even in much milder cases, it's still going to cause abuse and violence.
Your first point is interesting, in the US where paying for asexual services is illegal in most places, it magically becomes legal if I videotape it (with approval of all concerned) and pay the people not for sexual services but for acting roles that include full sex. In your example it's the blackmailing that's the problem, and that, like my examples of rape and slavery, is illegal with or without sex being involved. And BTW, one can blackmail without professional sex services - the sex can be for free (hence fully legal) or it can involve any other thing the victim (see? no longer a victimless crimes) wants to keep private.
Many jobs have physical limitations and / or discomfort if done wrong. Sitting in front of a computer all day has a great many long term physical dangers. The solution there is workplace safety, ergonomics, and sensible limits. None of those are likely when prostitution is illegal - but are fully compatible with legal sex work.
Actually, I have known some prostitutes. Their workplaces were quite calm and polite. But, in circa 1900, factories, mills and even office typing pools and other workplaces were dangerous, noisy and in no way calm or polite. Workplace regulations have done amazing stuff to make them much more so. In the beginning - shop bosses often beat up people - Henry Ford had private guards shoot striking workers. None of that means we should NOT have pushed for workplace improvements. I see no reason prostitutes should be excluded from that. Are you really suggesting that they should be kept in hard and dangerous settings?
What you describe sounds like criminal controlled prostitution which very often involves... slavery or other coercion. As mentioned in my post - that is bad, should be opposed and prosecuted but will only improve with legal status and allowing prostitutes to call the cops.
I'm not sure what you mean by "... let self-control go for at least a while...which can lead to an otherwise reasonable party being unwilling to stop..." Private businesses often have security staff to keep people from "losing self control". Bars and nightclubs leap to mind. But again - that may be possible illegal activity done by someone - but it's not specific to paying for sex.
Sure - you can get addicted to many things, like jogging, wine, or chocolate... or sex. How does paying for sex change this? Or... should exercise, wine and chocolate only be allowed for free too?
All these points are great for various discussion but I don't see how they relate to keeping the payment for sex illegal.
This is pretty common even today. There are many parts in Vienna for instance where working girls are not allowed to advertise their services.
It’s a bizarre line of discussion given that for the most part sex work is legal today in Europe.
> Remove prostitutes from human affairs and you will destroy everything with lust.
I'm both amused and horrified with the idea on the full sentence where your quote is portrayed:
>Theologians followed the teachings of Saint Augustine, who wrote that it was better for sinful men to frequent brothels than to “corrupt” their wives or other respectable women with nonprocreative sex: “Remove prostitutes from human affairs and you will destroy everything with lust.”
It's kinda silly to imagine a group of "celibate" men suggesting the practicals of prostitution instead of corrupting virtuous women with non procreative sex, and at the same time horrible to consider that in the context of bad contraceptive methods, the advice was to subject some of the women to be second class citizens.
Book 8, Chapter 7, p. 139
"TO CARTHAGE I came, where there sang all around me in my ears a cauldron of unholy loves. I loved not yet, yet I loved to love, and out of a deep-seated want, I hated myself for wanting not. I sought what I might love, in love with loving, and safety I hated, and a way without snares. For within me was a famine of that inward food, Thyself, my God; yet, through that famine I was not hungered; but was without all longing for incorruptible sustenance, not because filled therewith, but the more empty, the more I loathed it. For this cause my soul was sickly and full of sores, it miserably cast itself forth, desiring to be scraped by the touch of objects of sense. Yet if these had not a soul, they would not be objects of love. To love then, and to be beloved, was sweet to me; but more, when I obtained to enjoy the person I loved. I defiled, therefore, the spring of friendship with the filth of concupiscense, and I beclouded its brightness with the hell of lustfulness; and thus foul and unseemly, I would fain, through exceeding vanity, be fine and courtly. I fell headlong then into the love wherein I longed to be ensnared. My God, my Mercy, with how much gall didst Thou out of Thy great goodness besprinkle for me that sweetness? For I was both beloved, and secretly arrived at the bond of enjoying; and was with joy fettered with sorrow-bringing bonds, that I might be scourged with the iron burning rods of jealousy, and suspicion, and fears, and angers, and quarrels."
Also this is when red light districts originated, a model still common in Europe today.
Something like cannabis in Amsterdam, where the police just turns a blind eye that most people even think is completely legal.
While recreational use, possession and trade of non-medicinal drugs described by the Opium Law are all technically illegal under Dutch law, official policy since the late 20th century has been to openly tolerate all recreational use...
I think it’s fair to say it is legal in the softer sense of the word, or de facto legal.
I also don’t believe that it’s complicated to understand such a state of affairs.
You seem obsessed with laws, as if they possess value and worth in and of themselves, when really they are a very high latency sidechannel of society and power.
Changed legal status tends to follow social status.
Do you think, for example, slavery, universal suffrage, women's suffrage, or homosexuality, are about to be made illegal again?
In some areas it took decades for the laws to reflect reality.
It should be noted, too, that, generally speaking, the police retain retain the power to arrest you. Period. They don't need a reason. They'll just arrest you and charge with whatever they want. Roll a dice. You can get arrested for crossing the street, or cycling home, or holding your tongue the wrong way on a Tuesday. They don't need drug laws for that.
It's usually up to some government prosecutor to decide whether they will go ahead with the case. And in my experience, at least here in Australia, the public prosecutor tends to have their head screwed on way more than the kids in blue. Who for some reason feel it necessary to take guns to the bakery to get their lunch. How insecure do you have to be.
> medieval examples suggest that what’s important is not just legal status but how regulations affect workers’ ability to control their working conditions.
Do we really need medieval examples? Surely this is evident in modern examples too?
This would not resolve all issues, but you could at least have the option to see a practioner who has done a senior first aid course and knows how to identify STDs.
More widely, I believe sex work should be absorbed in to the healing modalities and professions.
We drastically need to take a different approach to sexual wellbeing, because whatever we have been doing has lead to a sexually violent culture.
I believe the dishonoured / unregulated / unintegrated / unlawful practice of sex work is both a cause and a symptom of our culture’s worst aspects.
A four-legged chair for example, regardless of how you lean (within reason) and distribute weight will maintain 3-point contact with the floor.
Another thing to consider, the floor. How flat would most floors be at the time? 4 legged chairs would almost always be rocking on 3 legs, causing them to fail and break more often. Shimming a short leg only works if it doesn't move or if the floor is almost perfectly flat.
A 4 legged chair is much less likely to fall over because it has more points of contact with the ground (yes, this extrapolates). While you're correct that a 3 legged chair isn't going to wobble, many would call it less stable because it is more likely to fall over. The force is distributed only across 3 points and if you sit at an edge that force is going to be highly concentrated along two points. In fact, those two points are always going to create a lever. In a 4 legged chair there are many edges that you can sit on where the weight will be distributed to three points, you have to be specifically on the edge where two legs create a plane to distribute the force to 2 legs (see why this extrapolates? More legs and it is harder to distribute force to only 2 legs).
Why 4 though? Well, I don't have a scientific answer. But it is pretty well balanced, doesn't increase cost much, nor weight. So probably just a compromise. Though in a lot of rolling chairs you will see that they typically have more than 4 points of contact with the ground (notice how much harder it is to tip these over?).
tldr: 4 is actually more stable in the sense of "you're less likely to fall out of the chair and bonk your head".
Rocking tables are a pet hate of mine.
Maybe we could add ‘rocking table repair 10hrs a week’ to this list of items that allow you to fulfill the requirements to obtain welfare.
And / or it could be an option for those sentenced community service by the courts.