Just a thought

[felipemcguire]

Not a new idea, but a new way of phrasing it occurred to me today...

Outlawing prostitution in order to protect women from exploitation is a lot like trying to eliminate sweat-shops by outlawing clothing...

Just...y'know...food for thought.

ETA: pursuant to silvana's observation, I would like to change the last words of my analogy to "outlawing the

Comments

[silvana]

I don't disagree, but I think you've gone one step too far in your analogy...

exploited women - sweat-shops
prostitution - large-factory-made clothing
sex - clothing

Now, there are plenty of people that would like to outlaw most forms of sex - but that's a different claim.

[felipemcguire]

I was actually trying to analogize:

"explioted women" - "Exploited children"
"prostitution industry" - "clothing industry"
"sex"-"clothing"

So...the laborers, the industry, and the product for which people pay...

So, really, I should have said that the parallel is outlawing *paying* for clothing...

You're right...it wasn't a very clear analogy.

[silvana]

It has a great deal of promise. I like "paying for clothing" - although you'd catch a bit less flack for "exaggerating" if you changed it to "buying clothing from any company that uses factories," but that, of course, loses some ring. :-)

[felipemcguire]

Nah...
Because my point is that not all prostitution need be exploitative...just as not all clothing manufacturing is exploitative...

So...outlawing paying for sex in general, in order to prevent the exploitation of women would be like outlawing paying for clothing in general in order to prevent the exploitation of children.

What we (I *think*) try to do, in actuality, is to outlaw just the exploitative practices within the clothing industry...rather than outlawing the sale of clothing...
My suggestion would be that the same apply to the prostitution industry.

[lemurkitten]

i just want it legalized so they'd stop using my profession as a cover. that's just vexing.

[devinam]

It's really kind of stupid that prositution isn't legal, when it really comes down to it, if someone wants to offer sex for money, and someone else wants to pay, who is it harming? at the most basic level, anyways?

[felipemcguire]

Well...see...that's kinda prior to my point.

I absolutely agree with you, and I think, on a fundamental level, most liberal minded folks do...

I'm kinda writing an analogy in response to the fairly common (and frequently framed as "feminist") response to what you say. That response being that prostitution encourages the exploitation of women. So that's who it's harming.

Which is a stance that I can't necessarily entirely disagree with, but which I feel is somewhat beside the point...
Just like the clothing industry.

[luriddreamscape]

So what you're saying is it's STILL okay to WEAR clothing, providing you're making it yourself, therefore it is STILL okay to pay oneself for sex?

Got it!