A significant amount of people aren't looking at this as an issue of metrics, convenience, economics, or anything of the sort. That's a utilitarian approach. The vast majority of people opposed to legal & regulated prostitution are approaching it from a religious and moral perspective. The Christians that the article rags on believe that the Bible is truth that has been revealed to man by God and that it encourages the civil magistrates to deter sexually perverse behavior of all kinds including but not limited to pornography and prostitution.

Yet the US has freedom of religion, it seems there is a large conflict there

As @a-user-you-like has pointed out, your interpretation is a common misconception about what 'freedom of religion' means. The framers certainly did not mean that the laws passed by the state and federal governments were to be completely free from moral judgement based on religion or more particularly Christianity. There is no conflict, because neither the states or the federal government are instituting a state church. Instead, you have individual citizens insisting that the laws of their land should be derived from God's law and not judged by some arbitrary and immeasurable standard such as the happiness of prostitutes and their clientele.

The Constitution says there shall be no church of the United States, but that was at a time when all the states had state churches.

And adultery was a capital crime.

Outlawing whoring and the founding principles of the country are not at odds.

If I had to guess (just a guess, I don't really believe these things.)

- Lowering birthrate; people may be less likely to have a family and kids if the primary driver for these things (sex) is already taken care of. - Higher STI rate (regulation might help here). - More isolation; people are less likely to go out and mingle if one of the reasons to do so is easy and transactional. - Wealth inequality; I believe men are more likely to pay for sex, and women sex workers tend to make more. So, money will move from one gender to the other unidirectionally. This may result in wealth inequality if sex work becomes wide spread.

Precisely because it feeds the destructive attitude that the "get laid" impulse is a sort of mechanical need that can be cleanly isolated from the "find a long-term partner" impulse. Sex work for someone who wants to get laid is like cigarettes for someone who wants to lose weight - it'll work (nicotine is a reasonably strong appetite suppressant), but at what cost?

Imagine you met someone who says "yeah, I used to really struggle on Tinder, so now I've uninstalled the apps and just hire a prostitute every Saturday". Does he seem like a healthy guy whose needs are being met?

It sounds like none of my or your business. Neither of us has any legitimate interest in them other than do they rob anyone? Do they burn down houses? Do they perform at some job and pay taxes? If they spend all their money on prostitutes, it's no more your business than if they spend it all on video games or cars or rare stamps.

I don't agree. A society where prostitution is welcomed and celebrated is very different than one where it's not, and it's entirely reasonable for me to say I'd like to live in the second kind of society. You mention cars, so I'd point to muffler mandates as a good analogy - an un-muffled car won't rob anyone or burn down your house, but because they're loud and annoying they've been prohibited.

I garantee without even knowing you ahead of time, that I could find 10 things about your life that you value, that I could make an argument that society would benefit if you weren't allowed those things.

I don't have to know anything about you ahead of time because this applies equally to every human on the planet.

Thus your argument is invalid.

Worse than that that, it's not merely in error which anyone can be wrong about anything, it's an ugly offensive personality trait to even want to try to make that sort of argument and rationalization in the first place.

Have you ever lived in a society that welcomes and celebrates sex work? The only one that springs to mind is Holland, and they have a great society. I would much rather Australia had Dutch attitudes to this (and a bunch of other stuff; Aussies are secretly very authoritarian)

Tobacco is tolerated, not celebrated. There is a large gap between someone's vices being no one's business and actively celebrating them.

If you enjoy the status quo on tobacco, the people you have to thank for it are strong, dedicated anti-smoking advocates who think smoking is absolutely their business and would happily ban it if that were politically feasible. It used to be that smoking was celebrated and as a consequence happened everywhere. Stepping into a restaurant, bar, or airplane meant breathing in clouds of cigarette smoke. Smokers at the time would argue, quite passionately, that because their vices are none of your business it's unfair to try and drive smoking out of public life.

I'm torn on whether it should be completely illegal, because I've seen some kinda persuasive arguments in the direction of decriminalization. In particular, you don't want people who do sex work to feel like they can't get help without going to jail. But I'm confident that "ban it all" is much closer to the truth than "none of our business".

If someone out there is actively advocating to be able to have sex with a prostitute next to you in a restraunt then I see your point. Otherwise prostitution is already not part of public life.

There are people out there (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/09/sex-work-...) advocating for prostitution as a reasonable career path which should be discussed openly with women who feel undervalued or unfulfilled in their current career.

I don't think people are gonna start plowing each other in public, but I think there's a very real possibility that in a decade or two it could be considered strange and prudish to tell your friends and family that they shouldn't make an OnlyFans. I've seen some spaces online that are already at that point, although it's always hard to know whether online subcultures represent anything in the real world.

What if they did? In what way does this harm you?

At one time they said the same thing about exposing any skin at all even at the beach.

Every human, yes including children gasp has a body with body parts, so mere exposure to the sight of them and knowledge of their existance is not harmful. Sight of the act of sex is merely more of the same. Kids on farms see it every day from birth.

At worst it's perhaps distasteful or lacks appropriate decorum in some contexts. I find practically everyone to lack taste or decorum in most WalMarts. It's not a valid argument.

It's only worth about as much legal consequence as defecating in the wrong place. In fact defecating is worth more since it at least carries an actual public health consequence to others beyond "I don't want to see that"

"I don't want to see that" is an utterly invalid demand, since anyone can say that about anyone for any reason. They used to be able to say it about merely being a mixed race couple in public, or hell a lot of people still do say it about gay couples or trans individuals merely existing in the room. It is ever so slowly being recognized that in order to try to claim any kind of say over anyone else like that, you have to show harm, and no one can show any harm from a person merely existing as gay or trans or black or female etc. Anything you can say about how obviously depraved and harmful it would be to see naked people or sex acts in public, used to be said about all kinds of ordinary harmless things. People were imprisoned or killed over nothing but "I don't want to see that" and "I don't like it that that exists" without any actual harm to justify it.

Talking this way about sex work and evidense of sex work being visible in public, is exactly the same.

I don't think there can be a rigid distinction between "I don't want to see that" and "actual harm". We can presumably agree that it would be wrong if Google put up posters of naked women all over the office, and that the EEOC is right to prohibit such things as a hostile work environment. But what "actual harm" could you point to beyond the fact that the posters are offensive and people don't want to see them? I understand the appeal of being able to take a "live and let live" attitude without considering these kind of tricky values judgments, but I just don't see how you can avoid it.

It's an interesting idea to follow.

So a buisiness that isn't any of the many that might legitimately have pictures of naked women in their offices or other public spaces where employees have to work, has them.

What makes them a hostile work environment? Hostile or harmful to who, and by what mechanism?

I'll proceed on the assumption that it causes women to feel threatened by the men in the area and/or the owners/managers who installed the posters.

This line of reasoning is essentially the same as blaming women for the rapes they endure because they should have made sure they didn't look attractive to any men, instead of holding men to a standard to be responsible for their actions.

The harm in your example is that by putting up these posters of naked women being valued only for their body, you send the message that that is how women are seen here. A woman is likely to feel she is at risk of being objectified the same as the women you've put on the wall as literal objects.

I'm confused what the analogous harm is to you when two adults have consensual sex behind closed doors where you can't see or know about it.

Who said consentual sex causes any harm? I'm arguing the opposite.

The argument that women will interpret the posters as a message that they are seen as objects is potentially interesting, but then what about all the women who work at modelling agencies and ad agencies and actual sex related businesses?

The argument that women will feel threatened because the posters will cause the men to attack them, or even just low level menace them, is saying that men are helpless reacting animals and are not responsible for their actions, which is the same argument as saying women are responsible for rape by not dressing badly enough.

These theoretical posters are simply and merely inappropriate for facililitating the work being done in most workplaces. They are unwelcome but it's merely because they are a distraction and an annoyance. It doesn't cause any sort of harm that can justify any legal consequences.

There is no argument for making them illegal, and in fact they're already not because there are tons of businesses where such images are central to the business. The same image will be interpreted as porn in one room while it's just the businesses product on the wall at countless clothing manufacturers. So the image itself can not be said to posess any intrinsic harm or evil.

> Who said consentual sex causes any harm? I'm arguing the opposite.

The comment I'm replying to is. They are arguing that prostitution is somehow harmful to them and should be banned. I'll note the analogy of a poster on the wall of ones workplace is pretty poor, unless someone is advocating that prostitutes should be manning the hallways of Google. If you don't want to be exposed to prostitution it's easy to avoid. If you don't want to be exposed to the decoration of your place of work it's a lot harder.

> The argument that women will interpret the posters as a message that they are seen as objects is potentially interesting, but then what about all the women who work at modelling agencies and ad agencies and actual sex related businesses?

You mean the women who signed up for this line of work voluntarily rather than walking into their software engineering job and finding these posters on the wall? I think there's a clear differentiation between the two. Google probably shouldn't decorate it's offices with graphic images of say, people being operated on, I think that'd arguably be just as hostile a work environment. That doesn't mean that every surgeon is being abused.

> So the image itself can not be said to posess any intrinsic harm or evil.

Agreed the harm is not in the inherit to the image. As with many (most?) human interactions, context matters.

"> Who said consentual sex causes any harm? I'm arguing the opposite.

The comment I'm replying to is."

Doh, right, sorry.

> which should be discussed openly with women who feel undervalued or unfulfilled in their current career.

Why shouldn't it be "discussed openly"? Why should a person making a good living in their career not be allowed to discuss it? I'm also not getting where your getting the "women who feel undervalued or unfulfilled in their current career". It seems like your implying she's suggesting we push these women into that work, but that's not supported by your article at all.

And yeah, maybe in 10-years it'll be frowned on to tell people they shouldn't make their money the way they choose. I don't see why it should be anymore acceptable to tell fully grown adults you don't like them making their money on OnlyFans vs say joining the military or starting a risky business.

Poo pooing adult's life decisions uninvited is generally frowned upon. There's no reason we need an exception to this for OnlyFans.

I also now wonder exactly where the line is here. We were talking prostitution now the goalposts have moved to OnlyFans, so I guess nudity for money is now unacceptable? That's a pretty broad line that rules out a lot of modelling and mainstream acting as well.