AHC: prostitution legal in at least 20 U.S. states by 1990

My idea is that the U.S. middle class does not slowly decline and erode from the early 1970s forward. Because a declining middle class makes for a meaner meritocracy in which we're more eager to blame people for the consequences of their own bad choices.

Rather than the view, okay, people sometimes make bad choices, no need trapping them permanently. And even the view, sometimes people just get unlucky, and make the best choice at the time.

Economics ripples through society, in a number of different ways.

Please tell me what you think about this and/or other possibilities. Thanks. :)
 
Last edited:
My idea is that the U.S. middle class does not slowly decline and erode from the early 1970s forward. Because a declining middle class makes for a meaner meritocracy in which we're more eager to blame people for the consequences of their own bad choices.

Rather than the view, okay, people sometimes make bad choices, no need trapping them permanently. And even the view, sometimes people just get unlucky, and make the best choice at the time.

Economics ripples through society, in a number of different ways.

Please tell me what you think about this and/or other possibilities. Thanks. :)

Okay, what does any of this have to do with prostitution?
 
Possible POD(s) and timeline:

Since the Great Depression was much more abrupt, the idea gains traction that it’s foolish and ridiculous to go after someone for doing something out of economic desperation. And combine this with the more modern approach to reform that we’re not going to go after prostitution itself, but rather the ugly side of pimping with violence, threats, etc.

+

the beginning of WWII in which it’s viewed that legal prostitution is better in a number of regards.
 
Since the Great Depression was much more abrupt, the idea gains traction that it’s foolish and ridiculous to go after someone for doing something out of economic desperation.

Here's a scenario: a man is poor and needs money to eat. So he breaks into someone else's apartment and steals their live savings. When the victim resists and attempts to stop the burglary, the thief shoots and kills them.

Would you say that society is wrong to judge the murderer because, "it’s foolish and ridiculous to go after someone for doing something out of economic desperation"?

Anyway, the POD doesn't work because there's nothing that directly impacts the politics and legality of prostitution. Sure, economics and social mores influence the prevalence/legality of prostitution. But everything you mentioned is only very loosely connected together and isn't enough to get to your desired goal.
 
My idea is that the U.S. middle class does not slowly decline and erode from the early 1970s forward. Because a declining middle class makes for a meaner meritocracy in which we're more eager to blame people for the consequences of their own bad choices.

Rather than the view, okay, people sometimes make bad choices, no need trapping them permanently. And even the view, sometimes people just get unlucky, and make the best choice at the time.

Economics ripples through society, in a number of different ways.

Please tell me what you think about this and/or other possibilities. Thanks. :)

Wouldn't it be better to have New Zealand-style decriminalisation instead ? A lot of sex worker rights activists promote decriminalisation as a better solution
 
Here's a scenario: a man is poor and needs money to eat. So he breaks into someone else's apartment and steals their live savings. When the victim resists and attempts to stop the burglary, the thief shoots and kills them.

Would you say that society is wrong to judge the murderer because, "it’s foolish and ridiculous to go after someone for doing something out of economic desperation"?
Ah, yes, because prostitution is infamously known for being equal to checks notes fucking killing people.

To answer the OP's question, it's far more likely for prostitution to be decriminalized than it is to be outright legalized.
 
Ah, yes, because prostitution is infamously known for being equal to checks notes fucking killing people.

Of course the two aren't equivalent. Who said they were? My point this that the OP's very general statement allows for the justification of very morally problematic for things beyond prostitution. Just because someone did something out of economic desperation, which one can sympathize with, doesn't mean we should excuse them as a general rule.
 
We need to look at the way prostitution was viewed in different parts of the 20th century. Circa 1910, you had a curious way dating could be prostitution (via the Mann Act) and prostitution (pay-for dates from bordellos) could be dating as customers might marry an orphaned woman who moved from orphanage to bordello. Of course, society kept rather silent about houses of that type. By the twenties and thirties, prostitution became part of small-time mob control. As society opened up after the sixties, it declined in many areas. In more recent years, it took the stigma of drug addiction. And lately, the issue of big-time human trafficking is center stage, with underage women, sex-slaves from other countries as some of the primary issues. The century brought a new crime: felony tax evasion among the cash-based workers. Additionally, the crime of arranging or pimping is now a more severe crime than the one-on-one transaction. It would take additional regulation and control from the sixties onward for legalization/decriminalization to work.
 
To me, everything.

A growing middle class can more easily favor and enact "liberal" reforms such as de-criminalization.

I think you're proposed POD would actually have the opposite effect. Historically, the middle class in the United States has tended to favor more moralistic policies (think abolitionism and the early 20th-Century Progressive movement). An empowered middle class from the 1970s to the 2000s would likely be split between a socially conservative "think of the children" faction that wants to crack down heavily on prostitutes and a socially liberal faction that sees prostitution as exploitation and would favor decriminalization for prostitutes but harsh penalties for their clients and pimps.

To get de jure legal prostitution, you'd actually want a more economically polarized country. A weakened middle class would be less able to impose their morality on the upper and working classes, and the rich might favor it because its a revenue source that wouldn't cost them anything and because it would reduce welfare spending.
 
Here's a scenario: a man is poor and needs money to eat. So he breaks into someone else's apartment and steals their live savings. When the victim resists and attempts to stop the burglary, the thief shoots and kills them.

Would you say that society is wrong to judge the murderer because, "it’s foolish and ridiculous to go after someone for doing something out of economic desperation"?

Anyway, the POD doesn't work because there's nothing that directly impacts the politics and legality of prostitution. Sure, economics and social mores influence the prevalence/legality of prostitution. But everything you mentioned is only very loosely connected together and isn't enough to get to your desired goal.
No offence.. But breaking and entering.. Steeling.. Murder.. Sex.. Which doesn't belong in the same catagory.

Crimmy.. Its sex for God sake.. Ever buy dinner, flowers and a movie in hopes of some fun?..
 
No offence.. But breaking and entering.. Steeling.. Murder.. Sex.. Which doesn't belong in the same catagory.

As I said before: Of course the two aren't equivalent. Who said they were? My point this that the OP's very general statement allows for the justification of very morally problematic things beyond prostitution. Just because someone did something out of economic desperation, which one can sympathize with, doesn't mean we should excuse them as a general rule.
 
Last edited:
Here's a scenario: a man is poor and needs money to eat. So he breaks into someone else's apartment and steals their live savings. When the victim resists and attempts to stop the burglary, the thief shoots and kills them. . .
. . . the OP's very general statement allows for the justification of very morally problematic for things beyond prostitution. Just because someone did something out of economic desperation, which one can sympathize with, doesn't mean we should excuse them as a general rule.
You got me fair and square! :frown:

The general statement I put out there does nowhere near the work I hoped it would.

I can only say in my defense that when I took an interest in and studied philosophy on my own . . . well, you can take either a purist approach of kantian ethics or of utilitarian ethics, and come up with examples in which either theory looks ridiculous and fails miserably. A hybrid theory would probably do better. And we probably need to add more messy real world facts about human beings and human society.

Jonathan Glover, who wrote a number of books from 1970s up till today, is the best philosopher on ethics that I know about. And that’s basically all I have.
 
As I said before: Of course the two aren't equivalent. Who said they were? My point this that the OP's very general statement allows for the justification of very morally problematic for things beyond prostitution. Just because someone did something out of economic desperation, which one can sympathize with, doesn't mean we should excuse them as a general rule.
I get that, however turning to selling ones body isn't what I would classify as normal considering the surrounding issues that go with it.. Now that said.. Well.. The first three are hard crimes.. Second one is just cutting out the flowers, dinner and movie fee.
 
As I said before: Of course the two aren't equivalent. Who said they were? My point this that the OP's very general statement allows for the justification of very morally problematic for things beyond prostitution. Just because someone did something out of economic desperation, which one can sympathize with, doesn't mean we should excuse them as a general rule.

Regardless of morality, would it actually be it's fair to criminalise the practise of sex work ? Decriminalisation and legalisation (activists and Amnesty International prefer decriminalisation) would at least not imprison those who consensual commit to that practise out of economic desperation or for some other reason.

That being said, decriminalisation is a better option and much more acceptable to Americans who don't want to imprison those who consensual sell sexual services. It's similar to what New Zealand have already committed to and there's already a large sex worker collective run by sex workers to advocate for health, safe sex, and worker regulations. Brothel licences are regulated, zoning laws amended to certain districts, and health regulations are enforced. America could certainly at least advocate for safer regulations and prevent sex workers from being imprisoned or killed via decriminalisation. New Zealand sex workers would also have their criminal records expunged. At the very least America should be able to not treat adult consenting sex workers as criminals
 
Last edited:
Puritans go somewhere else.
Just have the Puritans not settle in North America.
Regardless of morality, would it actually be it's fair to criminalise the practise of sex work ? . . .
Worldwide, the U.S. is perhaps average in religious observance, especially counting Muslim countries.

We are more religious than European countries (interesting discussion why).

Now, some religious people do think young people need some extra help to stay on the straight and narrow and this extra help is provided by having legal sanctions. But then, if there’s push back with the idea that you can’t do this. That religion has to stand on its own.

Similar is the idea that legalizing is “condoning” prostitution. So, maybe push back with the idea, no, it’s de-criminalizing.

And, I would be interested in the New Zealand model.
 
To me, everything.

A growing middle class can more easily favor and enact "liberal" reforms such as de-criminalization.
Not the kind of type of "middle class" the US has. A bureaucratic-professional middle class which exists due to government-corporate mandates like credentialism has a reason to be in favor of puritanical measures -- they need to keep the state on board, so providing work for government employees is needed, plus needing to keep their youth on board and not dropping out. Hence the puritanical mindsets.

If you want to avoid this, implementing UHC would help quite a bit.
 
Worldwide, the U.S. is perhaps average in religious observance, especially counting Muslim countries.

We are more religious than European countries (interesting discussion why).

Now, some religious people do think young people need some extra help to stay on the straight and narrow and this extra help is provided by having legal sanctions. But then, if there’s push back with the idea that you can’t do this. That religion has to stand on its own.

Similar is the idea that legalizing is “condoning” prostitution. So, maybe push back with the idea, no, it’s de-criminalizing.

And, I would be interested in the New Zealand model.

One idea that come to mind is have some sort of left-wing socialist revolution similar to the REDS! timeline made years ago. In Reds!, America faced some sort of sexual revolution early on, de-stigmatising abortion and birth control and pushing a lot of social advancements and secularisation decades before OTL. It's not the United States, but decriminalisation or even legalisation of sex work can definitely work in a Reds!America or something similar. Or perhaps with more influences in libertarian-socialism and left-wing Third-wave feminism ?

Perhaps the United States can still be around, but with the right POD, a viable Socialist Party or Labour Party can emerge, shifting the US to the left.
 
Last edited:
Top