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

Marc

Donor
Attempts to legalize or decriminalize sex work invariably died still born - you get opposition from nearly all social groups in the United States. It's seen as an ugly nasty business, which to a large extent it is, with a great amount of victimization of the workers, and in reality the cost/benefit of legalizing prostitution doesn't make it at all attractive as opposed to illicit soft drugs.
 
. . . 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. . .
It certainly could play out this way.

However, I’m hoping that with a bigger, easier middle class, people feel they can be more generous of spirit (even if they vote taxes). They fight less against something like an ABC Movie-of-the-week which evokes sympathy for a clear underdog. And they have a lot more skepticism toward laws who keep down someone who’s even partially a victim.
 
The thing is that prostitution does exist and like it or not will continue to do so in the forseable future. This I think is fact. And though it has a good possibility of other legal issues (especially in regards of pimps) it ideally (i dont know a better world - no english native) means consensual intercourse in exchange for money. That it exist might hurt the morals of some people - it does. But I think it should be not them in this case that should be a state's main concern. It should be the prostitutes. IMO the state should do its part to inform them of other alternative works they could be doing - maybe even help them to change occupation if they choose to do so - so prostitution is not their only option and they should know it. But prostitution too should be legalized and efforts should be made to threat it as a normal 'job' - meaning taxation and everything else.
 
An issue we must consider is that since 2000, prostitution has been lumped into the more-freshly re-defined issue of human trafficking, an issue that also includes child and immigrant slavery. I would be very difficult to break it back out as a pursuit for young women to make money without deep underworld ties, as it was more than a century ago.
 
The thing is that prostitution does exist and like it or not will continue to do so in the forseable future. This I think is fact. And though it has a good possibility of other legal issues (especially in regards of pimps) it ideally (i dont know a better world - no english native) means consensual intercourse in exchange for money. That it exist might hurt the morals of some people - it does. But I think it should be not them in this case that should be a state's main concern. It should be the prostitutes. IMO the state should do its part to inform them of other alternative works they could be doing - maybe even help them to change occupation if they choose to do so - so prostitution is not their only option and they should know it. But prostitution too should be legalized and efforts should be made to threat it as a normal 'job' - meaning taxation and everything else.

Prostitutes are already being tax based on their annual income

In America, the thing that is unfair is that they're being taxed on their income (the IRS doesn't question much about where you get the income), but they don't get the same protections of an average worker. Sex workers could also go to prison.


The things that are not being taxed are brothels, institutions of sexual services, and escort organisations. However, a significant minority of sex workers operate as a self-proprietors.
 
. . . That it exist might hurt the morals of some people - it does. But I think it should be not them in this case that should be a state's main concern. It should be the prostitutes. IMO the state should do its part to inform them of other alternative works they could be doing - maybe even help them to change occupation if they choose to do so . .
Some people believe that if we prostitution legal and therefore make it appear more normal, we will increase the number of people involved in it.

I think we’d also de-romanticize it (think of all the movies which make working as a prostitute appear interesting, exciting, glamorous) and instead show that the work is usually boring and tedious. And the income is uneven. I mean, if someone wants to do commission sales, I think they’re better off with real estate or autos.

80% of new businesses fail, typically because sales are slower and more uneven than expected, but fixed expenses aren’t!

And then ‘HR’ of corporate places really look for reasons not to hire, rather than reasons to hire someone.

—————————

Anyway, I agree we’re better off with legal prostitution for many of the same reasons you give.

But I’m sure it’s also obvious to both of us, that not exactly everyone feels the same way!
 
Last edited:
I think the hinge point is that some people believe by normalizing prostitution, we’d increase the number of people involved in it.

I think we’d also de-romanticize it and show at the work is usually boring and tedious. And the income uneven. I mean, if someone wants to do commission sales, I think they’re better off with real estate or autos.

80% of new businesses fail, typically because sales are slower and more uneven than expected, but fixed expenses aren’t!

And then ‘HR’ of corporate places really look for reasons not to hire, rather than reasons to hire someone.

—————————

Anyway, I agree we’re better off with legal prostitution for many of the same reasons you give.

But I’m sure it’s also obvious to both of us, that not exactly everyone feels the same way!
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.. But I'm trying to picture a normalized hr department for a legalized prostitution chicfilet..

Great stuff and very true, especially in today's day and age.
 
Some people believe that if we prostitution legal and therefore make it appear more normal, we will increase the number of people involved in it.

I think we’d also de-romanticize it (think of all the movies which make working as a prostitute appear interesting, exciting, glamorous) and instead show that the work is usually boring and tedious. And the income is uneven. I mean, if someone wants to do commission sales, I think they’re better off with real estate or autos.

80% of new businesses fail, typically because sales are slower and more uneven than expected, but fixed expenses aren’t!

And then ‘HR’ of corporate places really look for reasons not to hire, rather than reasons to hire someone.

—————————

Anyway, I agree we’re better off with legal prostitution for many of the same reasons you give.

But I’m sure it’s also obvious to both of us, that not exactly everyone feels the same way!

I agree with everything you said. My point is simply that the state instead of deciding to appease the morals of probably well of but surely better off than the prostitutes people should try to do something to help those who really need it - and in this case thats most likely the prostitutes. Giving them another choice so they dont have to prostitute themselfs would be a step in the right direction. If someone chooses even than to do this thats mostly on her or him. But even then to force them to take the cons of the system (taxation) and deny tham all the pros (I wasnt aware of this as im not american) is hilarious.

Im also aware that states are run by politicans and that you can get more votes for appeasing the morals of some people than by helping prostitutes - and likely being judged by these people with "morals" who seem to forget that prostitutes are too human beings. So I understand the chances of something similar happening to what I propose is near zero.
 
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.. But I'm trying to picture a normalized hr department for a legalized prostitution chicfilet..

Great stuff and very true, especially in today's day and age.
Similar to how Las Vegas moved away from the mob and went corporate? And we’ll say marginally better on points! :openedeyewink:
 
Turn the clock back to the decade following WW2. Red light districts were common because many people could not talk about them. People lived closer together in an era of housing shortages and little or no zoning control. Hobos rode freight trains. Long-distance travel was on passenger railroads as jets were just being introduced. Women who got involved in sex trade could walk away and start a “clean” life in another city because the mobs that controlled black markets were very localized.

After the sixties saw society “open up,” the seventies were probably the only time a movement to decriminalize prostitution might catch on. It would have to be before AIDS came along in the eighties, the consequence of which would be condom protection as it was in Nevada.

Notice how casino gambling suddenly came in vogue after the late eighties. I’m not talking about Native American reservations, I mean commercial operations in Atlantic City and riverboats in Iowa and South Dakota. It happened when people who remembered the prohibition-era mobs had decreased in numbers. In 1977, Missouri became the last state to legalize the sale of light bulbs on Sunday, on moral grounds. A mere 16 years later, they legalized riverboat casinos.

We generally think American society has more or less "opened up" in the past fifty years, but prostitution is an area where it seems to have more so closed up.
 
If you want a more relaxed on prostitution or more broadly sexual mores US, you'd need to make the US or given the same issues affecting them the broader anglosphere/north europe less racist. I'm not talking affirmative action/hate speech/woke hashtags/hiring tokens but actual behavior, or more specifically lack of caring about said behavior. Alot of the sex-negative wings of even modern feminism come off as just being updated for modern day purposes variants of the late 19th/early 20th century's "keep nonwhite men away from pure, innocent white women". FFS we've even got anti-prostitution arguments just swapping in "human trafficking" for where "white slavery" would be fitted in, so even just reusing old arguments.

The reason the anglosphere/northern europe have certain puritanical strains is due to a long tradition of certain types of feminism. Look at feminists in anglosphere/northern europe who re *STILL* anti-pornography, like it's 1960, vocally anti-prostitution/in favor of punishing only the johns if they're light on it but don't care that much about say abortion in practice. Note how it took the GOP banning it recently in several states OTL for democrats to bring it up. Outsie of the anglosphere/north europe, the local versions focus more on things like access/legality of abortion, economic opportunities and if it's a prudish culture sexual freedom. Not being white, I obviously find the second set of people far more appealing.
 
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.
Okay, I think we go profession by profession. For example, the “Flexner Report” of 1910 hugely changed the kind of medical profession we have.

And some people may not realize it, but some regular standard doctors with full hospital privileges and full everything else are D.O.s rather than M.D.s. Maybe about (?) 5% of doctors have a D.O. degree. Because, this small branch was able to defend itself.

For a different timeline, simply have more small branches able to defend themselves. And in general, have a multi-path profession rather than single-path.
 
Okay, I think we go profession by profession. For example, the “Flexner Report” of 1910 hugely changed the kind of medical profession we have.

And some people may not realize it, but some absolutely standard doctors with full hospital privileges and everything else are D.O.s rather than M.D.s. Maybe about (?) 5% of doctors have a D.O. This small branch was able to defend itself.

For a different timeline, simply have more small branches successful apt defending themselves. And in general, have a multi-path profession rather than single-path.

Strong antitrust will help, but not be enough. US had decent antitrust into the 80s, but "professionalization" creeped.

The POD for your thing would probably have to be socialists get big instead of progressives in the first few decades of last century. Alot of the managerialist dystopia we lived in came out of progressive-era economic reform/cartelization that got to get going once the bulk of the new deal got closed down in the 1990s under Clinton -- Reagan just made the idea okay for the electorate, but it took Bill clinton to be able to actually pull it off.
 
. . . Im also aware that states are run by politicans and that you can get more votes for appeasing the morals of some people than by helping prostitutes - . . .
I think you speak English well. :)

And I very much agree with you. Instead of making some kind of ineffectual moral statement, laws should be about helping people in the real, actual, messy world.
 
I think you speak English well. :)

And I very much agree with you. Instead of making some kind of ineffectual moral statement, laws should be about helping people in the real, actual, messy world.
You'd need a POD that removes influences of both abrahamic religion and the classical greco-roman tradition from the west to get that to be the norm.
 
You'd need a POD that removes influences of both abrahamic religion and the classical greco-roman tradition from the west to get that to be the norm.
That is true. But turn the clock back about 70 years and you have a time when police officers might stop a drunk driver, drive his car home for him and just let him go to keep him off the roads. And that was a time when red light districts were often ignored.
Instead of making some kind of ineffectual moral statement, laws should be about helping people in the real, actual, messy world.
Unfortunately we are less like that today than in times of the past. So, if elements of 1949 remained until 1979, law enforcement might be more practical. The big change, of course, was suburban living and increased reliance on the automobile. And today? We have moved to much stricter child restraint and passenger restraint laws.
 
A quieter 1960 to 1980, make the president list for that era be HHH/Johnson/Nixon(in 1976) could get you an atl where red light districts remain quietly ignored and a few more relaxed states legalize plus no stopping advertisements for prostitution on backpages/craigslist but that wouldn't get you to 20 states legal.

really don't think it's doable post-1900
 
. . . Long-distance travel was on passenger railroads as jets were just being introduced. Women who got involved in sex trade could walk away and start a “clean” life in another city because the mobs that controlled black markets were very localized. . .
To me, this is one of the prime benefits of a legal system.

Even if a young woman makes poor choices entirely her own, I don’t want to put some record on her which pretty much will follow her for the whole rest of her life. Nor do I want her afraid of going to the police, say about a violent pimp, because she’s going to be labeled negatively in some court proceeding which can later be dug up. And people do worry about this kind of stuff.
 
Even if a young woman makes poor choices entirely her own, I don’t want to put some record on her which pretty much will follow her for the whole rest of her life.
Unfortunately the "new" letter of the law can be very strict. I recall a story from 2008 where a 16-year old girl in Storm Lake, Iowa took a topless selfie and sent it to her boyfriend. Authorities somehow intercepted the photo and prosecutors said they would charge the girl with a federal offense, pedophilic pornography, a felony. 16 is the age of consent in Iowa, so there is no statutory rape for her to have sex, but the photo can be a serious crime. I'm not sure where the case went; being so lame, I would hope cooler heads would prevail and she would only get a warning. But the sensational media mentioned the felony, changing her ability to take certain jobs or live in certain housing for the rest of her life, she could never own a firearm and in Iowa would never be able to vote for the rest of her life.
 
. . . I recall a story from 2008 where a 16-year old girl in Storm Lake, Iowa took a topless selfie and sent it to her boyfriend. Authorities somehow intercepted the photo and prosecutors said they would charge the girl with a federal offense, pedophilic pornography, a felony. . .
I live in the suburbs of Houston, Texas.

Of course, I’ve read from many sources that my city is a hub for human trafficking of people from Mexico and Central America. In addition, in my general neighborhood, there are at least three Thai massage places. One I hear is legitimate massage. Another I hear that for time scheduled over an hour plus tip, you can at least get a handjob, and maybe oral sex or intercourse.

In addition, when reformers focus on whether the employer keeps the person’s passport and/or whether the employer controls the person’s living quarters, they’re doing a pretty good job of focusing on central issues regarding trafficking.

=========

With that said, yes, it can feed into the standard dysfunctional criminal “justice system” patterns.

So, in the case you give, I’d say those police and prosecutors primarily had an authoritarian mindset. At least initially. Like you said, I hope cooler heads eventually prevailed.

I remember reading a case about a lady who ran a small escort service in Alaska. It actually sounded like an above average service. And yep, she was charged with trafficking.

In our current standard U.S. “criminal justice” system, the person is hugely overcharged as way to pressure them to plead out. Plus, police and prosecutors view sentence length as some kind of scorecard and success.

So, we have a lot of general reform to do at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Top