The frustration and aggression comes from being 35 and never having a date...
Much of the 'incel" problem could be solved if prostitution was legalized. Seriously. Rape will decrease, male suicide will decrease, anxiety among young man will decrease and probably even massacres will decrease
The frustration and aggression comes from being 35 and never having a date...
Much of the 'incel" problem could be solved if prostitution was legalized. Seriously. Rape will decrease, male suicide will decrease, anxiety among young man will decrease and probably even massacres will decrease
I don't think I've ever seen somebody so right for so many wrong reasons before. Incels believe that women have an obligation to provide them with sex. Paying for it would defeat the purpose. Rape is all about power, not sex. And I challenge you to come up with any study that remotely promotes your claims about suicide and massacres.
I agree that prostitution should be legal, because I believe that it's wrong for governments to ban something that's mostly benign and so universal to humanity. Legalization would reduce sexual slavery and give sex workers recourse to the law like any other profession.
The frustration and aggression comes from being 35 and never having a date...
Much of the 'incel" problem could be solved if prostitution was legalized. Seriously. Rape will decrease, male suicide will decrease, anxiety among young man will decrease and probably even massacres will decrease
I don't think I've ever seen somebody so right for so many wrong reasons before. Incels believe that women have an obligation to provide them with sex. Paying for it would defeat the purpose. Rape is all about power, not sex. And I challenge you to come up with any study that remotely promotes your claims about suicide and massacres.
I agree that prostitution should be legal, because I believe that it's wrong for governments to ban something that's mostly benign and so universal to humanity. Legalization would reduce sexual slavery and give sex workers recourse to the law like any other profession.
Incel means involuntary celibatary. Someone can technically be an incel and very progressive for eg. When i mean incel problem, i mean guys like Elliot Rodgers who commited, not the narrow definition of incel and is right that no woman have obligation towards any man. Not even prostitutes. If an prostitute wanna to attend an client and not attend another, is her right.
IMO discrimination is just propriety rights and should be 100% legal.
The frustration and aggression comes from being 35 and never having a date...
Much of the 'incel" problem could be solved if prostitution was legalized. Seriously. Rape will decrease, male suicide will decrease, anxiety among young man will decrease and probably even massacres will decrease
I don't think I've ever seen somebody so right for so many wrong reasons before. Incels believe that women have an obligation to provide them with sex. Paying for it would defeat the purpose. Rape is all about power, not sex. And I challenge you to come up with any study that remotely promotes your claims about suicide and massacres.
I agree that prostitution should be legal, because I believe that it's wrong for governments to ban something that's mostly benign and so universal to humanity. Legalization would reduce sexual slavery and give sex workers recourse to the law like any other profession.
This.
Also, I know several sex workers, and their response to "they're the cure for incels" is almost uniformly negative.
Also, it's not any woman's job to fix men who aren't socially functional, or prone to going on killing sprees because they're virgins. Perhaps it would be better for men to learn that no one is entitled to a relationship and for healthier strategies for finding and staying in relationships to be a thing that's taught.
Also, full service sex work should be decriminalized, rather than legalized. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.
Also, most incels would be fine if they stopped obsessing over stuff like the shape of their skulls and how much they hate all women because they've never had sex.
Tim Pool is a fascist apologist and has been for some time.
Also, it's not any woman's job to fix men who aren't socially functional, or prone to going on killing sprees because they're virgins. Perhaps it would be better for men to learn that no one is entitled to a relationship and for healthier strategies for finding and staying in relationships to be a thing that's taught..
No, but if the woman WANNA do that, should be her right.
US legislation is so hypocrite that sex in exchange for money is not allowed in many places, EXCEPT if is recorded and distributed in a movie. I an 28 yo and only had 3 girlfriends in my life. Due the fact that i only like an type of woman who is rare where i live. I also have some demands non related to appearance, but this is another discussion. The fact that you can in 5 min google search find an type of woman who you prefer is amazing but they don't substitute an real GF.
In most Nordic countries, the "professional" is not criminal prosecuted but the client is. That is more hypocrite than US and makes no sense. In Europe, anyone can pick an Tram and go to another country in few hours of travel. Still less time consuming than trying to pick someone in a nightclub.
Unless I missed it, the Vox article didn't really address decriminalization vs. legalization. I think this answers my question, though.
Turns out I had misunderstood what decriminalization means in this context. I had thought it just meant treating violations as administrative infractions/petty offenses instead of misdemeanors or felonies. Relevant quotes:
Legalization would mean the regulation of prostitution with laws regarding where, when, and how prostitution could take place. Decriminalization eliminates all laws and prohibits the state and law-enforcement officials from intervening in any prostitution-related activities or transactions, unless other laws apply.
Widely presented as a more tolerant and pragmatic approach, the legalized model still criminalizes those sex workers who cannot or will not fulfill various bureaucratic responsibilities, and therefore retains some of the worst harms of criminalization. It disproportionately excludes sex workers who are already marginalized, like people who use drugs or who are undocumented. This makes their situation more precarious, and so reinforces the power of unscrupulous managers.
Interesting. Most liberal on US tends to have an different mindset than on my country. The mindset "the woman is free do to wathever she wants, EXCEPT what my movement decide that is oppressive" is extremely common here...
Interesting. Most liberal on US tends to have an different mindset than on my country. The mindset "the woman is free do to wathever she wants, EXCEPT what my movement decide that is oppressive" is extremely common here...
Interesting. Most liberal on US tends to have an different mindset than on my country. The mindset "the woman is free do to wathever she wants, EXCEPT what my movement decide that is oppressive" is extremely common here...
What? What are you even talking about?
This feminists who are against woman who wanna do things like lingerie adds
There are barely any such feminists today. That's more of a late 20th century thing, and even then it was a big divide. Modern feminism these days is all about being sex-positive, and a part of that involves supporting the decriminalization of sex work.
In most Nordic countries, the "professional" is not criminal prosecuted but the client is. That is more hypocrite than US and makes no sense. In Europe, anyone can pick an Tram and go to another country in few hours of travel. Still less time consuming than trying to pick someone in a nightclub.
The Nordic model making it illegal to hire a sex worker but not illegal to be one is actually bad and still harms sex workers and exposes them to more danger.
A thing about sex work is that a lot of people in it are in it for survival. This is "survival sex work" and such people need to be supported as much if not moreso than those who voluntarily choose it.
Anti-sex work sentiments are worldwide. The US isn't uniquely bad in this regard, and a lot of people in the US (like myself) opposed FOSTA/SESTA and want to see sex work in the US decriminalized, as it is in New Zealand.
There are barely any such feminists today. That's more of a late 20th century thing, and even then it was a big divide. Modern feminism these days is all about being sex-positive, and a part of that involves supporting the decriminalization of sex work.
If i remember correctly when London banned "sexual ads", a lot of feminists liked it. Maybe i an wrong, i an not saying that is what the majority of feminists defend, only what i saw...
The Nordic model making it illegal to hire a sex worker but not illegal to be one is actually bad and still harms sex workers and exposes them to more danger.
.
If an client discovers that the woman is for obligation, he in the nordic model have NO INCENTIVE to report the human traffic. As for a lot of woman being in the market by necessity, this is partially true. Here there are a thing called "book rosa", where a lot of woman who tried to be model, but failed or only managed to get little money in it work as sex workers... Woman in book rosa are gorgeous, but extremely expensive. Think about an month of minimum wage in one hour...
If it was truly legalized on both sides of the equation, you could regulate it more effectively. Having prostitutes take regular STI tests would save a lot of money in health care costs, and cutting pimps out of the transaction will make the general public a lot safer as well. Much like legalizing the less dangerous drugs, it would take a lot of power out of criminal organizations and put that power in the hands of taxpayers.
Let's be clear as to what is happening here, even though alot of the media is dancing around what is glaringly obvious, which is that Trump is directing the US military to spend money at the airport that is vital to his resort's survival and also having them spend money DIRECTLY at the resort. This is nothing less than outright theft of taxpayer dollars by the President of the United States for his personal enrichment. This is open and shut. There is no other explanation for what is going on here. He should be impeached for this alone. It's absolutely egregious:
"The frequency of the stops and overnight stays has increased steadily each year, from 95 stops and 40 overnights in 2015; 145 and 75 in 2016; 180 and 116 in 2017; 257 and 208 in 2018; and 259 stops and 220 overnights through August 2019."
Again, how the American public ever accepted this man taking office while holding these business interests is an eternal shame on the entire populace. We've handed over the reigns of power to a grifting con-man who is literally reaching into every one of our pockets and sliding our cash into his. This isn't a book deal after leaving office. This isn't a speaking gig. This is THEFT. This is in the wake of a story I didn't even mention last week, where Bill Barr held an official DOJ event at a Trump property that netted his boss $30,000. There shouldn't be ANY government function of ANY kind happening at ANY Trump property for ANY reason. I shouldn't have to explain why.
If it was truly legalized on both sides of the equation, you could regulate it more effectively. Having prostitutes take regular STI tests would save a lot of money in health care costs, and cutting pimps out of the transaction will make the general public a lot safer as well. Much like legalizing the less dangerous drugs, it would take a lot of power out of criminal organizations and put that power in the hands of taxpayers.
Sex workers have explained why regulation would actually harm them, which is why they ask for decriminalization. The other thing is that sex workers are fully aware of STI risks, which is why they practice safe sex when they can and routinely schedule STI testing. You do not need regulations to require this of sex workers, but such regulations would be used against them.
Anyway, sex workers in the US were able to use websites to advertise, vet, and meet with customers fairly safely. FOSTA-SESTA drove them off the web and back onto the streets, where they're more vulnerable to violence, pimps, etc.
Good point, @BelleSorciere. I can see the potential danger of close government oversight without the right set of limitations on how that kind of information can be used.
It's absolutely nothing about which I am particular knowledgeable, but when we talk about sex workers saying regulation would harm them and them being fully aware of STI, are we maybe focusing to much about the confident, voluntary and educated sex workers, and to little about those coerced into the business?
I accept that the lack of regulation is likely better for the expensive escort, but how about the foreign street prostitute who barely speaks the language? I know both of those exists, but I am not sure if there are reliable statistics about their respective market share.
I still have a lot of sympathy for the Nordic (I know it is a misnomer, and it is not a heterogeneous approach for all nordic countries) approach of making the purchase illegal while not sanctioning the selling - probably because when I think about prostitution it's the street prostitutes which come to my mind first, not the escorts.
I still have a lot of sympathy for the Nordic (I know it is a misnomer, and it is not a heterogeneous approach for all nordic countries) approach of making the purchase illegal while not sanctioning the selling - probably because when I think about prostitution it's the street prostitutes which come to my mind first, not the escorts.
AS i've said, in Europe anyone can purchase an ticket an visit another country. Not mentioning that there are ways to "masquerade" the transaction. I see any type of prohibition as extremely ineffective.
I still have a lot of sympathy for the Nordic (I know it is a misnomer, and it is not a heterogeneous approach for all nordic countries) approach of making the purchase illegal while not sanctioning the selling - probably because when I think about prostitution it's the street prostitutes which come to my mind first, not the escorts.
AS i've said, in Europe anyone can purchase an ticket an visit another country. Not mentioning that there are ways to "masquerade" the transaction. I see any type of prohibition as extremely ineffective.
I am not surprised this is your opinion - you see all prohibitions as ineffective
But as usually you assume that because there is a way to get away with it, people will be smart enough to use it. History and actual case data shows that is not the case. People order drugs via plain text message. The average criminal makes mistakes.
I'm pretty sure if you put effort into it you could catch at least 50% of johns within one year if you put some effort into it like monitoring the places and channels by which these transactions take place.
Normal prostitution (nothing too exotic) needs to be advertised to get customers and is therefore traceable.
On visiting another number: sure, that works. But it costs money and may require time of from work. Also, slightly harder for married men to get away with when they do not want their family to notice.
Again, you seem to have a very binary view on prohibitions whether for guns or prostitution and argue that if it can be broken at all it is completely worthless. But catching some percentage of the criminals may be enough to make it worthwhile.
Whether prostitution should be prohibited is altogether another question.
Interesting. Most liberal on US tends to have an different mindset than on my country. The mindset "the woman is free do to wathever she wants, EXCEPT what my movement decide that is oppressive" is extremely common here...
What? What are you even talking about?
This feminists who are against woman who wanna do things like lingerie adds
Okay, but what does that have to do with the commetn you replied to? How did we get from "Men should be responisble for thier own actions." To, "But feminists don't want women doing sex work."?
It's absolutely nothing about which I am particular knowledgeable, but when we talk about sex workers saying regulation would harm them and them being fully aware of STI, are we maybe focusing to much about the confident, voluntary and educated sex workers, and to little about those coerced into the business?
I accept that the lack of regulation is likely better for the expensive escort, but how about the foreign street prostitute who barely speaks the language? I know both of those exists, but I am not sure if there are reliable statistics about their respective market share.
I still have a lot of sympathy for the Nordic (I know it is a misnomer, and it is not a heterogeneous approach for all nordic countries) approach of making the purchase illegal while not sanctioning the selling - probably because when I think about prostitution it's the street prostitutes which come to my mind first, not the escorts.
Historically and in the present, laws and regulations that allegedly exist to help trafficked sex workers tend to get them charged with crimes related to doing sex work illegally and human trafficking.
Also, the Nordic model as I pointed out earlier, increases danger for sex workers as the people hiring them are motivated to avoid arrest.
Regarding feminists, the majority of modern feminists aren't Julie Bindel doing interviews with Russia Today about how all sex work needs to be stopped.
To be clear up front - I don't know a whole lot with respect to the particulars of sex workers and how regulation would affect them.
My argument then comes entirely from a philosophical point of view: I tend to believe that a well meaning government with sensible and effective regulations can consistently protect the most vulnerable people in society. My opinion on that then also extends to sex workers as well.
It's entirely possible that removal of all regulations would be better than the kind of regulations we are likely to get if it were legalized rather than decriminalized. I cannot speak to that in particular - but it seems to me that sex workers are currently more likely to be made up from those aforementioned vulnerable parts of society, and that effective and humanitarian-centered regulations would be safer for them than a total lack of regulation.
I'm open to the idea that I could be wrong about that as it applies to this case.
My only credential is that I live in the only U.S. jurisdiction with some legalized prostitution - Nevada. I don’t know how scalable the Nevada model is, but it seems to work fairly well.
All prostitutes must be licensed by the state. All licensed prostitutes must work for, and in, a licensed brothel. Regular health checks are mandatory for prostitutes. Brothels are liable for any STIs contracted by customers in their brothel.
<...>
Again, you seem to have a very binary view on prohibitions whether for guns or prostitution and argue that if it can be broken at all it is completely worthless. But catching some percentage of the criminals may be enough to make it worthwhile.
<...>
Is extremely more easy to be skeptic about gun controls when you live in a country where you see news about armored police choppers being shut down by anti air artillery and anti materiel riffles than if you live in Japan for eg. Believe or not, owning an 9mm here is an more serious crime than permanently blinding someone. And when you see neighbor countries, those with less restriction like Uruguay and Argentina(despite having some dumb restrictions on both countries but much less), being extremely more safer. "but they are more developed", see Paraguay then. Much more poor than those mentioned countries and homicides are in decline and are far less common than here.
Is also very easy to be skeptic about democracy when you see that an farm who was prosperous according to portraits that i have see is now a "favela like shirthole". That since the fall of monarchy, we only had authoritarian unstable governments... And most gun control and centralization got pushed after SP lost an civil war...
I know that i i din't had the same heritage, and born in another country, i would probably have an different ideology. I an an right libertarian "micro monarchist" with sympathy towards anarcho capitalism.
Forgot to add that Ammar's introducing a dichotomy to make it sound like only the "expensive escorts" and "confident, voluntary, and educated sex workers" are advocating for decrim. The reality is that regulation and legalization harms trafficked sex workers. The reality is that sex workers who don't fall into that "expensive/educated sex worker" category do activism as well, and advocate for the same things.
And many sex workers regardless of how one might have categorized them, were forced onto the streets or out of sex work by FOSTA-SESTA.
Nevada is a bad example, as it bans sex work in counties with over 400,000 people - which includes Clark County, which itself includes Las Vegas. Escorts are allowed in Vegas, but aren't allowed to advertise services involving sex.
Decrim is what most sex workers have been asking for, and their arguments are sound. Regulations such as those in Nevada are more a hindrance than a help, and the fact is they exist more to protect customers than the sex workers themselves.
Yes, laws generally protect “the public.” Isn’t it a better idea to license sex workers just like any other legislated profession (architects, landscapers, etc.) so that they are eventually just considered workers licensed in their chosen field?
Comments
Much of the 'incel" problem could be solved if prostitution was legalized. Seriously. Rape will decrease, male suicide will decrease, anxiety among young man will decrease and probably even massacres will decrease
I don't think I've ever seen somebody so right for so many wrong reasons before. Incels believe that women have an obligation to provide them with sex. Paying for it would defeat the purpose. Rape is all about power, not sex. And I challenge you to come up with any study that remotely promotes your claims about suicide and massacres.
I agree that prostitution should be legal, because I believe that it's wrong for governments to ban something that's mostly benign and so universal to humanity. Legalization would reduce sexual slavery and give sex workers recourse to the law like any other profession.
...did you actually watch the video? Did you actually watch any of his videos because this is one of the...just wow...
Incel means involuntary celibatary. Someone can technically be an incel and very progressive for eg. When i mean incel problem, i mean guys like Elliot Rodgers who commited, not the narrow definition of incel and is right that no woman have obligation towards any man. Not even prostitutes. If an prostitute wanna to attend an client and not attend another, is her right.
IMO discrimination is just propriety rights and should be 100% legal.
This.
Also, I know several sex workers, and their response to "they're the cure for incels" is almost uniformly negative.
Also, it's not any woman's job to fix men who aren't socially functional, or prone to going on killing sprees because they're virgins. Perhaps it would be better for men to learn that no one is entitled to a relationship and for healthier strategies for finding and staying in relationships to be a thing that's taught.
Also, full service sex work should be decriminalized, rather than legalized. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.
Also, most incels would be fine if they stopped obsessing over stuff like the shape of their skulls and how much they hate all women because they've never had sex.
Tim Pool is a fascist apologist and has been for some time.
Why's that?
(Asking out of interest in your better-informed perspective, not doubt.)
This article seems to explain it: https://www.vox.com/2019/8/2/20692327/sex-work-decriminalization-prostitution-new-york-dc
Also, re Tim Pool https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/youtube-far-right-influencers-1202946918/
No, but if the woman WANNA do that, should be her right.
US legislation is so hypocrite that sex in exchange for money is not allowed in many places, EXCEPT if is recorded and distributed in a movie. I an 28 yo and only had 3 girlfriends in my life. Due the fact that i only like an type of woman who is rare where i live. I also have some demands non related to appearance, but this is another discussion. The fact that you can in 5 min google search find an type of woman who you prefer is amazing but they don't substitute an real GF.
In most Nordic countries, the "professional" is not criminal prosecuted but the client is. That is more hypocrite than US and makes no sense. In Europe, anyone can pick an Tram and go to another country in few hours of travel. Still less time consuming than trying to pick someone in a nightclub.
Turns out I had misunderstood what decriminalization means in this context. I had thought it just meant treating violations as administrative infractions/petty offenses instead of misdemeanors or felonies. Relevant quotes:
What? What are you even talking about?
This feminists who are against woman who wanna do things like lingerie adds
The Nordic model making it illegal to hire a sex worker but not illegal to be one is actually bad and still harms sex workers and exposes them to more danger.
A thing about sex work is that a lot of people in it are in it for survival. This is "survival sex work" and such people need to be supported as much if not moreso than those who voluntarily choose it.
Anti-sex work sentiments are worldwide. The US isn't uniquely bad in this regard, and a lot of people in the US (like myself) opposed FOSTA/SESTA and want to see sex work in the US decriminalized, as it is in New Zealand.
https://medium.com/@aleknielsen/nordic-model-the-ongoing-criminalization-of-sex-workers-in-northern-europe-c1df02ba94ae
Sorry, @joluv I picked the wrong article. Yes, it's about not regulating the profession.
If i remember correctly when London banned "sexual ads", a lot of feminists liked it. Maybe i an wrong, i an not saying that is what the majority of feminists defend, only what i saw...
If an client discovers that the woman is for obligation, he in the nordic model have NO INCENTIVE to report the human traffic. As for a lot of woman being in the market by necessity, this is partially true. Here there are a thing called "book rosa", where a lot of woman who tried to be model, but failed or only managed to get little money in it work as sex workers... Woman in book rosa are gorgeous, but extremely expensive. Think about an month of minimum wage in one hour...
Let's be clear as to what is happening here, even though alot of the media is dancing around what is glaringly obvious, which is that Trump is directing the US military to spend money at the airport that is vital to his resort's survival and also having them spend money DIRECTLY at the resort. This is nothing less than outright theft of taxpayer dollars by the President of the United States for his personal enrichment. This is open and shut. There is no other explanation for what is going on here. He should be impeached for this alone. It's absolutely egregious:
"The frequency of the stops and overnight stays has increased steadily each year, from 95 stops and 40 overnights in 2015; 145 and 75 in 2016; 180 and 116 in 2017; 257 and 208 in 2018; and 259 stops and 220 overnights through August 2019."
Again, how the American public ever accepted this man taking office while holding these business interests is an eternal shame on the entire populace. We've handed over the reigns of power to a grifting con-man who is literally reaching into every one of our pockets and sliding our cash into his. This isn't a book deal after leaving office. This isn't a speaking gig. This is THEFT. This is in the wake of a story I didn't even mention last week, where Bill Barr held an official DOJ event at a Trump property that netted his boss $30,000. There shouldn't be ANY government function of ANY kind happening at ANY Trump property for ANY reason. I shouldn't have to explain why.
Sex workers have explained why regulation would actually harm them, which is why they ask for decriminalization. The other thing is that sex workers are fully aware of STI risks, which is why they practice safe sex when they can and routinely schedule STI testing. You do not need regulations to require this of sex workers, but such regulations would be used against them.
https://www.gq.com/story/decriminalization-makes-sex-workers-safer
Anyway, sex workers in the US were able to use websites to advertise, vet, and meet with customers fairly safely. FOSTA-SESTA drove them off the web and back onto the streets, where they're more vulnerable to violence, pimps, etc.
I accept that the lack of regulation is likely better for the expensive escort, but how about the foreign street prostitute who barely speaks the language? I know both of those exists, but I am not sure if there are reliable statistics about their respective market share.
I still have a lot of sympathy for the Nordic (I know it is a misnomer, and it is not a heterogeneous approach for all nordic countries) approach of making the purchase illegal while not sanctioning the selling - probably because when I think about prostitution it's the street prostitutes which come to my mind first, not the escorts.
AS i've said, in Europe anyone can purchase an ticket an visit another country. Not mentioning that there are ways to "masquerade" the transaction. I see any type of prohibition as extremely ineffective.
I am not surprised this is your opinion - you see all prohibitions as ineffective
But as usually you assume that because there is a way to get away with it, people will be smart enough to use it. History and actual case data shows that is not the case. People order drugs via plain text message. The average criminal makes mistakes.
I'm pretty sure if you put effort into it you could catch at least 50% of johns within one year if you put some effort into it like monitoring the places and channels by which these transactions take place.
Normal prostitution (nothing too exotic) needs to be advertised to get customers and is therefore traceable.
On visiting another number: sure, that works. But it costs money and may require time of from work. Also, slightly harder for married men to get away with when they do not want their family to notice.
Again, you seem to have a very binary view on prohibitions whether for guns or prostitution and argue that if it can be broken at all it is completely worthless. But catching some percentage of the criminals may be enough to make it worthwhile.
Whether prostitution should be prohibited is altogether another question.
Okay, but what does that have to do with the commetn you replied to? How did we get from "Men should be responisble for thier own actions." To, "But feminists don't want women doing sex work."?
Historically and in the present, laws and regulations that allegedly exist to help trafficked sex workers tend to get them charged with crimes related to doing sex work illegally and human trafficking.
Also, the Nordic model as I pointed out earlier, increases danger for sex workers as the people hiring them are motivated to avoid arrest.
Regarding feminists, the majority of modern feminists aren't Julie Bindel doing interviews with Russia Today about how all sex work needs to be stopped.
My argument then comes entirely from a philosophical point of view: I tend to believe that a well meaning government with sensible and effective regulations can consistently protect the most vulnerable people in society. My opinion on that then also extends to sex workers as well.
It's entirely possible that removal of all regulations would be better than the kind of regulations we are likely to get if it were legalized rather than decriminalized. I cannot speak to that in particular - but it seems to me that sex workers are currently more likely to be made up from those aforementioned vulnerable parts of society, and that effective and humanitarian-centered regulations would be safer for them than a total lack of regulation.
I'm open to the idea that I could be wrong about that as it applies to this case.
All prostitutes must be licensed by the state. All licensed prostitutes must work for, and in, a licensed brothel. Regular health checks are mandatory for prostitutes. Brothels are liable for any STIs contracted by customers in their brothel.
Is extremely more easy to be skeptic about gun controls when you live in a country where you see news about armored police choppers being shut down by anti air artillery and anti materiel riffles than if you live in Japan for eg. Believe or not, owning an 9mm here is an more serious crime than permanently blinding someone. And when you see neighbor countries, those with less restriction like Uruguay and Argentina(despite having some dumb restrictions on both countries but much less), being extremely more safer. "but they are more developed", see Paraguay then. Much more poor than those mentioned countries and homicides are in decline and are far less common than here.
Is also very easy to be skeptic about democracy when you see that an farm who was prosperous according to portraits that i have see is now a "favela like shirthole". That since the fall of monarchy, we only had authoritarian unstable governments... And most gun control and centralization got pushed after SP lost an civil war...
I know that i i din't had the same heritage, and born in another country, i would probably have an different ideology. I an an right libertarian "micro monarchist" with sympathy towards anarcho capitalism.
And many sex workers regardless of how one might have categorized them, were forced onto the streets or out of sex work by FOSTA-SESTA.
Nevada is a bad example, as it bans sex work in counties with over 400,000 people - which includes Clark County, which itself includes Las Vegas. Escorts are allowed in Vegas, but aren't allowed to advertise services involving sex.
Decrim is what most sex workers have been asking for, and their arguments are sound. Regulations such as those in Nevada are more a hindrance than a help, and the fact is they exist more to protect customers than the sex workers themselves.