I encourage you all to write objections to my OP if you have any. I tried to keep it short so I didn’t mention everything to be said about the topic. On a final note, I want to mention that I think there is a rather bad history regarding adultery being illegal where women were charged with it a lot more often than men were. I don’t think this is how adultery laws should work and laws in general are only as good as how they are implemented — TheHedoMinimalist

No great marriage ends in divorce. People should be free to take actions that finalize their internal state. I don't recommend "normalizing" infidelity if that's even coherent, but legislating against free choices is stupid. Leaving it legal allows things to end sometimes. Unless one fancies themselves a property owner rather than a mate. If the law is the only thing keeping your other honest then go ahead and give up while you got years left to enjoy.

Suppose there was a hypothetical society that felt that adultery should be illegal but child porn should be legal. Why should I think that this society is inferior to our current society on the topic in question? My whole argument is that this hypothetical society has better attitudes on this issue than how our current society feels on these matters. — TheHedoMinimalist

Yes and your whole argument is misguided and I am trying to show you. It is inferior (all things being equal) because it allows police intervention on an important area in everybody's lives, namely their love live and it is inferior because it decrominalizes something much more worthy of police intervention namely the possessing of child pornography, tacitly condoning a practice we find much more crime worthy.

The possession of child porn is not violence though. It has an extremely indirect causal relationship to the actual sexual abuse of children in our own country. — TheHedoMinimalist

You just do not want to get it. It does not matter if the link is small collectively it increases demand and we think creating demand for an extremely abusive practice is wrong. Therefore we use criminal law intervention as a policy measure to kill demand. Something does not have to be vioent to be a crime but we do want to stop the violence inherent in the chain of child porn production. Now stop repeating yourself and accept what has been told to you countless times and to which you have no answer.

What you say "seems" right only in a vacuum, not so much in many other recent historical and national contexts. According to Human Rights Watch (contra the "Nordic Model" used in The Netherlands and elsewhere) ... https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/08/07/why-sex-work-should-be-decriminalized# . Also consider this recent article. — 180 Proof

What I say isn't in a vacuum and I find the suggestion kind of weird. It's you who starts from a principle and then conclude things must be a certain way. I agree with the principle but know what it costs in the real world to just legalise. It's a well known issue for anyone working for the police or public prosecution in the Netherlands, where many of my peers from university ended up working - which is how I know.

The Netherlands isn't using the Nordic Model. I don't understand where you get that from. It's been legal for both prostitutes and buyers since 2000 with devastating effect for human trafficking victims. It's no coincidence that the UN Office of Drug and Crime consistently lists the Netherlands as a top destination (and regularly as the top destination) for victims of human trafficking. That's disproportionate if you consider size and population of the Netherlands compared to Germany and the UK.

60% of all European human trafficking is for sex exploitation but if looking only at women, it's 92%. See: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/organised-crime-human-trafficking/trafficking-human-beings_en

The question is what do you want to prioritise? Sex worker rights or saving/avoiding human trafficking victims? I'm choosing the latter because most sex worker rights are protected under the Nordic model - even if it's not perfect from a principle-based point of view. And since, even in the Netherlands where sex work has been legal for over 20 years, there is only a very small group who fully willingly work as prostitutes instead of as a result of circumstances (mental health, debts, poverty) or at worst as victim of human trafficking, fixing the circumstances surrounding sex work is a much bigger problem in terms of number of victims and seriousness of the breach of human rights of trafficking victims. Or in other words unwilling sex workers far exceed willing sex workers and the human rights abuse suffered by trafficking victims are much worse than the limited infringements suffered by willing sex workers.

Only once you have the human trafficking under control and a good social safety net with respect to mental health and debt management, should you take the next step and fully legalise. It should be a goal not a principle.

Why can’t you do both though?
It seems like a bad idea to let criminals dictate policy.
Like, “Whoa whoa whoa fella. We can’t make that legal cuz the criminals will act up and we can’t have that”. Criminals will be criminals, the answer for me is to combat the criminal behaviours, not placate them. I mean, your plan is to punish the people (the johns) who participate in something you just made legal (for sex workers to sex work) instead of punishing the people who A) were the problem in the first place and B) are committing more crime and inflicting more suffering that they were before. (The human traffickers).
That seems pretty assbackwards to me. Is that justice? — DingoJones

Criminals don't dictate policy, limited resources do. That said, it took over 15 years before local and national governments changed focus to dismantling networks of human trafficking instead of closing "windows" where victims worked. But it requires a lot of international cooperation too, which has steadily been improving since 2012 thanks to EU legislation (specifically EU directive on combatting human trafficking.

A fair point, but not a rebuttal to to my statement. Is your argument that because it takes time that we should just throw the “johns” under the bus? With limited resources choices must be made, priorities serviced. In the multitude of things to put resources towards there is room for both if anyone actually cared, but they dont.

To repeat: consumption, possession or distribution of child pornography necessarily requires producing it via criminal sexual assault / abuse of minors. — 180 Proof

Eating meat is the same as killing animals. Good point!

The modern world, post the sexual revolution of the 70's, is no place for marriage - the days of wedlock as a social institution are numbered. Once upon a time, tying the knot was a serious affair, now there are occasions when two people wake up together in bed in a hotel somewhere with no memory of marrying the preceding night. The writing on the wall: in this present day and age, marriage is an empty concept and soon, it'll become as meaningless as phlogiston.

I’ll start by mentioning that I define adultery to be a situation where a member of a romantic couple in a closed relationship, whether married or unmarried, decides to have sexual contact with another person without consent from their partner. When understood in this manner, it seems that adultery produces obvious harm to lots of people... — TheHedoMinimalist

Not having thought much about "adultery" in the past, I find myself wondering if our definition thereof is not dependent upon the concept of monogamy. I wonder, how might the above definition be required to change within a polygamous society, there being many societies on Earth (most Muslim, and many non-Muslim African societies, for instance) wherein polygamy is both legal and socially accepted? What should the definition of "adultery" be within the context of a "polygamous marriage"? This question might be somewhat off-topic, as I assume the OP is defining "adultery" in terms of the characteristic "western" marriage. Nevertheless, the question occurs to me...

Presumably, the government of a nation has no duty to prevent the abuse of children in other countries. — TheHedoMinimalist

Of course they do. If I start selling poison masqueraded as candy to children oversees, surely the government has a duty to stop me.

Suppose there was a hypothetical society that felt that adultery should be illegal but child porn should be legal. Why should I think that this society is inferior to our current society on the topic in question? — TheHedoMinimalist

Tobias is not making the best counterargument. We need not even consider production.

(Recap for others; J and C are in a monogamous relationship; P and J have relations violating this).

To the degree that P causes harm to C, the nature of said harm is that of a trust violation, not sexual exploitation; i.e., whereas this is considered a wrong and a harm, it is not considered a form of rape. By contrast, though the production of such pornography is indeed more severe and can create harms, the consumption of child pornography in and of itself is non-consensual sexual exploitation of a child's image. If P and J having consensual relations can be a harm to C, surely non-consensual exploitation of a child is a worse harm to the child.

Adultary can be a kind of drug too. In Portugal, drugs can be obtained legally. All associated criminal activities faded away. A plus for drug addicts and citizens.

Adultary should be restricted to adults only. Children should be watched over so they can't become prey of money-hungry criminals (I have no better name for them; the child-porn watchers can get help if they want).

Prostitution should be made legal.

Assisted suicide? Where I live, some time ago there was a diacussion about a suicide pill for elder people. Why not give it? To all, if wanted. Some people wanna die. If they want, why not?

A fair point, but not a rebuttal to to my statement. Is your argument that because it takes time that we should just throw the “johns” under the bus? With limited resources choices must be made, priorities serviced. In the multitude of things to put resources towards there is room for both if anyone actually cared, but they dont. — DingoJones

I'd like an approach that creates the least victims as a result of (un)intended consequences. It's a weighing of interests to me. A John paying a fine doing something he doesn't necessarily have to, to avoid victims of human trafficking seems a reasonable trade off to me. As I've said and I'll repeat, it's not ideal and I agree with the principle and I even used to unequivocally argue in favour of it until I was confronted with the real life consequences of it by people working in the field. For now I consider the Nordic model a better alternative than full legalisation of sex work with respect to the Netherlands.

I'm not quarreling with you about experience of legalized prostitution in The Netherlands, just your generalization from that country's policy to the rest of the world. I've provided links to articles illustrating counterarguments applicable to other countries and regions. Disregard those 'studies and arguments' for decriminalization as you like, Benkei, but from here in the US I find them (etc) persuasive.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-01-11/calls-mount-to-decriminalize-sex-work-in-the-interest-of-public-health?_gl=1*xn07wr*_ga*V3MwRDFBNHppYnd4d0JSbTJ2UGtTUzY2RElRVGVQLXdPdTI3czVLNHhzeHhmLXo0dUxWbmdQZE8wbnBlajl2RA..

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/08/07/why-sex-work-should-be-decriminalized#

And "Which do I prioritize?" assumes a false dichotomy. Criminalization of 'sex work' endangers (& criminalizes) sex workers AND finances (as well as protects) trafficking which is the status quo in North America. Resources wasted on policing illicit 'sex work' should be repurposed to investigating, breaking-up trafficking networks and prosecuting traffickers-pimps, not only nationally but through international coordination. Apparently, the policy and policing failures in the EU are as great a (or the greater) contributor to trafficking into The Netherlands just as law enforcement failures are with respect to Russian and South American trafficking into the US wherein 'sex work' is criminalized.

No, I don't think so. "Killing animals" (i.e. industrial meat processing) is not illegal, though its endemic gratuitous cruelty is immoral.

I'm not quarreling with you about experience of legalized prostitution in The Netherlands — 180 Proof

Stuff is legal there too. You can buy it in coffeeshops. Heroin is given for free to the heavy addicts. With succes. Prostitutes pay tax. Semen tax.

Resources wasted on policing illicit 'sex work' should be repurposed to investigating, breaking-up trafficking networks and prosecuting traffickers-pimps, not only nationally but through international coordination. — 180 Proof

:100: I don't think it would be unreasonable to divorce the alleged reason for the trafficking from the trafficking itself. The way we have it now, "sex trafficking" is like "cotton slavery." As if other slavery was okay. :roll: Just go after the trafficking of humans, period. If individuals want to screw or pick cotton, they can do it for pay and pocket all the benefits instead of turning all or some over to a trafficker/slave owner. In fact, let's do away with the term "trafficking" and call it what it is: slavery. Why distinguish between a slave trader and a slave owner? I thought we settled this in the 1860s? Guess not. Find a slave owner? Kill the MFr.

In fact, let's do away with the term "trafficking" and call it what it is: slavery. Why distinguish between a slave trader and a slave owner? I thought we settled this in the 1860s? Guess not. Find a slave owner? Kill the MFr. — James Riley

:fire: :strong: :cool:

Neither of those articles take into account the possible effects on human trafficking so I don't find them persuasive at all. It's curious after highlighting this obvious link between legalisation and human trafficking in at least one case doesn't inspire you to be more critical.

Clearly you didn't read the Human Rights Watch article and ignore the substance of my previous post. That's okay. We disagree, nothing more to add.

We can disagree but I don't appreciate the suggestion I didn't take your articles seriously. I read the article it just states they are separate issues when I've offered plenty of EU data to the contrary. So the article is demonstrably wrong and doesn't take the effect of legalisation into account because it simply assumes no relationship exists.

I had you pegged more intelligent than this.

I had you pegged more intelligent than this. — Benkei

Likewise. :sweat:

By contrast, though the production of such pornography is indeed more severe and can create harms, the consumption of child pornography in and of itself is non-consensual sexual exploitation of a child's image. If P and J having consensual relations can be a harm to C, surely non-consensual exploitation of a child is a worse harm to the child. — InPitzotl

Ok, I’m actually quite persuaded by this reasoning here. I think the consent aspect of this is something that I really failed to consider. I actually want to elaborate further on this to show how I think this consideration is the key thing that I think makes possession of child porn worse than adultery.

The consideration I had is that it’s usually illegal in every country to be a peeping Tom and I think that law is indeed justified. If somebody is knowingly watching a nude image of someone for the purposes of sexual gratification and they know for sure that the person in question did not consent to the image being produced then I see no reason to think that this is better than being a peeping tom. Given this, if being a peeping tom ought to be illegal than possession of porn obviously made without consent should also be illegal.

Initially, one might think that this line of reasoning implies that the possession of some adult porn should also be illegal. But, I think there are several practical considerations that would make an exclusive focus on child porn more feasible and immune from locking up innocent people. For one, all instances of child porn are non-consensual while it’s hard to tell if a piece of adult porn is consensual. Also, it’s easier to get people to care about this issue if it involves kids because people often reason with their emotions and targeting pedophiles has political advantages. Thus. I must concede that my OP was wrong regarding my comparison between adultery and child porn.

No, I don't think so. "Killing animals" (i.e. industrial meat processing) is not illegal, though its endemic gratuitous cruelty is immoral. — 180 Proof

Intriguing isn't it that there are immoral acts that aren't illegal but that all illegal acts are immoral?

Convince enough citizens that a law is unjust (i.e. immoral) and then it can be changed. Until then commerce or bigotry or both prevail.