評論
打印
This is a lesson of history.
歷史的經驗告訴我們
If you try to prohibit something that people want or need to do,
如果你想禁止民眾想要或者需要的
whether that's drinking alcohol or crossing borders or getting an abortion or selling sex,
無論是飲酒還是跨越國界，無論是墮胎還是性交易，
you create more problems than you solve.
總有解決不完的問題。
Prohibition barely makes a difference to the amount of people actually doing those things.
禁令對于正在做這些事的人基本沒什么用。
But it makes a huge difference as to whether or not they're safe when they do them.
但是禁令對于他們在做這些的時候的人身安全影響巨大。
Why else might people support prohibition?
還有民眾支持禁令的其他原因么？
As a feminist, I know that the sex industry is a site of deeply entrenched social inequality.
作為女權主義者，我知道性產業深刻地反映了社會的不平衡。
It's a fact that most buyers of sex are men with money, and most sellers are women without.
事實上大多數買春者是有錢的男性，大多數賣春者是沒錢的女性。
You can agree with all that -- I do -- and still think prohibition is a terrible policy.
你我都同意這些，但我仍然認為，禁止性交易是一個糟糕的政策。
In a better, more equal world, maybe there would be far fewer people selling sex to survive,
在一個更加美好和平等的社會，將會有很少的人為了生存進行性交易，
but you can't simply legislate a better world into existence.
但是你不能簡單地通過立法改善世界。
If someone needs to sell sex because they're poor or because they're homeless
如果有的人因為窮困，或者無家可歸而選擇性交易
or because they're undocumented and they can't find legal work,
或者他們因為沒有身份，不能找到合法的工作，
taking away that option doesn't make them any less poor or house them or change their immigration status.
禁止賣淫不能讓他們富有，也不能提供他們住房，或者改變身份狀況。
People worry that selling sex is degrading.
人們擔心賣淫是可恥的。
Ask yourself: is it more degrading than going hungry or seeing your children go hungry?
捫心自問：它會比挨餓更加可恥嗎？它會比看著你的孩子挨餓更加可恥么？
There's no call to ban rich people from hiring nannies or getting manicures,
沒有政策禁止富人雇傭保姆或者修指甲，
even though most of the people doing that labor are poor, migrant women.
盡管做這些苦力活的大多是貧窮的女性移民。
It's the fact of poor migrant women selling sex specifically that has some feminists uncomfortable.
只有當那些貧窮的女性移民進行性交易時，才讓一些女權主義者不安。
