> because of the shame in admitting you fell for it.

I would argue that the reason has more to do with our utter inability to create common sense laws regarding anything "sex".

▲

jzb 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Which goes back to the shame thing, really. Few people are willing to stand up and advocate for common sense laws because they don’t want to be associated with anything regarding sex. Politicians, whom are not generally noted for being averse to hiring sex workers, sure as hell don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections.

▲

aleph_minus_one an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Politicians [...] don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections.

This assumes that the politician plans and has a chance to become re-elected. If this is not the case, the arguments for not advocating for such laws become much less important for the respective politician.

▲

monocasa an hour ago | parent [-]

A politician can rarely enact laws alone, and the above issues typically apply to enough politicians at a time to make having a quorum difficult.

	▲	galangalalgol 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Is there anywhere with one term limits for law makers with no staggered terms? If every member of a parliament is yoloing it, I'm not aure if things would be better or worse.

▲

actionfromafar an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Don't you think it also comes down to "exploitation" and not shame alone?