Sex work

[Famous Mortimer]

Feminism has historically been about as dominated by the middle class as Marxism has been dominated by men... a cross class sisterhood of women is about as likely as a cross nation brother of men... and what of it?

This discussion isn't about Marxism, it's about sex work. And arguments such as 'sex work is just like any other work', 'the only difference from pornography is the presence of a camera', 'trust women to make their own decisions', and 'you're treating women as weak' are all functionally identical to standard libertarian and conservative arguments. By the way, so is 'is there really an epidemic of rape going on in college campuses?' Literally every time you address a women's issue, you take the right-wing position, using literally the same phrases that right-wingers use, and then try to wave it all away with 'Marxism'.

You calling out DimpledChad for arguing in bad faith because you think he ignored logical responses to his points is ironic, because I could say the same for you.

More logical fallacies. Now you're just doing ad hominem attacks. "These arguments are conservative arguements" 1) They're really not. I dare you go to to Tumblr and talk about banning sex work, you will get shouted down by a million angry college girls. 2) It doesn't even matter if the arguments are supported by the right or the left, it matters if they make sense. 

[Famous Mortimer]

White Knighting is not feminism.

[Beet]

Feminism has historically been about as dominated by the middle class as Marxism has been dominated by men... a cross class sisterhood of women is about as likely as a cross nation brother of men... and what of it?

I'm sorry, could you translate this to English for me? Because I can't make heads or tails of it.

A cross class sisterhood of women is about as likely as a cross nation brotherhood of the working class. Meaning, middle class feminist reductivism is no more unrealistic than patriarchal Marxist reductivism. Both are quite absurd, but feminism has at least given birth to the concept of intersectionality, which is a step towards aligning theory with reality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm just saying you're making arguments that are functionally identical to ones made by right-wingers. What does that mean? I don't know. Maybe those right-wingers are actually secret Marxists and just don't know it yet. Or maybe the definitions of left-wing/right-wing themselves are matters for discussion.

I would argue that in the context of discussion of gender related issues, socially critical feminist perspectives are left-wing, whereas libertarian arguments are right-wing. If this was a discussion of tax cuts and I came into the debate in favor, on feminist grounds, then I would be functionally still taking a right-wing position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's true, after you misrepresented my simple comment to you in the other thread, then ignored me when I clarified it, and then ignored me again my elaboration of that position in this thread, then ignored two other posters making the same points, I did stop engaging you on your points. One can't engage in nothing. I'm engaging you now on your framing in this thread because you engaged me on it, not because I was unwilling to engage you on other points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[WVdemocrat]

How about this: number the reasons for legalization. Put them in bold. If you've posted tons of them, make them clear. Because I sure as heck haven't noticed any. All I hear is the libertarian position of "well, we should just legalize it 'cause why not."

[Famous Mortimer]

Just know that all the hypothetical liberal ladies you think you are impressing with your paternalistic stance actually think you are extremely patronizing and are policing womens' bodies (literally).

Your opposition to prostitution is based on 100% "Nice Guy-ism".

[Beet]

Does anyone else find the assumption that no matter what a man does, the real motive must be to get laid incredibly misandrist?

[WVdemocrat]

Just know that all the hypothetical liberal ladies you think you are impressing with your paternalistic stance actually think you are extremely patronizing and are policing womens' bodies (literally).

Your opposition to prostitution is based on 100% "Nice Guy-ism".

WHY SHOULD PROSTITUTION BE LEGALIZED?

[Famous Mortimer]

Just know that all the hypothetical liberal ladies you think you are impressing with your paternalistic stance actually think you are extremely patronizing and are policing womens' bodies (literally).

Your opposition to prostitution is based on 100% "Nice Guy-ism".

WHY SHOULD PROSTITUTION BE LEGALIZED?

Same reason as weed. Do you oppose legalization of weed? Probably not. You've already shown multiple times you're capable of cognitive dissonance.

[WVdemocrat]

Just know that all the hypothetical liberal ladies you think you are impressing with your paternalistic stance actually think you are extremely patronizing and are policing womens' bodies (literally).

Your opposition to prostitution is based on 100% "Nice Guy-ism".

WHY SHOULD PROSTITUTION BE LEGALIZED?

Same reason as weed. Do you oppose legalization of weed? Probably not. You've already shown multiple times you're capable of cognitive dissonance.

And there it is.

You have no reason to support this other than a cheap cop out to the libertarian position. I just can't believe it took you this long to admit it.

Any true liberal would believe that prostitution encourages the patriarchal mindset and in that way, is destructive. Not to mention what life is like as a prostitute, which you clearly want to pretend isn't bad or is something that would be fixed by simple regulations. Your resigned position of "oh, well it's going to happen anyway so we might as well just legalize it" is the same position taken by many on the right on gun control ("murderers are going to get guns anyway so we might as well not even try to regulate them") and other issues. Stop taking cues from the right-wing playbook. You have failed to address the plain fact that the poorest and most vulnerable women in society are typically the ones who become prostitutes. Well-off women don't go and become prostitutes. People become prostitutes because they typically have no other choice. By a vast majority, women who are prostitutes would not choose to be prostitutes if they had other viable choices. You're either not hearing that or you're refusing to accept it.

And do you want to talk cognitive dissonance? How about this one, buddy:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Ok I'm going to ignore the Willips' typical inanity (not hard), because I think TNF is coming from a more interesting  position. From what I understand,  most modern arguments are against  the industry as a whole. As I assume TNF wouldn't exactly be thrilled  with a capital is regulated model nor a quasicapitalist cooperative group; I'm wondering what he wants. Some kind of nationalised brothel system?

[Beet]

It is interesting, isn't it? You'd think that as a communist, even if he saw sex work as identical to other work, he'd be arguing that all paid work should be abolished as inherently exploitative, not pulling out libertarian (or liberal feminist) slogans about 'women are smart enough to make their own decisions! [free them from] the overbearing state' that are about one step away from the caricatured 'stripping is empowering!' nonsense that is actually a strawman of the legalization position. It's almost as if there's no reason Miriam Weeks isn't a communist.

TNF- I apologize for coming off hostile... I don't really have anything against you personally, although I realize it might seem that way. I just find your positions very baffling/problematic.

[SWE]

Just know that all the hypothetical liberal ladies you think you are impressing with your paternalistic stance actually think you are extremely patronizing and are policing womens' bodies (literally).

Your opposition to prostitution is based on 100% "Nice Guy-ism".

WHY SHOULD PROSTITUTION BE LEGALIZED?

Seeing as how the default state of anything is being legal, shouldn't the burden of proof here lie on the side calling for prostitution to be legal? I don't need a reason to oppose something being illegal and if I can't find a valid reason for it being illegal, that's a legitimate argument.

[PJ]

Regardless of whether or not the pro-legalization arguments are right-wing (it's ridiculous to say that they are IMO), that doesn't work as a legitimate refutation of it. Chad, you're talking about the patriarchal mindset being encouraged by prostitution, but you haven't really addressed that the Nordic Model decriminalization you advocate for does nothing to address patriarchy and exploitation of women. It doesn't arrest sex workers themselves; that's common sense. It does continue to allow sex work to exist as a black market industry.

The vast majority of people employed in sex work would not choose to be in the business, yes. Is that what's controversial?

It feels like with the "legaliseit" brigade you can quote evidence all day, only to be met with the same trite ideological arguments treating sex like cannabis or some other tradable commodity.

Sex has a lot of societal connotations attached to it. We can argue all day about if it is good or bad to dress sex up in such a pedastel, but that is an academic discussion. In real life, sex work is different from flipping burgers. I know LOGICBOT3000 will come around to impersonate Spock and say "but crabcake that is firmly illogical". In answer,  that's all very good and great, but tell society that. Sex Work is different from other work, because in the eyes of society it is no matter what poxy hypothetical regulations the government places on it.

Legalisation and regulation seems like such a good idea in theory. I know why people are attached to it - it's elegant, it seems to please all sides and it definitely seems to have helped with ganja. Unfortunately, it has not lived up to its promise. We must change our minds when confronted with evidence, people.

I'm not sure I understand what you want people to change their mind to, since you advocated for "cautious legalization" on the first page.

[WVdemocrat]

Just know that all the hypothetical liberal ladies you think you are impressing with your paternalistic stance actually think you are extremely patronizing and are policing womens' bodies (literally).

Your opposition to prostitution is based on 100% "Nice Guy-ism".

WHY SHOULD PROSTITUTION BE LEGALIZED?

Seeing as how the default state of anything is being legal, shouldn't the burden of proof here lie on the side calling for prostitution to be legal? I don't need a reason to oppose something being illegal and if I can't find a valid reason for it being illegal, that's a legitimate argument.

Prostitution encourages the patriarchal mindset and is in that way, destructive. Legalizing prostitution would lead to normalization of the idea of women as sex objects. It would be devastating it would be the feminist movement and to leftism to declare in a single voice that women are nothing more than sex objects.

Life as a prostitute is no cup of tea either. Women who are prostitutes are beaten commonly and typically have STDs. These women are afraid to come forward and report incidents to the police, and I realize that, which is why I support decriminalization. This would remove that fear of coming forward and reporting these types of incidents.

The plain fract is that the poorest and most vulnerable women in society are typically the ones who become prostitutes. Well-off women don't go and become prostitutes. People become prostitutes because they typically have no other choice. By a vast majority, women who are prostitutes would not choose to be prostitutes if they had other viable choices.

The only reason I have heard to legalize prostitution is the libertarian stance. Which is the idea that prostitution doesn't hurt anyone (I would happen to disagree), and so it should be legal. But this isn't an issue where the libertarian stance of "just legalize it" should be taken, because this isn't an issue of freedom - the freedom to be a prostitute. This is a segment in the ongoing culture wars. This is about protecting the dignity of women, and protecting the right to be considered equally human.

Below is an exchange from earlier in the thread. It is just one example of the mindset I am debating with in this thread.

How can you think flipping burgers and having a man ejaculate inside of you are equally "work"?

Because they are.

[Famous Mortimer]

I admitted to taking the "libertarian" position on the first page.

You take the "conservative position" that sex is an inherently sacred act somehow different from any other function.

[Famous Mortimer]

That sex is different from any other work is itself a "patriarchal mindset".

[Famous Mortimer]

and what the hell is wrong with the "libertarian argument"? Other than the fact that you label it libertarian? There are no flaws other than that you call it a name. You can't point out how it's wrong, you just say "well that's what libertarians say" so what? How are libertarians wrong?


Yeah, I called you a name too but I actually had substance to go along with it, ie I showed how how your views are inconsistent and actually rely the "patriarchal mindset" you profess to hate.

[WVdemocrat]

That sex is different from any other work is itself a "patriarchal mindset".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[WVdemocrat]

And now Famous Mortimer will wait another hour to respond to this thread just to avoid responding to his obvious logical fallacy.

[Famous Mortimer]

No, I don't think the government should force people into prostitute.

Good job, you're batting like 1 out of 10.

You just move on from all your other crap arguments and didn't address any of mine.

[WVdemocrat]

No, I don't think the government should force people into prostitute.

Good job, you're batting like 1 out of 10.

Keep in mind, the only argument of yours that actually stuck was this:

Basically, if prostitution is inherently rape, why isn't all work inherently slavery?

and it just got shot down by this:

If sex work is "just average work" can the government force benefit claimants into prostitution? Would you (regardless of your feelings on means-testing in general) recognise that is an order of magnitude worse than somebody who has to stack shelves?

You just move on from all your other crap arguments and didn't address any of mine.

You don't have an argument. You just happen to think that prostitution should be legal because you think it doesn't hurt anyone (f**king bullsh**t btw) and because there is apparently a demand.

Unlike you, I actually have an argument. I have clearly defined points which explain my opposition to the legalization of prostitution. You have continually dodged giving specifics and instead resorted to beating away at one point, which is now debunked. You're persistent, I'll give you that.

Wait, is this (the quote below) the argument which you refer to?

You take the "conservative position" that sex is an inherently sacred act somehow different from any other function.

That sex is different from any other work is itself a "patriarchal mindset".

Your logical fallacy that sex is the same as any other work was debunked already.

[WVdemocrat]

And Famous Mortimer, just so you can't deny it, here are some of my arguments, for your reading pleasure:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[NeverAgain]

I just read through this argument. This is a heated debate. I feel that since it is going to happen legal or not, why can't we try to help give safer ways of having these 'ladies of the night' do their jobs. I see what Mr. Chad has argued(Apologies if I am misquoting), as if we legalize we make think that those in terrible working conditions is fine and dandy, and making women objectified by the legality of it. And Mr. Mortimers point of trying to help those that choose to engage in this occupation by their own will, will not start an influx of people to that, but instead improve the conditions of those workers, and in turn improve society opinion of it in general. I think there is truth to both sides, but in my opinion I see that Prostitution will not seise if we discouage it, or if we encourage it. I think there is a healthy balance to show our young girls what dangers there are in Prostitution, while trying to stimulate safety for those already engaging in it. One way to stop some women from starting down that path, is to stop crushing them with unsustainable debt they cannot get out of while attempting to get higher education. (AFFORDABLE COLLEGE FOR ALL!) Anyways, I may be completely off on this one, but I would just hope we could come to a conclusion, instead of personal attacks and bickering on less of the topic that this thread was about, not to say anyone was, but just thought I'd give my 2 cents. Thanks for reading (Also sorry for the grammatical errors, this is on my phone)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The fundamental issue that I'm seeing here is that the people arguing in favor of legalization in this thread (again, with the exception of TNF, who at the very least is thinking about this issue in a serious and complete way) are essentially ideological Cybermen who have a creepy aversion to allowing that human instinct or intangible values might have any place in this debate. You may make a policy on entirely rationalistic grounds but it's difficult to defend that policy morally or to treat it as unexceptionable without reference to instincts and values. It's not even like anybody (again, other than TNF) is really bothering to argue against the instincts and values in question. They are just not being engaged in any way, and the Corys and WillipsBrightons of this thread and this world tend to get really exercised about the unbridled temerity of the idea that they should be. A whole understanding of this issue, of any issue, requires a harmony of logic and rationality and instincts and values.

[Famous Mortimer]

I said in my very first post in this thread, that the reason I didn't think prostitution was any worse than the service industry, is because prostitution (ideally) pays much better. If you're working on wages that still require benefits, obviously that is degrading.