Sex work
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:56:38 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Sex work
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8
Author Topic: Sex work  (Read 10210 times)
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,189
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: July 10, 2015, 11:32:44 AM »

Cory, which planet do you live on? Do you really believe that legalised prostiution would be seen by society as "just another job"? this isn't academia, this is the actual world. Prostitution is (and probably always will be) a job treated with scorn by society, no matter how regulated it may be. The ranks of prostitutes will always be swelled by the most at-risk vulnerable people in society, and society. Yes, this is also true for similar menial work like flipping burgers and agriculture; but newsflash I oppose those menial jobs as well. I see no reason to legitimise an exploitative industry for no reason other than "other exploitative industries exist". I can't help but think the "legalise and regulate" crowd are running off an ideological dream, based on the idea that "eh it worked for drugs"; in complete disregard for evidence.

Anyway, as Torie said, this whole discussion is pointless. The Internet has deempasised the societal need for brothels anyway. Why would anybody even need a prostitute to get laid?
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: July 10, 2015, 11:44:09 AM »
« Edited: July 10, 2015, 02:57:37 PM by DimpledChad »

No, things can't change! They would still be sex objects! And to normalize or popularize prostitution would only enable the patriarchal mindset. We don't need girls growing up thinking that's all they're worth.

So you admit that your position isn't based on anything logical or policy-based and is just moralistic grandstanding.

How can you call yourself a liberal? Are you not at all concerned with the societal implications of this?

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

Because they are.

Roll Eyes
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: July 10, 2015, 11:58:53 AM »

Really, you guys have given me no reasons to support the legalization of prostitution.

As liberals, are you not concerned with the message it sends to legalize prostitution? It would be to say that it's okay to treat women as sexual instruments. It would send a message that it's okay to think of women as less than human. You guys have actually taken on conservative talking points to argue with me here. Do you not understand how devastating it would be the feminist movement and to leftism to declare in a single voice that women are just sex objects?

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 an installment in the ongoing culture wars. This is about protecting the dignity of women, and protecting the right to be considered equally human.

If you have truly legitimate reasons for supporting this, then quit retreating to conservative talking points, like accusing me of "moralistic grandstanding."
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,972
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: July 10, 2015, 12:01:49 PM »

Really, you guys have given me no reasons to support the legalization of prostitution.

As liberals, are you not concerned with the message it sends to legalize prostitution? It would be to say that it's okay to treat women as sexual instruments. It would send a message that it's okay to think of women as less than human. You guys have actually taken on conservative talking points to argue with me here. Do you not understand how devastating it would be the feminist movement and to leftism to declare in a single voice that women are just sex objects?

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 an installment in the ongoing culture wars. This is about protecting the dignity of women, and protecting the right to be considered equally human.

If you have truly legitimate reasons for supporting this, then quit retreating to conservative talking points, like accusing me of "moralistic grandstanding."
Well put. Smiley
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: July 10, 2015, 12:45:45 PM »

Really, you guys have given me no reasons to support the legalization of prostitution.

As liberals, are you not concerned with the message it sends to legalize prostitution? It would be to say that it's okay to treat women as sexual instruments. It would send a message that it's okay to think of women as less than human. You guys have actually taken on conservative talking points to argue with me here. Do you not understand how devastating it would be the feminist movement and to leftism to declare in a single voice that women are just sex objects?

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 an installment in the ongoing culture wars. This is about protecting the dignity of women, and protecting the right to be considered equally human.

If you have truly legitimate reasons for supporting this, then quit retreating to conservative talking points, like accusing me of "moralistic grandstanding."

The best reason to support the legalization of prostitution is that full-on legalization will bring workers out of the shadows and curb the black market, not to mention make it much easier to regulate the activity to prevent the spread of STIs. WillipsBrighton, who I usually disagree with (!) has been making the argument that sex work should not be viewed as fundamentally different than any other kind of work, and I agree. The only difference between prostitution and pornography, for instance, is the presence of a camera. So you're more or less saying that it's fine to engage in sex for money so long as you can watch? If you wanna talk about creepy, we might should start with that, no? I don't have a problem with pornography (normal) and thus I don't think sex for money should be illegal, because I don't think of sex as some kind of divinely ordained process that must be done behind closed doors, between two loving individuals in a committed relationship, etc, etc.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a communist, but I'm not concerned with 'the message' legalization sends because legalization would mean a step forward for the workers in the industry itself. Sex work being legalized would mean that sex workers are guaranteed a minimum wage and pathways would open up to organize sex workers into unions to improve working conditions and gain more power on the job. That's the message I want to stress when it comes to sex work.

What I get from your (and the other feminists') arguments is that you fundamentally don't think that women are smart enough to make their own decisions, to choose their own line of work, and thus must be protected by an overbearing state. You don't say it in the language of male chauvinism (We must protect womanhood!), but you end at the same avenue via the language of feminism. You implicitly argue that women are weak and in need of protection from the state, but where is your concern about these women when they choose other lines of work? If they decide to work at Walmart or McDonald's, are we supposed to ignore the fact that doing so is also a result of economic coercion? Like WillipsBrighton was saying, under capitalism there is ultimately very little consent when it comes to choosing a job, because the logic of the capitalist system itself dictates that you work or die, and some women make the choice to engage in sex work so they don't have to starve. I respect that choice, and I respect their right to do what they think is best to put food on the table. Is it a crappy job? Probably. All jobs under capitalism are sh**t jobs (unless you're one of the useless parasites that feed off of other peoples' labor), so why should I make a point of condemning her or the man (or woman) who engages in sex for cash?

A lot of us do worse things in our daily lives for money. We sell people products that are expired and may end up causing them to get sick, maybe even die. We build guns and rockets that are used to murder people halfway across the globe. And you're going to sit here and tell me that giving a handjob for $20 is somehow inherently worse than all those things because it involves sex? Talk about not having your priorities straight. The one thing that the feminist pseudo-left and the male chauvinist right have is a lack of perspective, and that's one thing they're never going to be able to overcome because the role they serve in society is that of the guardians of capitalist normalcy. Protect the family, says the male chauvinist! Require written consent for every sexual act, says the feminist! In the end, the goal is the same - regulate reproduction to keep the capitalist system running, even if they don't (and they usually don't) realize it.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: July 10, 2015, 01:17:29 PM »

Really, you guys have given me no reasons to support the legalization of prostitution.

As liberals, are you not concerned with the message it sends to legalize prostitution? It would be to say that it's okay to treat women as sexual instruments. It would send a message that it's okay to think of women as less than human. You guys have actually taken on conservative talking points to argue with me here. Do you not understand how devastating it would be the feminist movement and to leftism to declare in a single voice that women are just sex objects?

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 an installment in the ongoing culture wars. This is about protecting the dignity of women, and protecting the right to be considered equally human.

If you have truly legitimate reasons for supporting this, then quit retreating to conservative talking points, like accusing me of "moralistic grandstanding."

Do you truly think this is an area where any woman engaged in sex work has no agency herself? You honestly can't see how sex-negativity can lead to seeing anything to do with sex as inherently degrading when in fact it may not be? Sure, sex work means that some women will engage in sex with men they wouldn't otherwise, for fun, but that doesn't inherently mean that they're being degraded, or that they're being coerced, or that they necessarily mind doing it.

Sex work is already going on in the black market, and all of the problems you're talking about are already there, except worse. I'm not sure I'm in favor of 100% legalization of prostitution, but you're straight up ignoring people's arguments, presumably because you can't hear them from your perch atop the soap box.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: July 10, 2015, 01:43:01 PM »

To look at the arguments of the pro-prostitution liberal left is to enter a strange and frankly kind of gross world in which treating sex as an in principle separate sphere of life from employment--surely a novel and incomprehensible distinction to make!--is just one of 'society's hang-ups', consent to sex and consent to employment should be held to directly equivalent standards, and 'sex-negative' is a non-joke concept.

Reality and rationality may seem strange and gross to those living in a moralistic world of delusion and nonsense, yes.

Again somebody has used 'moralistic' as an insult as if caring about right and wrong when making policy is in some way a bad thing. I think this says more than I could.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that's all you really needed to say.
[/quote]

If you don't have the attention span to read and comprehend the entire sentence or the intellectual and moral capacity to compass a worldview that isn't based purely on bloodless rationalization and accepts the notion that not everything that matters in life can be presented in a manner that would please a middle-school debate team, then sure, I guess.
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: July 10, 2015, 01:46:56 PM »

Really, you guys have given me no reasons to support the legalization of prostitution.

As liberals, are you not concerned with the message it sends to legalize prostitution? It would be to say that it's okay to treat women as sexual instruments. It would send a message that it's okay to think of women as less than human. You guys have actually taken on conservative talking points to argue with me here. Do you not understand how devastating it would be the feminist movement and to leftism to declare in a single voice that women are just sex objects?

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 an installment in the ongoing culture wars. This is about protecting the dignity of women, and protecting the right to be considered equally human.

If you have truly legitimate reasons for supporting this, then quit retreating to conservative talking points, like accusing me of "moralistic grandstanding."

Do you truly think this is an area where any woman engaged in sex work has no agency herself? You honestly can't see how sex-negativity can lead to seeing anything to do with sex as inherently degrading when in fact it may not be?

I'm not sex-negative, my friend. But prostitution is literally the sale of women for sex. If you want to disown the feminist movement by supporting the legalization of prostitution, then be up front with it.

Sure, sex work means that some women will engage in sex with men they wouldn't otherwise, for fun, but that doesn't inherently mean that they're being degraded, or that they're being coerced, or that they necessarily mind doing it.

Yes, it does. They are being reduced to sex objects. They are being coerced by circumstance into the sex industry. The plain fact, which you fail to realize is that women at the bottom of the economic ladder are the ones who are prostitutes. If prostitution is a free choice, then why are women with the fewest choices the ones who are doing it?

Do you think it is sexual liberation for women to get f**ked by strangers for money? Are you kidding me?

Sex work is already going on in the black market, and all of the problems you're talking about are already there, except worse. I'm not sure I'm in favor of 100% legalization of prostitution, but you're straight up ignoring people's arguments, presumably because you can't hear them from your perch atop the soap box.

Arguments? Such things don't exist in this thread. I literally have heard no arguments as to why it should be legalized. I support decriminalization, that takes the argument of "they're afraid to go to the police" off the table. I'm still waiting for a reason why it should be legal outside of "just legalize it," which isn't even an argument at all.
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: July 10, 2015, 01:51:40 PM »

To look at the arguments of the pro-prostitution liberal left is to enter a strange and frankly kind of gross world in which treating sex as an in principle separate sphere of life from employment--surely a novel and incomprehensible distinction to make!--is just one of 'society's hang-ups', consent to sex and consent to employment should be held to directly equivalent standards, and 'sex-negative' is a non-joke concept.

Reality and rationality may seem strange and gross to those living in a moralistic world of delusion and nonsense, yes.

Again somebody has used 'moralistic' as an insult as if caring about right and wrong when making policy is in some way a bad thing. I think this says more than I could.

This. This, so much.

They keep retreating to attacks on feminism. I swear, half the time it seems like I'm debating with conservatives.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: July 10, 2015, 01:54:06 PM »

Really, you guys have given me no reasons to support the legalization of prostitution.

As liberals, are you not concerned with the message it sends to legalize prostitution? It would be to say that it's okay to treat women as sexual instruments. It would send a message that it's okay to think of women as less than human. You guys have actually taken on conservative talking points to argue with me here. Do you not understand how devastating it would be the feminist movement and to leftism to declare in a single voice that women are just sex objects?

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 an installment in the ongoing culture wars. This is about protecting the dignity of women, and protecting the right to be considered equally human.

If you have truly legitimate reasons for supporting this, then quit retreating to conservative talking points, like accusing me of "moralistic grandstanding."

Do you truly think this is an area where any woman engaged in sex work has no agency herself? You honestly can't see how sex-negativity can lead to seeing anything to do with sex as inherently degrading when in fact it may not be?

I'm not sex-negative, my friend. But prostitution is literally the sale of women for sex. If you want to disown the feminist movement by supporting the legalization of prostitution, then be up front with it.

Sure, sex work means that some women will engage in sex with men they wouldn't otherwise, for fun, but that doesn't inherently mean that they're being degraded, or that they're being coerced, or that they necessarily mind doing it.

Yes, it does. They are being reduced to sex objects. They are being coerced by circumstance into the sex industry. The plain fact, which you fail to realize is that women at the bottom of the economic ladder are the ones who are prostitutes. If prostitution is a free choice, then why are women with the fewest choices the ones who are doing it?

Do you think it is sexual liberation for women to get f**ked by strangers for money? Are you kidding me?

Sex work is already going on in the black market, and all of the problems you're talking about are already there, except worse. I'm not sure I'm in favor of 100% legalization of prostitution, but you're straight up ignoring people's arguments, presumably because you can't hear them from your perch atop the soap box.

Arguments? Such things don't exist in this thread. I literally have heard no arguments as to why it should be legalized. I support decriminalization, that takes the argument of "they're afraid to go to the police" off the table. I'm still waiting for a reason why it should be legal outside of "just legalize it," which isn't even an argument at all.

Are you claiming that every female sex worker is at the bottom of the economic ladder and is coerced by circumstance into doing what she's doing for money? You're seriously making that claim?
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,189
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: July 10, 2015, 01:55:54 PM »

The vast majority of people employed in sex work would not choose to be in the business, yes. Huh 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.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: July 10, 2015, 01:58:21 PM »

I'm not at all saying that it's not the case that especially at present, with sex work being forced onto the black market, it's women with few economic options who go into the profession.

But it is emphatically not true of all sex workers, as DimpledChad keeps asserting. This is part of the problem. He's not dealing with facts, he's dealing with assertions. Sometimes those assertions are adjacent to the truth, but he's refusing to accept that there are cases that are exceptions to what he's asserting as received wisdom.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: July 10, 2015, 01:59:34 PM »

To look at the arguments of the pro-prostitution liberal left is to enter a strange and frankly kind of gross world in which treating sex as an in principle separate sphere of life from employment--surely a novel and incomprehensible distinction to make!--is just one of 'society's hang-ups', consent to sex and consent to employment should be held to directly equivalent standards, and 'sex-negative' is a non-joke concept.

Reality and rationality may seem strange and gross to those living in a moralistic world of delusion and nonsense, yes.

Again somebody has used 'moralistic' as an insult as if caring about right and wrong when making policy is in some way a bad thing. I think this says more than I could.

This. This, so much.

They keep retreating to attacks on feminism. I swear, half the time it seems like I'm debating with conservatives.

TNF's self identification as a "communist" means that he gets to identify as part of the 'far left' even though he's actually on the far right in this debate.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: July 10, 2015, 02:05:34 PM »

The point has already been made, several times by now, that people do, in point of fact, treat sexual labor differently from other forms of labor, and that changing this would involve changing society so much as to obviate whatever conceivable 'need' for prostitution there is in the world.
As has also already been said in this thread, I'd ask the pro-prostitution liberal left here (this doesn't apply to TNF because his argument is based on different premises about the world) if they would consider someone who was unwilling to take a job as a prostitute therefore 'unwilling to work'. If not, why not?

My own position here is motivated not only by my 'sex-negative' (this continues to be a joke concept mainly because 'sex-positive' is a joke concept) feminist values but also by the, yes, possibly somewhat morally conservative desire to see prevailing standards changed only so far as is necessary to create a just society. I don't think this type of moral conservatism and this type of feminism are incompatible, because I think that in some (specific, limited) ways a modified form of prevailing standards would be better for women as a group than a sexual free-for-all. The issue that I take with this type of discussion isn't so much with the idea of decriminalizing or even legalizing prostitution as with the cavalier attitude towards the subjectively almost uniquely seamy nature of the work involved that the people advocating those positions tend to take.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,189
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: July 10, 2015, 02:07:04 PM »
« Edited: July 10, 2015, 02:11:46 PM by CrabCake »

I'm not at all saying that it's not the case that especially at present, with sex work being forced onto the black market, it's women with few economic options who go into the profession.

But it is emphatically not true of all sex workers, as DimpledChad keeps asserting. This is part of the problem. He's not dealing with facts, he's dealing with assertions. Sometimes those assertions are adjacent to the truth, but he's refusing to accept that there are cases that are exceptions to what he's asserting as received wisdom.

Well I know people like to drag the hypothetical "middle class young Harvard law student becomes prostitute to find herself"; but she and her ilk are an irrelevance. When a business becomes legitimised (although the cooperative model is tempting, I wonder how long it would take in the real world to become a business in all but name, like most mutuals) it leads to a rise in demand, that will (not 'may') be filled with people who would rather not be in that job.

Consider this hypothetical to think about how ridiculous it all is. In my country (and probably yours) welfare has strings attached. You must prove you are attempting to get work and accepting what you can. 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?

TNF, I'd just like to make the the point that I don't think women are weak or anything. I just dislike exploitative industries in general. (Whether other industries are exploitative are moot as far as I'm concerned, I don't see why we have to add another source of exploitation to a litany of other exploitative industries.)
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: July 10, 2015, 02:10:55 PM »

I'm not at all saying that it's not the case that especially at present, with sex work being forced onto the black market, it's women with few economic options who go into the profession.

But it is emphatically not true of all sex workers, as DimpledChad keeps asserting. This is part of the problem. He's not dealing with facts, he's dealing with assertions. Sometimes those assertions are adjacent to the truth, but he's refusing to accept that there are cases that are exceptions to what he's asserting as received wisdom.

Well I know people like to drag the hypothetical "middle class young Harvard law student becomes prostitute to find herself"; but she and her ilk are an irrelevance. When a business becomes legitimised (although the cooperative model is tempting, I wonder how long it would take in the real world to become a business in all but name, like most mutuals) it leads to a rise in demand, that will (not 'may') be filled with people who would rather not be in that job.

Consider this hypothetical to think about how ridiculous it all is. In my country (and probably yours) welfare has strings attached. You must prove you are attempting to get work and accepting what you can. 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?

I am not saying your argument is wrong. I'm saying it's at least an argument that accepts the reality that there are some shades of gray in here rather than asserting that things are the way it helps your argument to say they are.

I hadn't thought about the argument that one would have to accept a job offer as a prostitute to get government benefits, and I think that's somewhat compelling, though it would also imply that the job market is hard up enough that the person had no other options to keep receiving benefits than to apply for prostitution when they didn't want to do it. That is, in this scenario, every fast food joint, every retail store, etc., had filled all of its positions and the only firms hiring were brothels. It seems a little far-fetched to me.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: July 10, 2015, 02:11:15 PM »
« Edited: July 10, 2015, 02:14:07 PM by Governor TNF »

To look at the arguments of the pro-prostitution liberal left is to enter a strange and frankly kind of gross world in which treating sex as an in principle separate sphere of life from employment--surely a novel and incomprehensible distinction to make!--is just one of 'society's hang-ups', consent to sex and consent to employment should be held to directly equivalent standards, and 'sex-negative' is a non-joke concept.

Reality and rationality may seem strange and gross to those living in a moralistic world of delusion and nonsense, yes.

Again somebody has used 'moralistic' as an insult as if caring about right and wrong when making policy is in some way a bad thing. I think this says more than I could.

This. This, so much.

They keep retreating to attacks on feminism. I swear, half the time it seems like I'm debating with conservatives.

TNF's self identification as a "communist" means that he gets to identify as part of the 'far left' even though he's actually on the far right in this debate.

Feminism has always been a petty-bourgeois movement that is most interested in making sure that women have the same opportunity as men to enter that milieu. The fact that feminists have hitched themselves to the Democratic Party and reject even the mildest demands that would actually empower working class and poor women is evidence enough of that. The petty bourgeois feminist is not out demanding free abortion on demand, he or she is instead demanding only a defense of the existing regime on abortion rights, which works well enough for people who have money (who compromise, of course, the vast majority of members of organizations such as NARAL, NOW, etc., etc.).

Genuine Marxism rejects feminism in favor of women's liberation. We don't think that the only women that should have the right to live full fledged lives are those of the petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie. We demand that women have the right to free abortion on demand and access to things like socialized daycares, laundromats, etc, etc. And most of all, we don't subsume our politics to petty bourgeois moralizing. There are certainly pseudo-Marxists who embrace every bit of the anti-sex, petty bourgeois moralizing that has come out into the open again in the last few decades or so, sure. But they lack an elementary understanding of Marxist theory. One can be for the liberation of women while not subscribing to an ideology that is fundamentally anti-worker at its core (because of its denial of the class struggle and attempts to build a cross-class 'sisterhood' of women that has never and will never exist).

And no, I'm not taking the 'far-right' position on this. That would be male chauvinism. I'm not a male chauvinist, and I find it funny that you can't seem to distinguish between a position that calls for trusting women to make their own decisions about what they do for a living and support for women being chained to the kitchen. You have some real issues with discernment, be it on this issue or your inability to distinguish consensual sexual activity from rape, as was the case in the thread about the father who beat up his son's rapist.
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: July 10, 2015, 02:12:27 PM »

The vast majority of people employed in sex work would not choose to be in the business, yes. Huh 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.

Precisely this. If only I was as good an orator as you.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: July 10, 2015, 02:23:46 PM »

Saying women should be just sex objects is indeed a horrible view. Luckily, no one is arguing for that here.

Everything DimpledChad says is in bad faith.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: July 10, 2015, 02:24:03 PM »

Saying women should be just sex objects is indeed a horrible view. Luckily, no one is arguing for that here.

Everything DimpledChad says is in bad faith.
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: July 10, 2015, 02:38:51 PM »

Saying women should be just sex objects is indeed a horrible view. Luckily, no one is arguing for that here.

Everything DimpledChad says is in bad faith.

How so?
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: July 10, 2015, 02:43:46 PM »

Saying women should be just sex objects is indeed a horrible view. Luckily, no one is arguing for that here.

Everything DimpledChad says is in bad faith.

How so?

Well, you do keep asking for 'reasons why sex work should be legalized,' and then ignore them whenever someone (like WillipsBrighton, Cory, or myself) provide them.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: July 10, 2015, 02:50:59 PM »

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.
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: July 10, 2015, 02:51:17 PM »

Saying women should be just sex objects is indeed a horrible view. Luckily, no one is arguing for that here.

Everything DimpledChad says is in bad faith.

How so?

Well, you do keep asking for 'reasons why sex work should be legalized,' and then ignore them whenever someone (like WillipsBrighton, Cory, or myself) provide them.

How about this: number them. 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."

By the way, this was directed more at the other pro-legalization posters in this thread, because your argument is one based on a very hard-line ideology (no offense).
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: July 10, 2015, 03:06:00 PM »

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.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm arguing about sex work from a Marxist perspective, so I think it's only right that I qualify my position as such. Again, there's nothing inherently 'right-wing' about anything I'm saying, unless of course, you don't understand what 'right-wing' means. I'm not arguing in favor of male chauvinism or allowing men to control women's bodies. Quite the opposite. You, on the other hand, are arguing for just that, albeit in the form of arguing that women are in need of special protection from the state from 'bad men' who purchase sexual favors for them.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry, have you addressed a single point that I have presented in this thread or any other that I've engaged with you in? Because it seems to me the only thing you're interested in doing is trying to paint me as some kind of reactionary when I expose your position as fundamentally retrograde.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.074 seconds with 12 queries.