Sex work

[Beet]

Yes, the question is- we generally recognize sexual coercion as being worse than nonsexual coercion. And anything done under economic pressure has a coercive element to it. The poorer you are, the worse it is. If you have a chemical addiction that you literally cannot control, or need to work in order so that your son or daughter has a place to sleep tomorrow night, then there is a coercive element, yes. So the question is- is that okay? Have we really thought through the implications of treating sex work as 'just another job'? Suppose a woman or man collecting unemployment insurance receives a job offer as a prostitute. Does s/he have to take it or be cut off as not seeking work? If you answer no to that question, is it not some sort of admission that selling sex is not exactly the same as flipping burgers?

It's more complicated than just 'a consenting adult just working a job', that's all we need to consider. It's certainly true that sex work is diverse; not all sex workers are impoverished and some of them really do have agency. As Torie said, that sort is typically already de facto legalized. And legalization of something is not the same as morally condoning it. I do not trust the police to deal with sex workers. I do not think johns are evil people who need to be locked up. I do not think either should feel dissuaded from reporting rape, abuse, or robbery because what they are doing is 'illegal' or shameful. Nor do I think any real harms are occurring from the act itself if it is really consensual. But to treat it as 'just another job'? No.

[Beet]

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.

[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?

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.

[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.

[Beet]

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

[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.

[Beet]

Of course the sexist dominated left is circling the wagons in this thread to pat each other on the back, meanwhile studiously avoiding any actual debate or exchange of ideas, whilst at the same time making proposals that would make even the most typical male chauvinist, or jmfcst type, look like a feminist.

[Beet]

The substantiation is, not even a social conservative like jmfcst would suggest something like state run brothels.

Compared to a thoughtless libertarian "legalize it", it's far more pro-prostitution, because a libertarian can at least stand on the principle that although he personally dislikes prostitution, that is not a justification for the state to ban it if other people want to engage in it. Siniliar arguments about negative liberties are used at the time in many contexts; for example defending the free speech of someone whose speech you find distasteful (let's say hate speech). That is a far cry from wanting the state to set up radio stations repeating that speech. How is this different? The state run brothel is far more radically pro prostitution than even the most extreme mainstream pro-legalization position.

It is sexist because a state provision of a good is pretty much the most explicit endorsement possible of the idea that people are entitled to such goods, is it not? If I say the state should provide food, shelter, defense, health care, a lawyer if you cannot afford one, and so on this typically means I think people are entitled to such things. The notion that the state should provide access to womens vaginas endorses the idea that people are entitled to them. It equates access to p___y with a resource, like education or health care. Social conservatives also think this way, but at least they would not make it so explicit-- the family patriarchy is almost humane in comparison. What happens if the state-employee prostitute turns away someone for being Chinese? Is this grounds for a civil rights violation lawsuit? The state should not be in the business of exploiting women's (as sex workers overwhelmingly are) economic vulnerability to play pimp. Even in a socialist society where prostitution were legal as a niche of capitalism, the state should provide all men and women with a living wage as a matter of guarantee, and stay out of the business of prostitition.

[Beet]

Haha, I very rarely read tumblr. But even so, I've seen enough to know that merely being on that platform should not be grounds for dismissal.

And given the massive uprising to get prohibition repealed, I'd say people in the U.S. do view alchohol as an entitlement. If a liquor store refused to serve blacks, that would be grounds for a lawsuit, no?

[Beet]

You guys don't read my posts, and then you accuse me of not engaging or throwing out accusations without substantiation. My sole objection in this thread regarding how we think about prostitution is essentially the (thoughtless, in my view) assertion that it's just a job like any other. It's Monday and I'm too busy at the moment to get into repeating myself here, but I might reply later tonight.

[Beet]

Of course my opinions are subjective. This is political debate, not mathematical proof.

I think my point has been made pretty clearly. It seems more unjust to cut off unemployment benefits to someone for refusing a job as a prostitute, than for refusing almost any other job. It seems more unjust to require prostitutes to serve every client regardless of race or ethnicity than it does for other professionals. Prostitution seems qualitatively different from other professions, for sexual coercion seems more egregious than nonsexual coercion. It is for the same reason that rape seems more egregious than simple assault. Yes, this is subjective, but it is a subjective opinion that almost everyone shares, including probably yourself?

The fact that almost everyone shares this opinion matters of its own accord. The difference with gay marriage is that same sex couples actually wanted to get married, and it was the rest of society (straights) telling them they couldn't. But in this case, the actual sex workers and women and men potentially drawn into sex work feel the same way as everyone else. I do not care why they feel this way, all that matters is that they do. And I don't see society's views on sexual coercion becoming more tolerant any time soon, but even if it were to happen, these attitudes would have to lead the way first before our attitudes towards sex work vis-a-vis nonsexual work were to change.

Of course I agree with regard to improving the general status of labor being the broader issue, and as my comments suggest I am not opposed to legalization, although my preference would be for decriminalization. Really it matters more to me that you are thinking about this issue in a nuanced way than what final position you come up with.

[Beet]

It seems more unjust to require prostitutes to serve every client regardless of race or ethnicity than it does for other professionals.

...may I ask why you think that?

Because I don't want a woman to have to face the choice between ing a guy she doesn't want to and losing her livelihood.