Sex Work

[Rational Radical]

After reading an article on libcom about a book called "Happy Hookers" which is about females who enjoy prostituting and offers an interesting point of view of the value of prostiutes in society. I'm conflicted on this issue because the article and comment section made great arguements but I guess that my moralism is preventing me to consider it as legitimate as other forms of labor and I wouldn't want my daughter to participate in it. I'm aware that in the Spanish Revolution Anarchist collectivized the brothels so in a communist or anarchist society would prostitution exist or is it only the result of not being able to get a job? Should leftists fight for this cause or do we see the prostitute as a victim of a profit driven economic sytem? Or is this book using socialist rhetoric to legitimize one of the ills of capitalism(or is it even an ill?)?What are my fellow revlefters opinions on this issue?

[#FF0000]

I think people who choose to be sex workers are exploited the same as any other worker. There's obviously a difference between someone who is saying "welp, I need a job, might as well be this one" and someone who is only a prostitute because they are at the absolute end of their rope and who are acting out of desperation, you know?

I'm not sure how to deal with sex workers, though. I'd think legalizing prostitution would do some good in removing the stigma around sex work and thus making it easier for workers to fight for their needs, organize, get healthcare, etc. etc. etc.

[Rational Radical]

I definitely think it's wrong that prostitutes who work out of desperation are arrested simply because they're trying to provide for themselves and their families and I do acknowledge their exploitation by their boss or "pimp" but just like you I don't know my opinion on their labor as of yet. I apologize if I come off bigoted or "prolier than thou", I'm just curious about if we should acknowledege prostitution as a legitimate form of labor or strictly focus on the collectivization of the means of production that will provide jobs for all.

[l'Enfermé]

Yes I'm sure so many women are just so glad and satisfied that they are driven by desperation to lose their last shreds of dignity and sell their own bodies to perverted strangers! :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

I apologize if I come off bigoted or "prolier than thou", I'm just curious about if we should acknowledege prostitution as a legitimate form of labor or strictly focus on the collectivization of the means of production that will provide jobs for all.

They provide a service the same as anyone else and I don't see any good that could come out of saying "Nah you guys keep working off the grid"


Yes I'm sure so many women are just so glad and satisfied that they are driven by desperation to lose their last shreds of dignity and sell their own bodies to perverted strangers!

There are certainly women in this situation -- and that's despicable. But there are also women who choose to be sex workers and just see it as another job.

[Ostrinski]

If only 9 were here. She was always the voice of reason on the subject imo.

[campesino]

sex work is work. It is more valuable than some of the other services, that are considered work. Prostitutes are absolutely worthy of having control over their means of production.

[ComradeOm]

There are certainly women in this situation -- and that's despicable. But there are also women who choose to be sex workers and just see it as another job.I've never seen anything to suggest that these are anything more than a tiny, tiny minority of sex workers. The odd woman who wanders into the industry and writes a book about how she enjoyed it should not detract from the truly desperate position of most prostitutes. The industry is typically one of shocking exploitation

This is not something that should be encouraged. Legalising and regulating prostitution, perhaps while continuing to ban solicitation and pimping, makes sense in that it improves the lot of sex workers and avoids further victimising them. Ultimately however nobody should be put in the position where they have to sell their body. Obviously that should not be necessary in a socialist society

[l'Enfermé]

#FF0000 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=14710), I don't think that more than an insignificant fraction of women would just "choose" to prostitute themselves. Who would choose such an undignified profession if they were able to secure a living through other, less degrading, means?

[#FF0000]

#FF0000 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=14710), I don't think that more than an insignificant fraction of women would just "choose" to prostitute themselves. Who would choose such an undignified profession if they were able to secure a living through other, less degrading, means?

Probably because they don't feel it's any more degrading than working at McDonald's.


I've never seen anything to suggest that these are anything more than a tiny, tiny minority of sex workers. The odd woman who wanders into the industry and writes a book about how she enjoyed it should not detract from the truly desperate position of most prostitutes. The industry is typically one of shocking exploitation

I don't doubt at all that most women in prostitution globally aren't doing it because they sought that employment. But I don't think criminalizing prostitution, which literally makes these women criminals and forces them off the grid and into the fringe of society is going to fix that.

I don't think we disagree, though.


Ultimately however nobody should be put in the position where they have to sell their bodyAgreed.

[campesino]

#FF0000 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=14710), I don't think that more than an insignificant fraction of women would just "choose" to prostitute themselves. Who would choose such an undignified profession if they were able to secure a living through other, less degrading, means?

if you have a really good imagination, or don't care about how fat/ugly/old you're clients are, you can enjoy having sex and making a decent wage.

Sadly, capitalism and society put so much stress on prostitutes: pimps, abuse, STDs, shaming, the dangers of being part of the underground economy.

[NGNM85]

Prostitution will exist as long as humans exchange currency, or material goods, and engage in recreational sex. There's nothing wrong with it, in the abstract. The problem is that we live in a capitalist society where people are forced by economic necessity to sell their bodies. In a Socialist society, again, provided there is some kind of currency, it's likely people will exchange labor vouchers, or what-have-you, for sex. I see no reason why this should be disallowed, again; presuming it's a free choice between consenting adults, free from coercion, or compulsion. In Hungary, I believe, prostitutes have a union. (Don't quote me on that.) I see no reason why organizing a brothel, or whatever you want to call it, along Anarchosyndicalist lines, would be that different from doing so in a steel mill, for example. In principle, I don't think there's much of a difference.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

So long as the sex worker can live comfortably without being a sex worker then the choice is made from free will. If a person cannot live comfortably without being a sex worker then it is the economic system forcing them into it. Drug addicts shouldn't be sex workers. People who need to pay their rent and buy food/shelter, who have no other choice but to work in the sex industry shouldn't be sex workers. This makes up a large percentage of sex workers. It's a sort on invisible coercion - like wage slavery. Many of us don't have a choice but to work for a boss in order to survive. We can't see that or toutch it but it's coercion non the less.

[Jason]

Noam Chomsky came out on video and said pornography was "exploitation of women". When asked if the sex industry could be improved, he said something like, "You can't make a better form of child abuse, you can only end child abuse.". Also, when asked whether women consented to the job, he compared it to women consenting to work in sweatshops.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I can't speak with any real authority as I'm not a sex worker and don't know anyone who is a sex worker. So on a purely intellectual / hypothetical level, I would think that removing the stigma of immorality and illegality would be a good first step (try and remove the element of abusive pimps and forced drug-addiction that sometimes gets an airing on a thoughtful news piece but is never solved).
While the demand exists from men then eradication seems unlikely, better to try and bring it out of the shadows and allow those who may actually choose this work to do so safely and those who don't to have an easier way out.

[Vanguard1917]

#FF0000 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=14710), I don't think that more than an insignificant fraction of women would just "choose" to prostitute themselves. Who would choose such an undignified profession if they were able to secure a living through other, less degrading, means?


They may choose it over kinds of work that pay less, such as cleaning toilets or flipping burgers. There is ultimately a large degree of economic desperation that drives the overwhelming majority of prostitution, but there are many women who, under similarly desperate economic circumstances, do not enter the sex industry. Of course we shouldn't 'subjectivise' the problem -- which is first and foremost related to economic poverty (how many daughters of the ruling class become prostitutes in brothels?) -- but we probably need to avoid moral disdain and accept that prostitution is a fact of life under capitalism, if we are to choose to offer any kind of political solidarity to sex workers.

[Vanguard1917]

Legalising and regulating prostitution, perhaps while continuing to ban solicitation and pimping, makes sense in that it improves the lot of sex workers and avoids further victimising them.

I'm unsure as to how banning soliciting would 'improve the lot' of prostitutes.

[thriller]

Porn = sex work, there is just a camera to document it's happenings. If one is against prostitution, one should also be against pornography. I completely believe sex workers should have a legitimate and legal way to provide for themselves doing the work that they choose (sex, that is). As far as "if it is on par with other labor", yes it is. Sex can produce feelings of euphoria, heighten one's self-esteem, and relieve stress. Working out can do this as well as seeing a counselor. So personal trainers and therapists should be questioned on the value of their labor if sex workers are too.

[Blake's Baby]

All work is prostitution. It's just that sex work is in some ways more honest.

Do some some sex workers enjoy what they do? Probably. Do some workers in other jobs enjoy what they do? Probably. But how many would still chose to do it if they had a reasonable choice in the matter, if the 'work' they did wasn't tied to their material standard of living?

It's a non-issue because in a post-revolutionary society anyone who wants to have sex will be able to, without constraints of bourgeois law. And there will be no material gain or transaction involved in sex. In that circumstance, what happens to prostitution?

[Tenka]

All work is prostitution. It's just that sex work is in some ways more honest.

Do some some sex workers enjoy what they do? Probably. Do some workers in other jobs enjoy what they do? Probably. But how many would still chose to do it if they had a reasonable choice in the matter, if the 'work' they did wasn't tied to their material standard of living?

It's a non-issue because in a post-revolutionary society anyone who wants to have sex will be able to, without constraints of bourgeois law. And there will be no material gain or transaction involved in sex. In that circumstance, what happens to prostitution?

Good question!
And though prostitution and porn-acting are both considered sex work, there is no such thing as amateur prostitution. Porn, unlike prostitution, will still exist in post-capitalist society (and no, the sex trade existing in pre-capitalist society does not in any way suggest it can survive the fundamental socio-economic changes that GLOBAL COMMUNISM should imply).

[Art Vandelay]

Once money has been abolished and society has become one of free producers prostitution will become impossible.

[Homo Songun]

All work is prostitution. It's just that sex work is in some ways more honest.


sex work is work. It is more valuable than some of the other services, that are considered work. Prostitutes are absolutely worthy of having control over their means of production.

Alexandra Kollontai certainly did not think so: http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/prostitution.htm


And though prostitution and porn-acting are both considered sex work, there is no such thing as amateur prostitution. Porn, unlike prostitution, will still exist in post-capitalist society

I agree that porn and prostitution are the same thing, although I want to resist the ridiculous pomo-ish "sex-positive"/ "3rd wave feminist" term "sex workers", I just see them both as prostitution.

Also, "pornography" might literally mean "prostitute writing", but in the only really relevant meaning of the word, it certainly does not predate capitalism, and as such I see no reason why it should not be banned/suppressed under socialism.

[Tenka]

Alexandra Kollontai certainly did not think so: http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/prostitution.htm



I agree that porn and prostitution are the same thing, although I want to resist the ridiculous pomo-ish "sex-positive"/ "3rd wave feminist" term "sex workers", I just see them both as prostitution.

Also, "pornography" might literally mean "prostitute writing", but in the only really relevant meaning of the word, it certainly does not predate capitalism, and as such I see no reason why it should not be banned/suppressed under socialism.

What? The internet doesn't predate capitalism; maybe we should ban/suppress that too. Do you have any idea how much amateur porn is produced? Porn will last as long as sex itself does... maybe even longer....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What? The internet doesn't predate capitalism; maybe we should ban/suppress that too. Do you have any idea how much amateur porn is produced? Porn will last as long as sex itself does... maybe even longer....

Even if people no longer wanted to be porn actors, artists freely draw dirty pictures even today.

I wonder if Shmuel Katz thinks that should be banned too...

[Crimson Commissar]

I don't really think prostitution is even capable of existing in the way we know it in a developed Socialist society, and especially not a Communist one. What people decide to do sexually and for what reasons is their own business though, but I just don't think the business of prostitution has any reason to be sustained outside of capitalism simply because that is precisely the system that caused it to exist in the first place.

I look on it similarly to how I do pornography. It's going to exist, in some form, no matter what kind of ideology humanity decides to run itself by. But encouraging it isn't necessarily a good thing, and it's certainly going to take a radically different form from the profit-focused, exploitative nature these industries have under capitalism.

[NGNM85]

Good question!
And though prostitution and porn-acting are both considered sex work, there is no such thing as amateur prostitution. Porn, unlike prostitution, will still exist in post-capitalist society (and no, the sex trade existing in pre-capitalist society does not in any way suggest it can survive the fundamental socio-economic changes that GLOBAL COMMUNISM should imply).

How do you figure? The only way this makes sense is if currency has ceased to exist, and all humans posess a standard of living above material want.

[Tenka]

How do you figure? The only way this makes sense is if currency has ceased to exist, and all humans posess a standard of living above material want.

Yes exactly. Communism.

[Homo Songun]

What? The internet doesn't predate capitalism; maybe we should ban/suppress that too. Do you have any idea how much amateur porn is produced? Porn will last as long as sex itself does... maybe even longer....

Get real. The .000000000000000000000001% of all porn that has been produced til date, that happens to be home-made 17th century lesbian erotica or whatever does not invalidate that pornography is a multibillion dollar commercial enterprise geared towards satisfying heterosexual male fantasies of dominating and abusing women. Thats why I said the only _relevant_ definition of pornography. Pornography in this sense is utterly a creature of capitalism. The exceptions, sparse as they are, prove the rule.

[Tenka]

Get real. The .000000000000000000000001% of all porn that has been produced til date, that happens to be home-made 17th century lesbian erotica or whatever does not invalidate that pornography is a multibillion dollar commercial enterprise geared towards satisfying heterosexual male fantasies of dominating and abusing women. Thats why I said the only _relevant_ definition of pornography. Pornography in this sense is utterly a creature of capitalism. The exceptions, sparse as they are, prove the rule.

You haven't seen much of the internet have you. Well whatever, it's impossible to ban or suppress amateur pornography in any effective sense and the monster that is the porn industry will naturally go the way of other Capitalist industries and prostitution come revolution.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Get real. The .000000000000000000000001% of all porn that has been produced til date, that happens to be home-made 17th century lesbian erotica or whatever does not invalidate that pornography is a multibillion dollar commercial enterprise geared towards satisfying heterosexual male fantasies of dominating and abusing women. Thats why I said the only _relevant_ definition of pornography. Pornography in this sense is utterly a creature of capitalism. The exceptions, sparse as they are, prove the rule.

I get the feeling someone's going to be very disappointed when it turns out that proletarians don't want to become a bunch of self-denying ascetics...

What about porn featuring the domination and abuse of men?

[Blake's Baby]

Shmuel is right that the majority of porn is directed towards heterosexual men though. And also, that porn is a multi-billion dollar industry - I heard yesterday that until the release of Avatar, the most succesful 3D movie was a (?)1972 film called 'The Stewardesses' which features the sexual adventures of a group of flight attendants. Grossed $27 million, or something. Porn is big business.

But Tenka's also right that there is a lot of amateur porn too. Some people like producing porn even if they're not getting huge amounts of money for it. Probably, some people will still want to produce sexually-explicit material even if they no longer need to do so to meet their material needs. So there is likely to be post-revolutionary porn.

[Nox]

I've never seen anything to suggest that these are anything more than a tiny, tiny minority of sex workers. The odd woman who wanders into the industry and writes a book about how she enjoyed it should not detract from the truly desperate position of most prostitutes. The industry is typically one of shocking exploitation

This is not something that should be encouraged. Legalising and regulating prostitution, perhaps while continuing to ban solicitation and pimping, makes sense in that it improves the lot of sex workers and avoids further victimising them. Ultimately however nobody should be put in the position where they have to sell their body. Obviously that should not be necessary in a socialist society

Somehow I doubt that.

A large number of "street hookers" fall in to that category, but I'd bet that most "escorts" don't.

Not gonna lie, if I was a girl I would probably give escorting a try. I could have sex with one guy a day for half an hour and make over £21k a year, or I could work for an hour a day and make about £42k per year. Which is a lot more than what the vast majority of people who work 9-5 jobs get paid. Not to mention that it's all cash and tax free.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Somehow I doubt that.

A large number of "street hookers" fall in to that category, but I'd bet that most "escorts" don't.

Not gonna lie, if I was a girl I would probably give escorting a try. I could have sex with one guy a day for half an hour and make over £21k a year, or I could work for an hour a day and make about £42k per year. Which is a lot more than what the vast majority of people who work 9-5 jobs get paid. Not to mention that it's all cash and tax free.

This is, of course, under the impication that an Escort is in any kind of different situation to the desperate woman you're sculpting.

Seriously. How can you even say that with a straight face? There are numerous stories of women being enticed into escorting and then pressured by their bosses to have sex with the client! I read one just this morning! If that's not 'exploitation' on every single fuckin' level, then I'ma stuff a cane toad down my throat.

[Philosophos]

I don't know a lot about sex work but I think legalizing prostitution will make things a little better. If girls can sue someone for being over abusing (while she didn't want) or if they can have the choice of not having sex with someone because they think he's weird etc etc or if they participate in syndicalism they can have more of their rights protected.

I know we are inside capitalism and we should try to overthrow it but since we can't do that yet at least we should make it more bearable.

[Luís Henrique]

I've never seen anything to suggest that these are anything more than a tiny, tiny minority of sex workers.

This is probably the case regarding any job.


The odd woman who wanders into the industry and writes a book about how she enjoyed it should not detract from the truly desperate position of most prostitutes.

This would be the truly desperate situation of most workers.


This is not something that should be encouraged. Legalising and regulating prostitution, perhaps while continuing to ban solicitation and pimping,

In other words, pretending to legalise it but actually keeping it forbidden.


makes sense in that it improves the lot of sex workers and avoids further victimising them.

The only thing that will improve the lot of sex workers, short of a socialist revolution, is complete legalisation of the trade. Police protection for their rights against abusive clients included.


Ultimately however nobody should be put in the position where they have to sell their body.

They don't sell their body, not at least any more than a teamster or a garbage collector. They sell sexual services.


Obviously that should not be necessary in a socialist society

No activity in a communist society will be done in exchange for pay. I doubt there won't be people who voluntarily provide sexual satisfaction for those who are socially unable to get involved in romantic relationships, though.

The only exceptional thing about prostitution is that it involves sex, and sex is still taboo.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

All work is prostitution.

Quoted for truth.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

It's a non-issue because in a post-revolutionary society anyone who wants to have sex will be able to, without constraints of bourgeois law. And there will be no material gain or transaction involved in sex. In that circumstance, what happens to prostitution?

What happens to the too old, the too ugly, the crippled, the socially unskilled? They simply comform into not having sex at all?

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

...

Not gonna lie, if I was a girl I would probably give escorting a try. I could have sex with one guy a day for half an hour and make over £21k a year, or I could work for an hour a day and make about £42k per year. Which is a lot more than what the vast majority of people who work 9-5 jobs get paid. Not to mention that it's all cash and tax free.

Why don't you take up being a male prostitute? I bet you can make good money at that. Don't be so sexist. Equal opportunities for male sex-workers!


What happens to the too old, the too ugly, the crippled, the socially unskilled? They simply comform into not having sex at all?

Luís Henrique

Well, I manage OK at the moment, I don't see the situation is going to get worse under socialism (of course, I'll be even older than I am now).

The point was, that without material compulsion to work in the sex industry, the sex industry itself is likely to change out of all recognition. Surely, some people are likely to want to have sex with lots of partners. Maybe it'll sort itself out, it's not something that keeps me awake at night to be honest.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Just for the record, the rhetoric of "sell their bodies" is deeply problematic, and rooted in a patriarchal notion that the fundamental nature of a woman's (let's face it - this rhetoric is rarely present in the context of discussions of men) body is sexual. Point being, women don't "sell their bodies" in the context of sex work any more than anybody sells their body in the context of any wage labour. Fucking (or phone sex, or happy-ending massages, or dressing up in latex and whipping someone, or . . .) is not the defining point of a person's being-as-a-body.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Get real. The .000000000000000000000001% of all porn that has been produced til date, that happens to be home-made 17th century lesbian erotica or whatever does not invalidate that pornography is a multibillion dollar commercial enterprise geared towards satisfying heterosexual male fantasies of dominating and abusing women. Thats why I said the only _relevant_ definition of pornography. Pornography in this sense is utterly a creature of capitalism. The exceptions, sparse as they are, prove the rule.

Thew issue and problems with "sex work" is the commodification aspect. People will likely use stories, videos, or images to some degree to arouse themselves in any kind of society; the problems with porn is that this process is commodified - which leads to all sorts of frankly creepy and sexually alienating social-side effects.

Porn without commodification is just dirty pictutes and stories. Prostitution without commodification basically negates itself - it's just sex.

I think under capitalism really the only position we should take is not in condemning prostitutes or romanticizing "sex work" but we should support decriminaliztion which would at least prevent the extra-repression and extra-exploitation that often happens in black-market type situations.

But I view this kind of sex-work to be sex-negative and counter to actual liberation of sex not to mention the liberation of women. Sex work is no more empowering than selling your body for medical testing is empowering.


Just for the record, the rhetoric of "sell their bodies" is deeply problematic, and rooted in a patriarchal notion that the fundamental nature of a woman's (let's face it - this rhetoric is rarely present in the context of discussions of men) body is sexual. Point being, women don't "sell their bodies" in the context of sex work any more than anybody sells their body in the context of any wage labour. Fucking (or phone sex, or happy-ending massages, or dressing up in latex and whipping someone, or . . .) is not the defining point of a person's being-as-a-body.It's not just rhetoric though - women's bodies are commodified in a way that men's are not. The "pariarchal notion" that women's bodies are for sex is inherent in this commodification both as prostitution and as property of husbands (for their sex alone).

[#FF0000]

The rise of amateur porn is apparently driving the old companies towards producing porn oriented towards "couples". I take that to mean more "tasteful" and not so extreme. Which is an interesting development, I think.

That is what I learned from Louis Theroux, anyway. v:mellow:v

[Strannik]

This is a question about *culture*, it seems to me, and no matter what your opinion is, it's still just an opinion. Nature of sex work (or any other particular kind of work) in a post-capitalist society is determined by people living in that society. Current situation sure as hell won't stay as it is. There will probably be less "suppliers". But even elimination of money can't change the fact that in a society of freely associating producers an individual can decide to say that what they produce is "good time".

[Vanguard1917]

The only exceptional thing about prostitution is that it involves sex

But that's a pretty major exceptional quality. Prostitution is not like 'normal' work. Think of it in the following way. Under socialist economic planning, would prostitution be taken into account? Would there be planning committees encouraging women to work in the sex industry in the same way that they would try to direct labour into, say, construction or clothes manufacture?

It is very likely that democratic decisions will be taken under socialism to compel people into doing work that they may not necessarily want to do. I may not want to undertake my road-sweeping duties next month, but it's my turn and I have no choice. Can you envisage sex work ever being treated in such a way by a socialist society? Women being forced to have sex with men against their wishes?

Of course, that does not necessarily mean that 'sex services' will not be offered 'informally', outside of a socialist plan. But my example above shows that sex work probably won't be treated as ordinary work.

[Vanguard1917]

repeat post

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

^ But actually that premise ("The only exceptional thing about prostitution is that it involves sex") is totally unture, since, given the realities of heteropatriarchy, the participation of women in the economy implies the participation of women in the sexual economy. Whether or not, for example, working in the service industry includes sex-work in the job description, it is necessarily present.

Also, fuck roads. :tt2:

[Blake's Baby]

Why is this all about 'women'?

Vanguard1917, there are male sex workers too, as Luis Henrique, Virgin Molotov Cocktail and myself have tried to make clear, and hence me trying to get Nox to become a rent-boy, if he's so keen to make money from sex.

Also, why would anybody be 'forced' to do a job they didn't want to do, whether that's sex-work or making doorknobs?

[Vanguard1917]

Why is this all about 'women'?

Vanguard1917, there are male sex workers too, as Luis Henrique, Virgin Molotov Cocktail and myself have tried to make clear

So what if there are? The overwhelming majority of prostitutes are female, hence my focus on women.



Also, why would anybody be 'forced' to do a job they didn't want to do, whether that's sex-work or making doorknobs?


Because it involves important yet unpopular work, e.g. cleaning streets. The question is, should women be compelled to provide 'sex services'?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Because it involves important yet unpopular work, e.g. cleaning streets. The question is, should women be compelled to provide 'sex services'?

Shouldn't communism mean a radical reevaluation of "unpopular work" and the circumstances that necessitate it?
Also, insofar as the operation of heteropatriarchy (woefully unaddressed in weird conceptions of socialism described herein) is concerned, the compulsion of women to carry out any type of work implies in-and-of-itself the provision of sex-services. The issue is not "sex work"-in-and-of-itself, but "sex work" as an implicit character of work-as-such, with work-as-such rooted, fundamentally, in the development of modes of production which are inseperable, historically, from their heteropatriarchal manifestation.

[black magick hustla]

Probably the mayority of prostitution is driven by desperation. But there is a small, but noticeable demographic of middle class, educated hipster hookers and honestly I would put them in the same class as professionals etc. They make a lot of money for very little work, provided they can stomach it. I think books like happy hookers are about them. Cuz' lets face it making three hundred in an hour of work is an enticing thing for some people.

[Vanguard1917]

Shouldn't communism mean a radical reevaluation of "unpopular work" and the circumstances that necessitate it?

I am confident that there will be types of work that will be less popular than other types of work. Socialism will not abolish this. It will simply create a situation where work is distributed with democratic fairness - which would mean that some people will have to undertake tasks that they may wish to dodge but will not be allowed to.



Also, insofar as the operation of heteropatriarchy (woefully unaddressed in weird conceptions of socialism described herein) is concerned, the compulsion of women to carry out any type of work implies in-and-of-itself the provision of sex-services. The issue is not "sex work"-in-and-of-itself, but "sex work" as an implicit character of work-as-such, with work-as-such rooted, fundamentally, in the development of modes of production which are inseperable, historically, from their heteropatriarchal manifestation.


Sorry, but i have no idea what you're saying. :)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sorry, but i have no idea what you're saying. :)

Untheorynerded version:

All work is sex work. The development of "work" is intimately bound up with the interdevelopment of the commodity form and contemporary heteropatriarchy - like, they are inseperable parts of the capitalist totality. Basically, as long as there's compulsory work, there will be patriarchy, and as long as there is patriarchy all work will be sex work for women. Therefore, answering the question of "is sex-work necessary labour within a socialist society" misses the point.

[Lowtech]

This a very interesting topic. I'm sure it is very fundimental to the study of communism to understand that artificial scarcity and a market economy give Exchange value to many bazzare things that would otherwise have no benefit. Crime, the drug trade, prostitution; which within a marketless economy would simply not occur. However, porn is an interesting thing. I don't see produced much if at all in a matketless econony, however the content already produced I'm sure will be enjoyed for probably the entirety of human civilization. Or perhaps it will live on the same way plays are still written and performed today as a preserved craft. We can only hope.

[Vanguard1917]

Untheorynerded version:

All work is sex work. The development of "work" is intimately bound up with the interdevelopment of the commodity form and contemporary heteropatriarchy - like, they are inseperable parts of the capitalist totality. Basically, as long as there's compulsory work, there will be patriarchy, and as long as there is patriarchy all work will be sex work for women. Therefore, answering the question of "is sex-work necessary labour within a socialist society" misses the point.

Ok well, not all work is sex work in the sense that not all work involves women having sexual intercourse with men.

Now you have no excuse to not answer the quesion.

[Lowtech]

Ok well, not all work is sex work in the sense that not all work involves women having sexual intercourse with men.

Now you have no excuse to not answer the quesion.

If all work was sex, I would probably complain much less than i do....or perhaps the reverse would be true.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Ok well, not all work is sex work in the sense that not all work involves women having sexual intercourse with men.

Now you have no excuse to not answer the quesion.

OK, but if you grasp the sexual economy exclusively in terms of heterosexual intercourse, then (a) you exclude a great deal of what is generally understood as sex work, and (b) include a great deal of other work, and necessarily raise serious questions about heterosexual intercourse more broadly insofar as those relations don't exist in some magical "private sphere" that is independent of the economy.

As to "the question", assuming you mean,


The question is, should women be compelled to provide 'sex services'?

the answer is very obviously, "No." The more important question, however, is, "Under what circumstance would women not be compelled to provide sex services?" Given the relationship between heteropatriarchy and work, compulsory work seems, to me, to imply sexual compulsion.

[Vanguard1917]

OK, but if you grasp the sexual economy exclusively in terms of heterosexual intercourse, then (a) you exclude a great deal of what is generally understood as sex work, and (b) include a great deal of other work, and necessarily raise serious questions about heterosexual intercourse more broadly insofar as those relations don't exist in some magical "private sphere" that is independent of the economy.

I am specifically talking about sex work as it exists in the main, i.e. as something which is provided by women to men. But my argument applies to sex work in general.



the answer is very obviously, "No."


Then sex work is not ordinary work (assuming you don't rule out compulsion to work in general).


The more important question, however, is, "Under what circumstance would women not be compelled to provide sex services?" Given the relationship between heteropatriarchy and work, compulsory work seems, to me, to imply sexual compulsion.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[RedSonRising]

I think in the short-term, decriminalization of the sex worker should be advocated, but in the long-term, if you're in a position to redistribute capital and meaningfully challenge the hierarchies of capitalism, a priority should be integrating women into productive autonomous workplaces. The human body shouldn't be commodified, especially not in the shadows of patriarchy.

[Blake's Baby]

I am specifically talking about sex work as it exists in the main, i.e. as something which is provided by women to men. But my argument applies to sex work in general...

You're talking about sex work as it exists under capitalism and patriarchy. There isn't some mythical category of 'normal' sex work where passive women submit themselves resignedly to lustful men. There is a specific social form of sex work where the economically powerful (who are overwhelmingly men) exploit the economically disadvantaged (both men and women) but because the commissioners are mostly male, the providers are mostly female, because, hetero-normativity being what it is, that's how it works - powerful males implies subservient females.

In a situation where men as a broad social category do not have economic power over women, or other men (ie, socialism), why would 'women' be compelled to have sex with 'men'? Why would 'men' not be compelled to have sex with women if you can imagine the opposite? Why, in fact would 'people' not be compelled to have sex with 'other people'?




Then sex work is not ordinary work (assuming you don't rule out compulsion to work in general)...

That's a massive assumption I think you're making there. I rather think the point is 'no forced work because all forced work implies that one group controls the lives and bodies of another group'.

Also doesn't logically follow, as you are only asking in effect 'should women be sexually enslaved to men under socialism?' without considering that a) men could be enslaved to women for heterosexual sex under your 'socialism'; b) some men could be enslaved by other men for homosexual sex under your 'socialism'; c) some women could be enslaved by other women for homosexual sex under your 'socialism'; d) some people of any gender could be enslaved by other people of any gender for any kind of sex under your 'socialism'.

Lot of people being enslaved in your 'socialism' there.




...

I'm not sure what you mean.

If you own a new class of prolo-slave, why wouldn't you want to fuck them (whatever your particular sexual orientation happens to be)?


@ VMC - I'm not entirely certain that you managed to take your theorynerd hat off...

[Vanguard1917]

You're talking about sex work as it exists under capitalism and patriarchy. There isn't some mythical category of 'normal' sex work where passive women submit themselves resignedly to lustful men. There is a specific social form of sex work where the economically powerful (who are overwhelmingly men) exploit the economically disadvantaged (both men and women) but because the commissioners are mostly male, the providers are mostly female, because, hetero-normativity being what it is, that's how it works - powerful males implies subservient females.

I don't have a problem with that. As i said, my argument applies both to male and female sex work.



Why, in fact would 'people' not be compelled to have sex with 'other people'?


Would they be? Would socialist society tell women (or men) that it's their turn to do sex work duty?



That's a massive assumption I think you're making there. I rather think the point is 'no forced work because all forced work implies that one group controls the lives and bodies of another group'.



Work could be 'forced' not in the sense of one class ordering another, but by equal members of society insisting democratically that people contribute their labour whether they'd like to or not.

My argument is that sex work, in contrast to all other work, will likely not be treated in such a way.

[Blake's Baby]

Our argument is no work will be treated in such a way. If any work is treated in such a way, why not also sex-work?

[Vanguard1917]

Our argument is no work will be treated in such a way.

So there will be no obligation to work under socialism? There will be no economic planning whereby labour input is consciously planned in advance by society as a whole? Or will people just spontaneously decide whether they want to work depending on their mood that day?


If any work is treated in such a way, why not also sex-work?

Because it would involve an obligation to have sex.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Heh. Sexceptionalism?

[Vanguard1917]

Heh. Sexceptionalism?

Well, yeah. Unless you want to tell people that they have to have sex when they don't want to.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Well, yeah. Unless you want to tell people that they have to have sex when they don't want to.

My issue being that a weird exceptionalism vis-a-vis "sex work" as specific category doesn't effectively address that.

[Vanguard1917]

My issue being that a weird exceptionalism vis-a-vis "sex work" as specific category doesn't effectively address that.

You can either have a situation where people can be told to have sex by society, or a situation in which such a problem can be avoided by defining sex work as inherently different to other forms of work.

[Blake's Baby]

No, you're right.

It's you, by the way. After the revolution. You're the one everyone else gets to have sex with, and you have to put up with it. Happy?

[Vanguard1917]

No, you're right.

It's you, by the way. After the revolution. You're the one everyone else gets to have sex with, and you have to put up with it. Happy?

A terrifying thought. How will i find the time to take down lazy thinking on revleft?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I want to hear about the means by which "society" (eh?) will tell anybody to do anything in a "socialist" "society". I mean, we can talk about collectives, or councils, or states, or whatever, but I'm pretty sure a society doesn't have a voice. I mean, unless you mean in the sense of ideology / hegemony / confluence of social forces, in which case society will continue to tell people to have sex, again, regardless of the existence of "sex work".

Like, what I'm trying to get at is that we need to talk about an authentically communist mode of production (and the abolition of work-as-such) - everything else is just . . . hopelessly unimaginative, at best.

(Yes, imagination is my communist concept of the day. Whateva.)

[Vanguard1917]

I want to hear about the means by which "society" (eh?) will tell anybody to do anything in a "socialist" "society". I mean, we can talk about collectives, or councils, or states, or whatever, but I'm pretty sure a society doesn't have a voice. I mean, unless you mean in the sense of ideology / hegemony / confluence of social forces, in which case society will continue to tell people to have sex, again, regardless of the existence of "sex work".

I mean the organisations which plan the economy - the organisations which, among other things, will decide how much labour time will be required, in a given period of time, for production of particular goods or the provision of particular services.

[Luís Henrique]

But that's a pretty major exceptional quality. Prostitution is not like 'normal' work.

Every trade is probably exceptional in some way or other, and not like "normal" (ie, abstract) labour in one aspect or other. After all, all of them are also concrete human activities, irreductible to each others. But of course, prostitution is quite the exceptional labour - because sex is still a quite exceptional issue, because sex is still taboo.

On the other hand, prostitution, "the" exceptional labour, is also "the" paradigmatic labour. "Selling our bodies", it is said; and what else do we do when we make any kind of physical effort in labour? Doing something for money that should be done for love instead, it is said - and what else does a baker, a nurse, a garbage collector, a teacher, do, if not exactly earning money for things that are, or should be, acts of love?


Think of it in the following way. Under socialist economic planning, would prostitution be taken into account? Would there be planning committees encouraging women to work in the sex industry in the same way that they would try to direct labour into, say, construction or clothes manufacture? It is very likely that democratic decisions will be taken under socialism to compel people into doing work that they may not necessarily want to do. I may not want to undertake my road-sweeping duties next month, but it's my turn and I have no choice. Can you envisage sex work ever being treated in such a way by a socialist society? Women being forced to have sex with men against their wishes?


I think there is an important difference between these things. People usually like sex, and are willing to do it for free, even in pre-socialist conditions. But, under pre-socialist conditions - especially under capitalist conditions - people usually come to hate whatever they do for a living. And doing it for free is out of question, of course. Part of the drive for a communist society is certainly to eliminate such awkard condition, in which we hate what we do. Some activities will need to be fully automated, in order to do this. Others, that can't be automated, will need to be done in turns. Many others, though, will probably be voluntary; I don't think people will take turns into composing music or writing poetry, for instance; and I don't think this means we will be in lack of musical compositions or written poems. I imagine that caretaking activities - what nurses, waiters, teachers, baby-sitters, psychoanalists, physicians, and... prostitutes do - will mostly fall into the latter category. Such activities cannot be automated, but it is doubtful that we can take turns in doing them, and not only because some of them require specialised training (prostitution is indeed quite unique in that it is grunt work that requires little training, but cannot be automated. This being one reason it is also exceptional in that capital cannot dominate it as it does with most human labour; it is limited to a formal domination of the labour of prostitutes, which in turn makes for another reason why it is so much stigmatised.)

So, I don't imagine that someone in the Central Planning Commission will phone or e-mail Mary (or Joe) Smith to tell her, or him, that next Wednesday it is her, or his, turn to have sex with an unknow costumer, "for the progress of our socialist society". I suppose though that Mary or Joe Smith, if they are so inclined, may place their e-mail or cellphone number into a directory of people whom you may call when you feel lonely and want a one-night stand with no "romantic" drama attached. After all, the point is "from each one in the measure of his or her capabilities", and surely making sex with random people isn't a "capability" all people have. But those who have it, and are willing to exercise it, shouldn't be discriminated against because of that, either in a capitalist or - with more reason - a socialist society.


Of course, that does not necessarily mean that 'sex services' will not be offered 'informally', outside of a socialist plan. But my example above shows that sex work probably won't be treated as ordinary work.

I hope no work will be treated as "ordinary work" - and that the de-commodification of labour power, implying the demise of the need to quantify labour, to quantify the expense of human nerve and muscle, will promote human activities to a higher stage, in which they will be barely recognisable as the same "thing" as labour as we know it.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I think in the short-term, decriminalization of the sex worker should be advocated, but in the long-term, if you're in a position to redistribute capital and meaningfully challenge the hierarchies of capitalism, a priority should be integrating women into productive autonomous workplaces. The human body shouldn't be commodified, especially not in the shadows of patriarchy.

We shouldn't redistribute capital, we should abolish it.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

So there will be no obligation to work under socialism?

No more, I think, than there will be an obligation to breath, or to eat. Or to have sex, to keep on topic.


There will be no economic planning whereby labour input is consciously planned in advance by society as a whole?

In a transitional period, quite probably - but with the stated purpose of putting an end to the necessity of such things.


Or will people just spontaneously decide whether they want to work depending on their mood that day?

Why would anyone decide they don't want to work any day?

Remember, we are no longer talking of "work" as an heteronomous activity, that you only do because you would have no money, and consequently no access to consumption, if you didn't. We are talking about free human activity, directed only by the need of self-realisation and by the need to relate to others in a positive way.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

I imagine that caretaking activities - what nurses, waiters, teachers, baby-sitters, psychoanalists, physicians, and... prostitutes do - will mostly fall into the latter category.


But the labour of a nurse or a teacher can't be the stuff of whims: if a nurse doesn't turn up to work, patients suffer, as do students in the case of teachers. So there will be some compulsion on such people to stick to their planned rotas, even if they don't much feel like teaching or nursing that day.

That is what makes prostitution different, unless a socialist society, or a workers' society in transition to socialism, will be in the business of telling people to have sex when they don't want to.