Views on prostitution

[DAN E BOY]

Not sure if this is in the right place, hope it is.

Basically, I don't have any dealings with this side of society but I know it can affect us all in one way or another.

So that is my question: is it acceptable for people to prostitute themselves?

I can see both sides of the coin. On one side people should be free to do what they want with there own body, so it's not the states duty to ban this practice.

But on the other, legitimising prostitution will only compound the idea of women are sex objects. And it is primarily a ''problem'' for women.

What are your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance. :)

[RedWorker]

Banning them from prostituting themselves is a bourgeois solution which actually increases sexual oppression. But establishing a false dichotomy can cloud this fact. To understand this, notice that censorship of pornography, for instance, is linked with sexually repressive regimes, while pornography also can promote sexist elements. The solution is not banning or censoring it... and not everything is fixed by just allowing it.

Women who prostitute themselves do so based on economic conditions. They will keep doing it if illegalized, but in even shittier conditions. The solution is to ensure all individuals have their needs covered in general, and, in regard to prostitution specifically, its legalization and regularization in order to address the needs and stop the abuse of sex workers.

"And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the 'community of women'. Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it." - F. Engels

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

We've had threads similar to this countless times, so I'll put my generic answer:

Prostitution, like all work, is exploitative. It is neither better nor worse then any other form of work, all are equal in their exploitation. Prostitution does have its share of problems that are unique to it, however, which makes the situation a tad bit more complicated.

Banning and criminalizing prostitution is a bourgeois moralist and paternalistic solution that often hurts the prostitutes the worse. Prostitution as a practice should be legalized, and the prostitutes themselves should be able to organize and negotiate for better working conditions and pay. This should also be combined with a concerted effort to route out and destroy sex slavery and human trafficking rings that thrive off of both exploitation of innocents and the blanket illegality of prostitution in total, instead of just sex slavery of human trafficking.

[Lily Briscoe]

There's a thread on this subject like every other week. If you try the search function, it will probably turn up dozens of relatively recent ones.

[Loony Le Fist]

Prostitution, like all work, is exploitative. It is neither better nor worse then any other form of work, all are equal in their exploitation. Prostitution does have its share of problems that are unique to it, however, which makes the situation a tad bit more complicated.




Banning and criminalizing prostitution is a bourgeois moralist and paternalistic solution that often hurts the prostitutes the worse. Prostitution as a practice should be legalized, and the prostitutes themselves should be able to organize and negotiate for better working conditions and pay. This should also be combined with a concerted effort to route out and destroy sex slavery and human trafficking rings that thrive off of both exploitation of innocents and the blanket illegality of prostitution in total, instead of just sex slavery of human trafficking.

Absolutely. Prostitution shouldn't even really be a thing. It only exists thanks to capitalism, IMO. But if it's going to be, let's make it as less exploitative as possible.

[DAN E BOY]

There's a thread on this subject like every other week. If you try the search function, it will probably turn up dozens of relatively recent ones.



Sorry I didn't know that, still new to the site.

[Palmares]

Absolutely. Prostitution shouldn't even really be a thing. It only exists thanks to capitalism, IMO. But if it's going to be, let's make it as less exploitative as possible.

Interestingly enough, some sex workers I know believe that, in their ideal post-capitalist society, sex work would still exist. From what I can gather, they see sex work as a service that, in a different context, would not necessarily be exploitative.

[The Feral Underclass]

is it acceptable for people to prostitute themselves?

Is it acceptable to be a baker or a checkout clerk? Genuine questions.

[RedWorker]

Interestingly enough, some sex workers I know believe that, in their ideal post-capitalist society, sex work would still exist. From what I can gather, they see sex work as a service that, in a different context, would not necessarily be exploitative.

What is sex? People do it to please each other, it's fully natural. But making it a service means to do it to everyone, as if it was labor, without any conditions, as long as the economic exchange takes place successfully. This can only take place within capitalism. The notion that any such service would exist as a general condition in a communist society as prostitution does now is ridiculous.

[The Feral Underclass]

What is sex? People do it to please each other, it's fully natural. But making it a service means to do it to everyone, as if it was labor, without any conditions, as long as the economic exchange takes place successfully. This can only take place within capitalism. The notion that any such service would exist in a communist society as prostitution does now is ridiculous.

Do you think communist society is going to make everyone desirable? What if someone is in a relationship(s) in which their sexual fetish goes unfulfilled because those the person is committed to don't find it arousing? What if someone just wants to have sex with a stranger without the need to fulfil social obligations, or can't otherwise get sex conventionally?

There are many different reasons why a sex service might be useful and if there are people who are willing to provide that service then how is that ridiculous?

[Sasha]

What is sex? People do it to please each other, it's fully natural. But making it a service means to do it to everyone, as if it was labor, without any conditions, as long as the economic exchange takes place successfully. This can only take place within capitalism. The notion that any such service would exist as a general condition in a communist society as prostitution does now is ridiculous.

i know several sex workers that offer their sex services to (depending on the service and the sex worker) physical, mentally or socially handicapped people, people with certain fetishes that they cant get met in their relationships etc etc.
while the sex workers in question certainly enjoy this work it is work and they might perform the same kind of sexual activities in their personal relationships yet the distinction between their work and their personal relationships is important to them.
this is no different than me as a carpenter making a difference between building furniture for myself, a friend, a collective i volunteer for or a commercial client. like me and my carpentry in a post capitalist society these sex workers probably would still like to provide society with these services but still would make, like me, a distinction between their "work" (then on a voluntary basis in service of the community) and their personal free time.

[PhoenixAsh]

Sexual petit-bourgeois morality says that sex needs to be something "special" and purely enjoyed on the basis of emotional intimacy...preferably heterosexual.

With the added bonus where virginity, chastity, purity are regarded as a virtuous in women otherwise they are just sluts you can use...

So the first part is especially true when it comes to women....and it is one of the most fundamental aspects that drives the "OMG PROSTITUTION" debate.

[jullia]

Let's be honest in the huge majority of the case, prostitution is exploit by mafia who terrorise and put in slavery innocent and desesperate women. An honest socialist can't use prostitute.

[cyu]

There is unspoken support among some of the wealthy for keeping capitalism in place, if only because prostitution is the only way they can get sex. Without forcing attractive women into poverty and desperate for money, they believe there is no other way for them to have sex with attractive women. This kind of support for capitalism is unspoken because they don't want to admit they are social losers.

One of the failures of modern education is that they allocate almost all their resources to teaching facts that have little to do with social interaction. Thus you can graduate knowing almost everything you need to know about science, math, history, and literature, but still know next to nothing about how to get a date or make friends.

So you get a lot of stock brokers who may be geniuses at math or computers, but have to rely on prostitutes for sex. You get a society that may be geniuses at making powerful weapons, but has no clue about how to get along with their neighbors. You get soldiers who know a hundred different ways to kill someone, but can only get sex if they rape the locals.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes...because fuck sex workers the world over and completely ignore their voice....lets focus on the criminal aspects with barely hidden moralistic, patriarchal connotations about female purity and (sexual) innocence rather than prostitution itself.

[Asero]

Banning them from prostituting themselves is a bourgeois solution which actually increases sexual oppression. But establishing a false dichotomy can cloud this fact. To understand this, notice that censorship of pornography, for instance, is linked with sexually repressive regimes, while pornography also can promote sexist elements. The solution is not banning or censoring it... and not everything is fixed by just allowing it.

Women who prostitute themselves do so based on economic conditions. They will keep doing it if illegalized, but in even shittier conditions. The solution is to ensure all individuals have their needs covered in general, and, in regard to prostitution specifically, its legalization and regularization in order to address the needs and stop the abuse of sex workers.

"And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the 'community of women'. Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it." - F. Engels

^--This.


Though I might be wrong (and correct me if I am), most prostitutes and professional pornographic actor/resses are probably driven to do so because of difficulty in obtaining a livable income to otherwise (which in of itself tends to be the the result of job market failures) meet ends-meet, and are encouraged to do so though social pressure (usually) via patriarchy (I'm too ignorant of feminist theory to make a good male-dominated-society arguement). I think a "short term solution," for the lack of a better phrase, is the promotion of giving people (though most prostitutes/pornographers are most likely women, there are those that are men) better opportunities for better work, which of course would be easy because those kind of things have a tendency to be the first thing on the "things to do in the revolution" lists.

I don't trust pimps. They seem to be the prostitute equivalent of capitalists.

[DAN E BOY]

Is it acceptable to be a baker or a checkout clerk? Genuine questions.


I suppose so, people need an income to sustain themselves.

[DAN E BOY]

i know several sex workers that offer their sex services to (depending on the service and the sex worker) physical, mentally or socially handicapped people, people with certain fetishes that they cant get met in their relationships etc etc.
while the sex workers in question certainly enjoy this work it is work and they might perform the same kind of sexual activities in their personal relationships yet the distinction between their work and their personal relationships is important to them.
this is no different than me as a carpenter making a difference between building furniture for myself, a friend, a collective i volunteer for a client. like me and my carpentry in a post capitalist society these sex workers probably would still like to provide society with these services but still would make, like me, a distinction between their "work" (then on a voluntary basis in service of the community) and their personal free time.


Prostitutes and skilled workers are in no way related!

I'm not a ''skilled worker'' but I have family members that are (gas engineers). And to try and equate the two is ridiculous. You need YEARS of training to become a tradesman/women,qualifications and working in this environment (primarily) involves using your brain.

Prostitutes need little training....you can learn on the job:lol:
You don't need any qualifications to ''get fucked''
And the game is all about selling your body, not much thought work.

I'm not one who thinks about ''women's purity'' but I'm not ashamed to say I wouldn't want people in my family being hookers.

[Sasha]

sex work is certainly a skilled profession, like with gasfitting you get what you pay for, sure you can get it cheaply done by some untrained illegal who is willing to forgo your and their safety to drop the price but chances are you'll end up with a leaky pipe.

[DAN E BOY]

sex work is certainly a skilled profession, like with gasfitting you get what you pay for, sure you can get it cheaply done by some untrained illegal who is willing to forgo your and their safety to drop the price but chances are you'll end up with a leaky pipe.


I don't agree with this at all.

For the simple reason that the ''service'' prostitutes render can be picked up for free. It's called a relationship. It could be a long term one, could be a one night stand.

Do you know any trade people who work free of charge? no, me neither. Even my family charge me for the plumbing etc LOL.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't agree with this at all.

For the simple reason that the ''service'' prostitutes render can be picked up for free. It's called a relationship. It could be a long term one, could be a one night stand.

Wow, what moralising bullshit. It also betrays a deep lack of understanding when it comes to sex. If you don't think there is any skill to sex then I pity whomever is unfortunate enough to engage in it with you.

Most one night stands involve pitiful sex and if you've got no skills to sex then you'll find long term relationships become very boring, very quickly. Being skilled at sex requires a great deal of experience, empathy, sexuality, adaptability and knowledge of the human body. If you go to a prostitute and it's the kind of sex you get in a one-night stand or a long-term relationship, then they're not very good at their job. I can't imagine anyone who is willing to use a prostitute is going to want to have sex that's either like they'e been in a 30 year marriage or is like a drunken fumble with someone they just met in a night club.

[DAN E BOY]

Wow, what moralising bullshit. It also betrays a deep lack of understanding when it comes to sex. If you don't think there is any skill to sex then I pity whomever is unfortunate enough to engage in it with you.

Most one night stands involve pitiful sex and if you've got no skills to sex then you'll find long term relationships become very boring, very quickly. Being skilled at sex requires a great deal of experience, empathy, sexuality, adaptability and knowledge of the human body. If you go to a prostitute and it's the kind of sex you get in a one-night stand or a long-term relationship, then they're not very good at their job. I can't imagine anyone who is willing to use a prostitute is going to want to have sex that's either like they'e been in a 30 year marriage or is like a drunken fumble with someone you just met in a night club.


I did not say there was no skill involved in sex, I simple made the point that what prostitutes do (sex) can be picked up for free. And that is true, AND, that is how most people get their sex-without paying. So it can't be classed as ''high skilled'' IMO.

The part of my post you edited out, about tradesmen/women being skilled enough to demand money but this is something that you can't get for free, that is true as well.

But anyway, this is turning into a comparison-like discussion. I was just curious about the feeling of others on this subject.

[The Feral Underclass]

I did not say there was no skill involved in sex

Erm, you did. When Sasha said that sex work was a skilled profession and gave an explanation, you said, "I don't agree with this at all."


I simple made the point that what prostitutes do (sex) can be picked up for free. And that is true, AND, that is how most people get their sex-without paying. So it can't be classed as ''high skilled'' IMO.

You made that point in an effort to disagree with Sasha's assertion that sex work was a skilled profession. Whether it's "high" skilled work or not was never an issue.

In any case, of course sex work is highly skilled. Would you know how to make a man with a BDSM and diaper fetish, and a penchant for urethral sounding cum? I certainly fucking wouldn't. Would you have the experience, sexuality, adaptability and empathy to give a person with social anxiety who suffered from advanced muscular dystrophy an enjoyable sexual experience?


The part of my post you edited out, about tradesmen/women being skilled enough to demand money but this is something that you can't get for free, that is true as well.

You could just go to a night club and pick someone up and bring them back and ask them to do your plumbing for you. Or you could ask your long-term husband to do it. Or you could pay a [highly] skilled professional to come and do it for you.

[DAN E BOY]

Erm, you did. When Sasha said that sex work was a skilled profession and gave an explanation, you said, "I don't agree with this at all."



You made that point in an effort to disagree with Sasha's assertion that sex work was a skilled profession. Whether it's "high" skilled work or not was never an issue.

In any case, of course sex work is highly skilled. Would you know how to make a man with a BDSM and diaper fetish, and a penchant for urethral sounding cum? I certainly fucking wouldn't. Would you have the experience, sexuality, adaptability and empathy to give a person with social anxiety who suffered from advanced muscular dystrophy an enjoyable sexual experience?



You could just go to a night club and pick someone up and bring them back and ask them to do your plumbing for you. Or you could ask your long-term husband to do it. Or you could pay a [highly] skilled professional to come and do it for you.


In Amsterdam prostitution is legalised, regulated and have the freedom to charge and advertise as they see fit. They are unhindered. And from what I hear the prostitutes in Holland earn pretty poor money....not what you'd expect from a skilled/valuable worker eh?

[The Feral Underclass]

In Amsterdam prostitution is legalised, regulated and have the freedom to charge and advertise as they see fit. They are unhindered. And from what I hear the prostitutes in Holland earn pretty poor money....not what you'd expect from a skilled/valuable worker eh?

I don't live in Amsterdam and I'm not Dutch, but Sasha is both Dutch and lives in Amsterdam, so he might be able to say more about that.

In any case, I'm not really sure how you've addressed my argument. Assuming that skilled workers always get paid a fair price for their work (which is just demonstrably not true), when markets are saturated with skilled workers, employers are able to set wage prices lower. It's a fairly routine aspect of capitalism. It bears no relevance to the skill of the worker, only what their skills can earn them on the market.

[Sasha]

it depends on the skill, a high-end escort or a skilled dom will charge hundreds till thousands of euro's an hour, i'm sure your gasfitters make far less.
a red light district eastern-european or brazilian prostitute will still charge more than you gasfitters but yes, their prices are lower than the top, but this isnt as much dictated by skill but by competition, a tech worker in south-korea is not lower skilled than a tech-worker in amsterdam, there are just more of them.

[DAN E BOY]

Well getting back on point of my question which was not how skilled prostitutes are, but what view people have on the situation of sex workers.

seems to be a supportive one on the whole.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

There's a thread on this subject like every other week. If you try the search function, it will probably turn up dozens of relatively recent ones.

and sadly no new ideas are ever presented. perhaps we ought to ask ourselves why prostitution exists the way it does in patriarchal capitalist society. and what it means to defend it. the last time i had this discussion it eventually led to virgin molotov cocktail pointing to a couple of admittedly very interesting acrticles by militant sex workers struggling for better conditions and so on. but they failed to answer or even address these questions. i refuse to accept the over simplistic narrative that sex work is just like any other field. this reasoning negates any distinct socioeconomic dynamics involved in the buying and selling of womens bodies by men. we as leftists should strive to see a little deeper than that.

[VCrakeV]

I don't agree with this at all.

For the simple reason that the ''service'' prostitutes render can be picked up for free. It's called a relationship. It could be a long term one, could be a one night stand.

Do you know any trade people who work free of charge? no, me neither. Even my family charge me for the plumbing etc LOL.

If your profession has any transferable skills, then you can receive a service from someone through friendship. Providing personal experiences doesn't equate to an argument, because if any one person's experience differs, it renders your argument invalid. A carpenter, for example, could build a piece of furniture for a friend.

Prostitution is just as much a profession as anything else. Not just anyone can be a prostitute. Whether you're a guy or a girl, you have to know how to take it, give it, perform fetishes, and so on; and doing it well. With all of the things someone may ask a prostitute for, and all of the things he/she have to do well, there could easily be a program for prostitution--if it was taken seriously.

[Lily Briscoe]

@Dr. Rosenpenis

There's nothing even remotely 'new' in those ideas and questions either (not that the validity of something has anything to do with how 'new' it is anyway, but you're the one who raised the objection).

But honestly I've had this discussion a million times on here, and am not really interested in having it again.

[Creative Destruction]

There's a thread on this subject like every other week. If you try the search function, it will probably turn up dozens of relatively recent ones.

This and the "Garbage Man" question, as well. There needs to be something at the top of the forum that says "Please use the search function if you want to ask about the following: x, y, z."

[Creative Destruction]

Interestingly enough, some sex workers I know believe that, in their ideal post-capitalist society, sex work would still exist. From what I can gather, they see sex work as a service that, in a different context, would not necessarily be exploitative.

I can see that, at least in a "lower phase" of post-capitalism. The things that make sex work exploitative -- pimping, unsafe working conditions, economic conditions that might force people into that trade where they wouldn't have gone otherwise -- wouldn't exist in a communist society. In a higher phase, in an era of free access, I do not think it is a compatible notion, though. Social relations that make prostitution a thing would be abolished, including remuneration for work, just like any human-provided service. You could be an exploited apprentice in a woodworking shop under capitalism, but you could still have that "trade" or skill under a free access situation, just you wouldn't be doing it for money any longer, but for pleasure. Prostitution is specifically predicated on exchange of money, or something else, for a service, so it wouldn't exist in any sense that I could think of.

[DAN E BOY]

I just added a poll for anyone who's interested.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Yes...because fuck sex workers the world over and completely ignore their voice....lets focus on the criminal aspects with barely hidden moralistic, patriarchal connotations about female purity and (sexual) innocence rather than prostitution itself.

Was this a response to julia? If so, I'm not really seeing the "barely hidden" "patriarchal connotations" and moralism, this is starting to look like a knee jerk reaction to anyone who disagrees with you. And why should we not bring up the "criminal aspects," given that this is a large part of prostitution as a global phenomenon? You can't just ignore the parts that don't fit your argument...

"Patriarchal connotations" are not limited to female purity either. Capitalism has no problem forgoing purity when it means turning women into sexual objects. It's fairly obvious that there's much less of a focus on female purity in modern capitalism than before, for example, in what Lenin called the "bourgeois emancipation of the flesh."

[Creative Destruction]

I don't agree with this at all.

For the simple reason that the ''service'' prostitutes render can be picked up for free. It's called a relationship. It could be a long term one, could be a one night stand.

Do you know any trade people who work free of charge? no, me neither. Even my family charge me for the plumbing etc LOL.

You can conceivably get plumbing services for free, if you're good friends with a plumber. I mean, I've gotten such services (albeit for small things) without an expectation of repayment in cash or future labor. Any service is available for free if you know the right persons offering the service. Sex work definitely falls under this same category.

[VCrakeV]

I can see that, at least in a "lower phase" of post-capitalism. The things that make sex work exploitative -- pimping, unsafe working conditions, economic conditions that might force people into that trade where they wouldn't have gone otherwise -- wouldn't exist in a communist society. In a higher phase, in an era of free access, I do not think it is a compatible notion, though. Social relations that make prostitution a thing would be abolished, including remuneration for work, just like any human-provided service. You could be an exploited apprentice in a woodworking shop under capitalism, but you could still have that "trade" or skill under a free access situation, just you wouldn't be doing it for money any longer, but for pleasure. Prostitution is specifically predicated on exchange of money for a service, so it wouldn't exist in any sense that I could think of.

As far as the semantics of prostitution go, I (personally) believe that the exchange for money is only relevant in regards to legal issues. In a communist society, I would still consider it prostitution if a person provided sex and/or other sexual services for another service. It may not even be personal either; if a prostitute is getting everything she needs and wants: a bed, shelter, food, luxuries, etc., then she would feel obliged to provide back to the community, and so her profession may be applied to provide services to the community (just not all at once, I hope).

[Redistribute the Rep]

As far as the semantics of prostitution go, I (personally) believe that the exchange for money is only relevant in regards to legal issues. In a communist society, I would still consider it prostitution if a person provided sex and/or other sexual services for another service. It may not even be personal either; if a prostitute is getting everything she needs and wants: a bed, shelter, food, luxuries, etc., then she would feel obliged to provide back to the community, and so her profession may be applied to provide services to the community (just not all at once, I hope).

I hope that in a communist society people will feel they can get their basic sustenance met without being obliged to provide sex...

[Creative Destruction]

As far as the semantics of prostitution go, I (personally) believe that the exchange for money is only relevant in regards to legal issues. In a communist society, I would still consider it prostitution if a person provided sex and/or other sexual services for another service. It may not even be personal either; if a prostitute is getting everything she needs and wants: a bed, shelter, food, luxuries, etc., then she would feel obliged to provide back to the community, and so her profession may be applied to provide services to the community (just not all at once, I hope).

We assume in a communist society that bed, shelter and food are already provided, without an expectation to "give back" to society for those things. It becomes, as it should, an expectation that everyone already has. The "freeloader" issue is a moralistic peculiarity within capitalism. It's roughly the same moral question, where someone asks "Would you steal bread if your family was starving?" Meaning to imply that you have to choose between two things that are ostensibly equally immoral: theft on the one hand, or feeding your family on the other. (As a discursive comment: I've actually seen people struggle with this question, which is insane to me. Of course I'd steal bread, but some folks have been so inculcated with capitalist morality that they actually feel like thieving in all cases is bad.) Where it regards scarce "luxuries," again, this is what I was talking about in the "lower phase" of communism, where socially direct labor (which sex work is, probably in the most direct sense of anything else) is remunerated. Once free-access becomes the rule of the day, though, there'd be no reason to trade services for other services. Sex then falls into the realm of pleasurable work for everyone. You don't do it or offer it simply because you feel pressured in "giving something back" in return for anything.

[VCrakeV]

I hope that in a communist society people will feel they can get their basic sustenance met without being obliged to provide sex...

Well, people will feel obliged to do something to meet their basic (and non-basic) needs. Even today, lots of people feel bad about being a freeloader. I don't believe anyone would ever think "I need to provide sex to meet my basic needs", but I should hope they think "I need to provide to the community if I expect to live on what they provide for me". Then, the person would do exactly what he/she would do in today's society: Think about his/her skills, interests, hobbies, etc., and then see how he/she can use these to provide to the community. If a person would rather be a prostitute than whatever else he/she can imagine doing, then he/she would be one.

People feel happier when they have a choice. As long as someone chooses to do what he/she does, then there should be no negative connotation with it.

[VCrakeV]

We assume in a communist society that bed, shelter and food are already provided, without an expectation to "give back" to society for those things. Where it regards scarce "luxuries," again, this is what I was talking about in the "lower phase" of communism, where socially direct labor (which sex work is, probably in the most direct sense of anything else) is remunerated. Once free-access becomes the rule of the day, though, there'd be no reason to trade services for other services. Sex then falls into the realm of pleasurable work for everyone. You don't do it or offer it simply because you feel pressured in "giving something back" in return for anything.

So, if, in a fully-bloomed communist society, people simply take and give as is needed, would prostitution be a thing? I mean, sex is a luxury, but being a prostitute is a little different than, say, being a marijuana farmer. The farmer farms because he/she sees the desire for marijuana him-/her- self, and in other people. Prostitution, however, is a little weird. Sex isn't a drug that you can just give someone. Sex is an experience you have to share with the other person. If you're not comfortable having sex with a certain person, then a problem arises.

But then, there's another problem. What about the socially inept? Some people are too socially inept, burdened by a mental issue, or simply too unfortunate to have a sexual experience outside of prostitution and masturbation. Are we to just ignore their needs? It's not as basic as food or water, but every human being needs connection and, more relevantly, intimacy.

[jullia]

Yes...because fuck sex workers the world over and completely ignore their voice....lets focus on the criminal aspects with barely hidden moralistic, patriarchal connotations about female purity and (sexual) innocence rather than prostitution itself.


Listen the voice of sex workers, read the reports and watch documentary.
Most of the time the women are rape, drugs, beatten, put in slavery. You don't wish to be a sex worker, you end up as a sex worker under contraint. Now, it seems that you don't fin any problems in this exploitation. Maybe, it's because you can get fun with it.
But don't hide yourself behind a pseudo fight againt traditional morale.

[Creative Destruction]

So, if, in a fully-bloomed communist society, people simply take and give as is needed, would prostitution be a thing?

Simply, the answer, as I said above, is "no." Since prostitution is, again, predicated on exchange (primarily exchange for money), and if there is no money or, say, labor chits, to give or exchange in pursuance of this service, then it ceases being prostitution. It merely becomes a direct social relation between two (or however many) people, without an economic dimension.

Say you wanted to trade sex for... landscaping (fuck, I don't know) in a "higher phase" in communism. Why would you do this? Either we'd be automated to a point where such a thing is unnecessary, or we could arrange people to come and do some landscaping. It just doesn't make any sense, since the principle of exchange wouldn't exist. If you have sex with someone or someones, then it's purely out of a desire to have sex with them.

[Palmares]

Prostitutes need little training....you can learn on the job:lol:
You don't need any qualifications to ''get fucked''
And the game is all about selling your body, not much thought work.

Just to follow up on what others have said, sex work requires a variety of skills. Others have mentioned some of the role-playing and similar. What I want to add, similar to what The Feral Underclass said, is that not all sex is the same (duh!), or even "good". One aspect that really points to this, is the fact sex workers develop (working) relationships with returning clients. Whether it's for the quality of conversation, role-playing, the sex, etc, it's a skillful juggle to keep your clients happy. And as a result, being young and pretty doesn't necessitate popularity with many clients. Of course it's different for anyone. But it's not uncommon for older sex workers to be popular, and have a solid returning client-base due to what they can offer - beyond conventional sex.

So no, sex work is not easy. It requires many skills.

[PhoenixAsh]

Was this a response to julia? If so, I'm not really seeing the "barely hidden" "patriarchal connotations" and moralism, this is starting to look like a knee jerk reaction to anyone who disagrees with you. And why should we not bring up the "criminal aspects," given that this is a large part of prostitution as a global phenomenon? You can't just ignore the parts that don't fit your argument...

"Patriarchal connotations" are not limited to female purity either. Capitalism has no problem forgoing purity when it means turning women into sexual objects. It's fairly obvious that there's much less of a focus on female purity in modern capitalism than before, for example, in what Lenin called the "bourgeois emancipation of the flesh."

No I mean the bullshit kneejerk reaction to immediately link prostitution as a concept debates to the criminal circuit which is so obviously not about unconcented forced prostitution at all. Changing the directoin of the debate to that is a straw man and is a means to emotionally charge the debate.

[DAN E BOY]

Just to follow up on what others have said, sex work requires a variety of skills. Others have mentioned some of the role-playing and similar. What I want to add, similar to what The Feral Underclass said, is that not all sex is the same (duh!), or even "good". One aspect that really points to this, is the fact sex workers develop (working) relationships with returning clients. Whether it's for the quality of conversation, role-playing, the sex, etc, it's a skillful juggle to keep your clients happy. And as a result, being young and pretty doesn't necessitate popularity with many clients. Of course it's different for anyone. But it's not uncommon for older sex workers to be popular, and have a solid returning client-base due to what they can offer - beyond conventional sex.

So no, sex work is not easy. It requires many skills.


ok i'll bear that in mind.

[PhoenixAsh]

Listen the voice of sex workers, read the reports and watch documentary.
Most of the time the women are rape, drugs, beatten, put in slavery. You don't wish to be a sex worker, you end up as a sex worker under contraint. Now, it seems that you don't fin any problems in this exploitation. Maybe, it's because you can get fun with it.
But don't hide yourself behind a pseudo fight againt traditional morale.

Well no. You need to source that comment that it is most of the time or only the times you read and hear about it so it colours your perspective.

Because I know quite a few sexworkers, their organizations and what they say...and the phenomenon of forced prostitution is not something that dominates to such an extend that you can speak of "most of the time".

And what you were actually doing is changing the debate towards something we are not debating: forced prostitution in order to emotionally charge the entirety of prostitution. And THAT is what I object to.

Now what sex workers DO say is that the legalization of prostitution and the protection of their trade helps them against customers who cross the line, customer exploitation and customer abuse....as well as undermine their position of dependence on pimps and brothel owners.

[The Feral Underclass]

What strikes me a lot about these discussions is that those who know or are otherwise experienced (not as Johns) with sex workers or sex work have a far more radical understanding and appreciation of it than those who do not. Those people routinely have a far more moralist, conservative and prohibitive attitude towards them.

[RedWorker]

What strikes me a lot about these discussions is that those who know or are otherwise experienced (not as Johns) with sex workers or sex work have a far more radical understanding and appreciation of it than those who do not. Those people routinely have a far more moralist, conservative and prohibitive attitude towards them.

There is nothing surprising about this. It is a well-known fact that the right-wing, in a similar manner, is composed of individuals who lack any contact to the average person in the real world. It makes sense that an individual who does not personally know of individuals from an oppressed group which suffer from this or that would naturally tend to not share their interests.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well no. You need to source that comment that it is most of the time or only the times you read and hear about it so it colours your perspective.

Because I know quite a few sexworkers, their organizations and what they say...and the phenomenon of forced prostitution is not something that dominates to such an extend that you can speak of "most of the time".

And what you were actually doing is changing the debate towards something we are not debating: forced prostitution in order to emotionally charge the entirety of prostitution. And THAT is what I object to.

Now what sex workers DO say is that the legalization of prostitution and the protection of their trade helps them against customers who cross the line, customer exploitation and customer abuse....as well as undermine their position of dependence on pimps and brothel owners.

I don't recall her arguing against legalization, for someone quick to accuse others of strawmanning you're pretty adapt at constructing them yourself

I would say forced prostitution is a necessary part of the discussion, why would we only focus on one part of it? That just ignores all context and seems pretty reductionist.

[Sasha]

Because the problem with forced prostitution is the forced bit?

But if the war on drugs (and alcohol prohibition) tought us one thing its that making something illegal doesn't make it dissapear, I think its safe to say that johns are willing to use forced prostitutes for the same reason junkies are willing to use meth. If there was a legal alternative they would prefer that.
Legalizing prostitution is the best way to stop sexual slavery.

[gef-gons]

What is sex? People do it to please each other, it's fully natural. But making it a service means to do it to everyone, as if it was labor, without any conditions, as long as the economic exchange takes place successfully. This can only take place within capitalism. The notion that any such service would exist as a general condition in a communist society as prostitution does now is ridiculous.

What you say makes some sense.
We have no apriori knowledge abou what a post capitalist communist society would be. To be purposeful (rather than dreaming) explantion should use the conditions as they are here/now - in order to motivate purposeful change.
By using how it will be in the future fully communist age - you/we wallow
in pie in the skyism.
I recall bert brecht - now is not the time for poetry.
Our Mother Earth is on life support our socializing must have purpose.

[jullia]

Well no. You need to source that comment that it is most of the time or only the times you read and hear about it so it colours your perspective.

Because I know quite a few sexworkers, their organizations and what they say...and the phenomenon of forced prostitution is not something that dominates to such an extend that you can speak of "most of the time".

And what you were actually doing is changing the debate towards something we are not debating: forced prostitution in order to emotionally charge the entirety of prostitution. And THAT is what I object to.

Now what sex workers DO say is that the legalization of prostitution and the protection of their trade helps them against customers who cross the line, customer exploitation and customer abuse....as well as undermine their position of dependence on pimps and brothel owners.

For me it's an evidence, that prostitution is an extrem form of oppression.
I can't beleive all your friends who are in prostitution told you they become voluntary prostitute.
But if you want women voluntary become prostitute. Continue to beleive it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/us-trafficking-economy-idUSBRE8B410620121205

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Basically, I don't have any dealings with this side of society but I know it can affect us all in one way or another.

Sorry for reaching all the way back to the OP, but I found this really interesting. It seems, to me, that the idea that sex work is something alien to sex and work is implicit here: that prostitution, or pornography, or whatever else is part of another "side of society" - alien to the family, to couples, to waiting tables, or, in general, to an imagined "normal" work and sex.

I think that's a real problem, and points to a real hole in a lot of analysis.

Just a thought.

[Loony Le Fist]

Prostitution wouldn't even be a thing, where it not for capitalism.

[Loony Le Fist]

Interestingly enough, some sex workers I know believe that, in their ideal post-capitalist society, sex work would still exist. From what I can gather, they see sex work as a service that, in a different context, would not necessarily be exploitative.

Idk. It wouldn't really be work at that point. It would just be people choosing who they are going to have sex with. You know? Sex isnt' a service. It's a choice! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[The Feral Underclass]

Prostitution wouldn't even be a thing, where it not for capitalism.

Prostitution pre-dates capitalism by about 4000 years.

[Rafiq]

Prostitution pre-dates capitalism by about 4000 years.

Let's put aside the fact that prostitution has never pre-dated class society. Pre-capitalist prostitution has fuck all to do with prostitution in capitalism and contrary to what some vulgar historians would say - prostitution as it exists, just as anything unique to our order, is not some kind of evolutionary historical continuation but something unique to our specific historical epoch, as any good hegelian understands.

Prostitution as it exists is indeed unique to capitalism and the only thing which sustains its prevalence is capitalism itself. Class society is not the "natural" condition of the human species, rather real conditions and real specific factors are necessary for its sustenance. Once again, you privilege this message board with more shitty arguments and more nonsensical one-liners that apparently are allowed to be passed off as meaningful discussion.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Let's put aside the fact that prostitution has never pre-dated class society. Pre-capitalist prostitution has fuck all to do with prostitution in capitalism and contrary to what some vulgar historians would say - prostitution as it exists, just as anything unique to our order, is not some kind of evolutionary historical continuation but something unique to our specific historical epoch, as any good hegelian understands.

Pointing out that something has a social context is not an argument. Humans exist in an unique way under capitalism, but you wouldn't say that 'humans have never pre-dated class society', would you?


Prostitution as it exists is indeed unique to capitalism and the only thing which sustains its prevalence is capitalism itself.

I'm just at a loss to understand how you can say this. If capitalism died tomorrow, would prostitution die with it? No. Perhaps if class society died then prostitution would die out at some point, but let's not be so arrogant as to suggest that a post-capitalist society will inevitably be an instantaneously non-class society.


Class society is not the "natural" condition of the human species, rather real conditions and real specific factors are necessary for its sustenance.

This is really of no relevance to anything. Obviously 'real' conditions and 'real specific factors' are necessary to anything's sustenance.


Once again, you privilege this message board with more shitty arguments and more nonsensical one-liners that apparently are allowed to be passed off as meaningful discussion.

The strength of your argument - or rather lack of strength - is really shown in this pathetic ad hominem attack. If you know that the user in question has a tendency towards one-liners and sharp put-downs, then why bother engaging them in serious discussion only to resort to personal attacks when you realise you don't have any serious points to make?

[Rafiq]

Because I know quite a few sexworkers, their organizations and what they say...and the phenomenon of forced prostitution is not something that dominates to such an extend that you can speak of "most of the time".


Are you fucking kidding me? So the environments of the sex-workers you know constitutes a significant example of prostitution as a world-wide phenomena? Or are trafficked, and enslaved underground prostitutes somehow not factored into this? How many of those do you know, and have spoken to? Absolutely none.

I am willing to bet that the great majorityof prostitution world-wide is forced.

Here's the result of a simple google search:


a study of nine countries showed that 89 percent of people in prostitution do want to escape. As a result, many girls or women who are enslaved in prostitution eventually come to accept their circumstances as fate, and resign themselves to selling sex because they perceive themselves to have no other options. A study of prostitutes in nine countries showed that 70 to 95 percent had been physically assaulted; 68 percent suffered post-traumatic stress disorder.
http://www.halftheskymovement.org/issues/forced-prostitution

Now I'll just wait and see if this just petite-bourgeois moralist propaganda. For someone who whines and moans of Euro-centricism all the fucking time, it's pretty shocking that you constitute prostitution within proximity of your environment, (EUROPE for fuck's sake - which is known to be unique with this regard, and BARELY at that) as prostitution in general as a phenomena within capitalism.

God fucking dammit I'm so sick of reading all of this drivel. Really, this board has gone down hill. It's absolutely exhausting and nothing short of disheartening reading a lot of the posts here.

[Rafiq]

Pointing out that something has a social context is not an argument. Humans exist in an unique way under capitalism, but you wouldn't say that 'humans have never pre-dated class society', would you?

No one claims that prostitution hasn't existed before capitalism. Just that this argument is irrelevant regarding a discussion about prostitution within capitalism. Humans exist in a unique way in capitalism, which is why talking of humans of pre-capitalist societies in discussions SOLELY about humans in capitalism is likely insignificant and irrelevant.


I'm just at a loss to understand how you can say this. If capitalism died tomorrow, would prostitution die with it? No. Perhaps if class society died then prostitution would die out at some point, but let's not be so arrogant as to suggest that a post-capitalist society will inevitably be an instantaneously non-class society.


You miss the point: Prostitution doesn't exist naturally or inevitably. Real relations to production are necessary for its sustenance, and the fact that these relations of production all sustained it throughout different historical epochs is irrelevant. It's how logic works. CAPITALISM cannot die unless it is either replaced with the triumph of another class which would perpetuate a different mode of production, or through the abolition of class society. EVEN IF the former was possible - the argument would still hold - and prostitution would assume a FUNDAMENTALLY different character.


This is really of no relevance to anything. Obviously 'real' conditions and 'real specific factors' are necessary to anything's sustenance.


I'm saying that prostitution does not exist timelessly. It is not an inevitable product of EVERY POSSIBLE social condition. Just social conditions which are predisposed to the oppression and enslavement of the female sex. All class societies have this in common, but that doesn't mean we jump to this grand cosmic conclusions about prostitution. That's what I mean. Prostitution is fundamentally different and has a fundamentally different ideological and social place within capitalism than it did in other class societies. This is inarguable.

[Rafiq]

The problem, Innit, is that you are making the reference point of this argument into one about whether prostiuttion should be legalized or not. I have never partook in an argument about this and have always held that criminalizing prostitutes is to be opposed. This has never been the point of any controversy with regard to my views on prostitution.

It is about attacking the specific mindset, i.e. people who support prostitution for all the wrong reasons eclectically, prattling of "free choice". The logical conclusion is that all oppression is consented towards.

[PhoenixAsh]

Not surprisingly you did not actually read your own article now did you? And unsurprisingly you have no actual clue about what we are arguing here....and are too mich of an arrogant fool to realize that that article not only substantiates the argument I made but also substantiates the entire post I made.

thanks for that

[The Feral Underclass]

When someone says that prostitution "wouldn't be a thing if it weren't for capitalism", then it is perfectly relevant and reasonable to point out that prostitution is a "thing" despite capitalism. I responded to what Looney Le Fist actually said, rather than what Rafiq wants him to have said.

[Rafiq]

Paradoxically, it’s the countries with the most straitlaced and sexually conservative societies, such as India, Pakistan and Iran, that have disproportionately large numbers of forced prostitutes

Is this what you're talking about? What the fuck is your point? Are most states within capitalism as sexually progressive as they are in western/northern Europe? A handful of fucking countries which also have shockingly high cases of forced prostitution too (for "sexually progressive" countries, that is)? And WHEN THE FUCK did this turn into an argument about sexual conservatism or any kind of support for it? Stop projecting your own ideological insecurities on me. Like what the fuck is it? Does my near-eastern facade somehow compel you to deduce conclusions about my views on sexuality?

[Rafiq]

When someone says that prostitution "wouldn't be a thing if it weren't for capitalism", then it is perfectly relevant and reasonable to point out that prostitution is a "thing" despite capitalism.

You are precisely wrong. Prostitution as it pertains to the conversation is not a "thing" despite capitalism - even our perception of previous historical epochs is deduced solely by the conditions of capitalism. This conversation isn't about prostitution as some abstract moral concept perceived as timeless - if it was, there wouldn't be any arguments over legalization or not. This isn't even in the philosophy forum, either.

[Rafiq]

Because I know quite a few sexworkers, their organizations and what they say...and the phenomenon of forced prostitution is not something that dominates to such an extend that you can speak of "most of the time".


So 89% is not 'most of the time', then. What is most of the time for you? 99%?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I feel as though there is no point trying to have a debate with some people, because actually it's just not helpful to weigh in with ad hominem attacks, mixed in with layers of emboldened, capitalised text laced with profanity.

Prostitution has existed, in the form of 'use of the body for sexual purposes' being exchanged for some sort of tangible good, product, or thing (i.e. a form of 'currency'), before capitalism. It is not un-feasible that it would continue in a hypothetical post-class society, too. The issue is whether it should be legalised, and in what specific form it should be allowed to take. Can prostitution exist within a legal and an acceptable ethical framework?

[PhoenixAsh]

When you post an article which explicitly proves the argument you are arguino against as evidence that that argument was wrong then:

1). You made a booboo
2). You didn't actually read the arguments made in the context of the debate subject.
3). You didn't actually read the article, understand the article or know what the article proposes.

The rest becomes then irrelevant

[Rafiq]

When you post an article which explicitly proves the argument you are arguino against as evidence that that argument was wrong then:

1). You made a booboo
2). You didn't actually read the arguments made in the context of the debate subject.
3). You didn't actually read the article, understand the article or know what the article proposes.

The rest becomes then irrelevant

Can you please elaborate on what the fuck you're talking about? What argument?

Just what the fuck are you even talking about?

[The Feral Underclass]

I have no interest in whether prostitution should be legalised beyond accepting whatever demand sex workers have on the issue -- which is legalisation incidentally. As a principle, I don't seek statist solutions to social problems.

Prostitution as a service has existed for millennia. That's not disputable. The context for that service is irrelevant to that point. Looney Le Fist attempted to claim that prostitution would not be a "thing" if it weren't for capitalism. That is not true and I said so.

[The Feral Underclass]

I no longer feel deserving of such high praise as Rudest Person on RevLeft.

[Rafiq]

It is not un-feasible that it would continue in a hypothetical post-class society, too.

It is completely unfeasible. Prostitution is the highest manifestation of constrains on sexual freedom. Sex cannot be free if it is bought. Yes the struggle for survival has always existed - but there is no evidence of any prostitution ever existing before class society. The very fact that something like sex can be categorized as a good to be traded or bartered is evident of sex being conformed to the logic of property - more specifically female sexuality. I mean, you say this with absolutely nothing to base yourself on - even in the old Soviet Union as well as many former Communist states, prostitution wasn't nearly as popular and was waning in prevalence (with exceptions, i.e. the introduction of market-based reforms likely led to an increase)


In the Soviet Union it was different, probably because everyone was poor and had sex without giving it a second thought.
This is why there was less prostitution. It was an era when everything was free, which could not help but spill over into sex. Why pay a prostitute when you could just go out and dance?

[...]But few people went to prostitutes. Using the services of a prostitute was like paying for drinking water when it was available for free at any water fountain. There were plenty of girls who were willing to indulge in the joys of sex for free.

http://rbth.com/society/2013/09/30/sex_in_the_soviet_union_myths_and_mores_30325.html

[Rafiq]

Looney Le Fist attempted to claim that prostitution would not be a "thing" if it weren't for capitalism. That is not true and I said so.

And he's perfectly reasonable. Because he isn't talking about prostitution abstractly, or capitalism abstractly for that matter. He's talking about the condition of the abolition of capitalism within our existing circumstances, petinent to the discussion. Most marxists recognize a different class society cannot replace capitalism. I would expect Loony believes this as well. As such, you cannot roll back the wheels of time - prostitution as it exits would not exist if not for capitalism, just as oppression would not exist if not for capitalism. Because this is the point of reference for our EXISTING struggle. The possibility of the destruction of capitalism has been made possible by the EMERGENCE of capitalism - the conditions for emancipation ALREADY EXIST because they are POSSIBLE. This is why arguments about how egalitarians are in vain because class society has existed for so long is NONSENSE - because capitalism has created a completely clean slate, just as any historical epoch does. We learn from history that no one learns anything from history - Hegel meant more to this than some kind of cheeky side-remark. it is powerful.

[The Feral Underclass]

Rafiq hasn't read the thread. What a surprise.

[Rafiq]

Rafiq hasn't read the thread. What a surprise.

Actually I've been keeping up with this thread the whole time... In utter disgust. These last bits were really the last fucking straw for me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Actually I've been keeping up with this thread the whole time... In utter disgust. These last bits were really the last fucking straw for me.

The issue of sex services/prostitution in a post-capitalist society have already been discussed. And no one cares about how outraged you are.

[Rafiq]

As expected, what a pathetic double standard. You levy personal attacks on me, "Hur dur rafiq hasn't read the thread" and when I respond, "no one cares".

You can't do shit on this forum without being fucked either way. It's absolutely infantile, this logic. Like did you think Loony was talking about turning back the wheels of time when he sais "prostitution wouldn't exist if not for capitalism"? What COULD he have been talking about, in pertinence to the discussion, besides the abolition of capitalism? Most people don't think that a new class society can replace capitalism. It's common sense.

So where's the time machine that would make your response relevant? Stop ass covering. Admit what you said was fucking stupid and move the fuck on.

[The Feral Underclass]

You think someone pointing out that you haven't read a thread and stating that no one cares about how outraged you are is a "personal attack"? Doesn't that strike you as a little narcissistic?

[cyu]

Reminds me of this thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/rape-consent-and-t104960/index.html (trigger warning: rape). Prostitution under capitalism is no more a free choice than wage slavery is free choice. While it's true that some tasks under capitalism are more pleasant that others, it is also true that while a house slave may live better than a field slave, they are both still slaves.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

^^Slavery has nothing to do with the specific form of social relations that is unique to capitalism. In fact, slavery is the antithesis to capitalism, because it inhibits the very exchange of labour power in exchange for a wage that is fundamental to capitalism's existence.

Given the lingering issue of forced prostitution (particularly, for example, with the trafficking of women/children to be used as sex 'slaves' from certain countries to NW Europe), it is interesting that some people still claim that prostitution cannot exist without capitalism, when even under capitalism you have evidence within the sex trade of non-capitalistic social relations being retained, even after centuries of capitalism's existence.

[Teacher]

The arguments being made in this thread in favor of prostitution reek of male entitlement and right-wing "libertarian" ideas about individual freedom. I would not be surprised if all the people defending it in here were sexually repressed young males. Male and female attitudes on this issue are extremely divergent.

I've never been with a prostitute, but I used to go to a lot of strip clubs when I was younger and knew many women who were in the sex industry. It is a fucking cesspool and I would venture that 99 out of 100 of them hated doing it. Most were addicted to drugs. The tiny few who claimed to enjoy it were typically victims of sexual abuse (either as children or currently) who seemed to use nymphomania as some kind of defense mechanism.

I'm not saying it should be "illegal." I suspect that a communist society would deal with prostitution rather like it would deal with drug use and other social ills.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The arguments being made in this thread in favor of prostitution reek of male entitlement and right-wing "libertarian" ideas about individual freedom. I would not be surprised if all the people defending it in here were sexually repressed young males. Male and female attitudes on this issue are extremely divergent.

I've never been with a prostitute, but I used to go to a lot of strip clubs when I was younger and knew many women who were in the sex industry. It is a fucking cesspool and I would venture that 99 out of 100 of them hated doing it. Most were addicted to drugs. The tiny few who claimed to enjoy it were typically victims of sexual abuse (either as children or currently) who seemed to use nymphomania as some kind of defense mechanism.

I'm not saying it should be "illegal." I suspect that a communist society would deal with prostitution rather like it would deal with drug use and other social ills.

You do realise that the central 'good' on sale in the sex trade is sex, right? I say this because you seem to be confusing 'sex' with 'other social ills' like 'drug use'.

Which is of further interest because you assume that 'drug use' is a blanket term for something that is morally wrong, which is curious when drugs such as caffeine, aspirin, ginseng, vitamin C and, yes, even weed, have been shown to have strong health properties.

What you are in effect doing is throwing a moral blanket over things that make you uncomfortable, rather than having a conversation based on fact or evidence. So what I would do with your barb about "sexually repressed young males" is just throw that back in your face, because you seem uncomfortable with the base notion of sex, if you are comparing aspects of it to drug use and declaring them both 'bad'.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am no more in favour of prostitution than I am of bakery or construction or teaching. It is a job. Sometimes workers in that job experience really shitty conditions and get paid very little, other times they are able to set their own conditions and be paid large amounts of money. The sex industry is an industry like any industry. No one here is in favour of prostitution any more than they are in favour of any job that exists under capitalism -- we just think that sex workers, like all workers, should have protections and rights. We also recognise that in a communist society there may very well be a place for sex services that people both want to have and give, and there is nothing wrong with that.


I'm not saying it should be "illegal." I suspect that a communist society would deal with prostitution rather like it would deal with drug use and other social ills.

Fuck off back to Victorian Britain, Mr Gladstone.

[Sasha]

Lol at the moralists acussing people with a realistic outlook on prostitution as male entitled young johns to be while a quick glance shows me most of them are actually the older users and more often than not queer at that.

[Sasha]

Fuck off back to Victorian Britain, Mr Gladstone.

He would be in for a shocker, chock full of brothels and opiumdens that time was.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

He would be in for a shocker, chock full of brothels and opiumdens that time was.

Dan Cruickshank (yes I know for a historian I have a bad habit of promoting non-professional books) wrote a book on the sex trade in Georgian London and worked out that something like 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 women in Georgian London worked in the sex trade. Mind-boggling.

[The Feral Underclass]

Didn't Bill Gladstone walk the streets of London when he was PM trying to reform "fallen" women?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Didn't Bill Gladstone walk the streets of London when he was PM trying to reform "fallen" women?

http://www.historytoday.com/trevor-fisher/sex-and-mr-gladstone

[PhoenixAsh]

80-20 is the world wide prostitution ratio female-to-male with the number of men steadily increasing in some regions.

Of the 42 million estimated prostitutes 17 million are forced into the trade. This is a huge amount. But it is not in any way shape or form "most of the time".

Notice that there is a huge difference between "being forced into prostitution" and "getting raped as a prostitute".

Also notice that this debate is about consentual prostitution and whether or not this consentual prostitution should be legal. Unfailingly any debate about consentual prostitution is pushed towards the domain of forced prostitution...because...reasons.

60% of the world human trafficking originates from Eastern Europe...incidentally all countries with ridiculously high criminalization of prostitution.

Prostitute advocacy groups, rights organizations, activists, unions the world over...argue for legalization, the combatting of moralistic stereotyping, and the moral crusades against prostitution.

There is an argument against legalization and that is that the flow of human trafficking of people for the sex industry diverts to countries with legalized prostitution. This is a non argument however since the reverse fact is that the criminalization of prostitution increases the trafficking of people for the sex industry towards countries with legalized prostitution.

Legalization has proven to improve the safety, health and workplace of prostitutes and sex workers who work in the trade on a consentual basis and reduce the influence of and dependency on pimps, brothel owners etc.

[consuming negativity]

what is prostitution? it is the act of engaging in sexual behavior for some sort of payment; usually money. in a society where there is no such thing as being paid or working 9 to 5, how could prostitution exist? how could any profession exist as it does under capitalism?

sure, there will probably, even in relatively advanced societies, be demand from people who are somehow undesirable as sex partners who would like to have sex with someone who is way out of their league. in the same way there will be demand for people with medical knowledge or the ability to fix things.

but the question here is really "would sex work exist post-capitalism"? not "should we legalize prostitution (lol, who is we?), not "will prostitution exist?" (it can't), but will this form of work - namely, sex work - continue to exist in a post-capitalist society? and i think the answer to that is probably yes, with the caveat that i don't think the "sex industry" will be nearly as large a part of our economic activities. a lot of the demand for prostitution is actually a product of class society. no time for a real relationship because you're too busy at work? not stable economically? not stable mentally? just inadequate socially and down on your luck? i mean really, the idea of "well, why would you go get a professional to do it when you can just hook up with someone" is something that i feel is ignored. there is demand for sex work for a reason and until we adequately determine what this reasoning is i feel like these threads can only be useless.

[cyu]

Of the 42 million estimated prostitutes 17 million are forced into the trade. This is a huge amount. But it is not in any way shape or form "most of the time".

When poor people work for a capitalist, are they forced to work for a capitalist? Can't they just be an entrepreneur instead?

[Loony Le Fist]

Prostitution pre-dates capitalism by about 4000 years.

Yeah--if you want to get all technical and argue about that minutiae shit, but who would sell themselves like that if the basics are provided for? That's kinda my point.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yeah--if you want to get all technical and argue about that minutiae shit

You mean the facts?


, but who would sell themselves like that if the basics are provided for? That's kinda my point.

Many people.

[jullia]

Lol at the moralists acussing people with a realistic outlook on prostitution as male entitled young johns to be while a quick glance shows me most of them are actually the older users and more often than not queer at that.

It have never been a question of sex moral. You bring moral in the discussion to avoid talking about the real problem.

By nature prostitution is an oppression. So why are you defending this oppression and fight againstthe other? Because in this case, you get a form of retribution?

[The Feral Underclass]

It have never been a question of sex moral. You bring moral in the discussion to avoid talking about the real problem.

By nature prostitution is an oppression. So why are you defending this oppression and fight againstthe other? Because in this case, you get a form of retribution?

Why is the oppressive nature of prostitution any more oppressive than any other form of wage-slavery?

[cyu]

Trying to deconstruct the thing here...

1. Society tells you X is shameful. If you want to do X, but society tries to destroy your self-esteem for doing X, then it is oppression.

2. You don't want to do X, but capitalism forces you to do X to survive. Even if society glorifies X, the fact that you are forced to do it regardless of how you feel, is a form of oppression.

If you combine 1 and 2, then it is a form of double-oppression (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Oppression_Olympics). Are prostitutes more oppressed than coal miners? Hard to say. Are prostitutes more oppressed than politicians who have to spend 24/7 raising campaign funds to keep their jobs? Until society glorifies sexual prostitutes and denigrates political prostitutes, then yes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Trying to deconstruct the thing here...

1. Society tells you X is shameful. If you want to do X, but society tries to destroy your self-esteem for doing X, then it is oppression.

2. You don't want to do X, but capitalism forces you to do X to survive. Even if society glorifies X, the fact that you are forced to do it regardless of how you feel, is a form of oppression.

If you combine 1 and 2, then it is a form of double-oppression (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Oppression_Olympics). Are prostitutes more oppressed than coal miners? Hard to say. Are prostitutes more oppressed than politicians who have to spend 24/7 raising campaign funds to keep their jobs? Until society glorifies sexual prostitutes and denigrates political prostitutes, then yes.

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're trying to say.

[jullia]

Why is the oppressive nature of prostitution any more oppressive than any other form of wage-slavery?

Because prostitution go with physical and psychological traumas.

Again your question is very funny (to not say it's a shame). Everybody agree to the oppressive form of wage-slavery but prostitution is ok...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=jullia;2812235]Because prostitution go with physical and psychological traumas.

As opposed to the non-physical, non-psychological trauma of working in a factory, or a call centre, or in a field. This argument has no factual basis. Prostitution is no more physically harmful than many other dangerous, under-paid, over-worked jobs in capitalism.


Again your question is very funny (to not say it's a shame). Everybody agree to the oppressive form of wage-slavery but prostitution is ok...

If you read what TFU has being saying in this thread, it's not that prostitution is ok, it's that prostitution is just another form of wage-slavery, not some special moral evil.

[cyu]

It just occurred to me that maybe the best way to tell the difference between a girl and GuyInRealLife on this board, is to gauge their reactions to things like prostitution, rape, and GamerGate.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because prostitution go with physical and psychological traumas.

Plenty of jobs have physical and psychological traumas. Working down a coal mine, working in an emergency room, being a fire rescuer, being a soldier etcetera. That's aside from the fact that this generalisation is not true for a large section of the sex industry. Why is sex work any more traumatic than working in coal mine or being a fire rescuer?


Again your question is very funny (to not say it's a shame). Everybody agree to the oppressive form of wage-slavery but prostitution is ok...

In what sense have people said prostitution is "ok"? All that has been argued is that sex workers in a capitalist society should be given legal protections and should be free from state persecution, and that it would be acceptable for sex services to exist in a communist society if that's what some people wanted to do. Can you explain to me what is objectionable about that view?

[cyu]

All that has been argued is that sex workers in a capitalist society should be given legal protections and should be free from state persecution, and that it would be acceptable for sex services to exist in a communist society if that's what some people wanted to do.
If there was a slave society, and we were passing laws that prevented slave owners from raping and whipping their slaves, that's all fine and good. If there was a wage slave society, and we were passing laws that doubled the minimum wage, that's all fine and good. If cops regularly killed poor people, and we added citizen review boards to police departments or added union representatives to corporate boards of directors, that's all fine and good. If people were driven homeless by capitalism, and we fed them a lot of soup at increasing numbers of homeless shelters, that's all fine and good. If women were regularly beaten by their husbands, and we built 50% more women's shelters, that's all fine and good. If governments regularly spied on their people, and we increased funding for FISA courts, that's all fine and good. If the CIA regularly hunted down and killed investigative journalists, and we sent them a memo saying, "No, no, you're being naughty", that's all fine and good.

[The Feral Underclass]

It just occurred to me that maybe the best way to tell the difference between a girl and GuyInRealLife on this board, is to gauge their reactions to things like prostitution, rape, and GamerGate.

Do you actually know any sex workers?

[The Feral Underclass]

If there was a slave society, and we were passing laws that prevented slave owners from raping and whipping their slaves, that's all fine and good. If there was a wage slave society, and we were passing laws that doubled the minimum wage, that's all fine and good. If cops regularly killed poor people, and we added citizen review boards to police departments or added union representatives to corporate boards of directors, that's all fine and good. If people were driven homeless by capitalism, and we fed them a lot of soup at increasing numbers of homeless shelters, that's all fine and good. If women were regularly beaten by their husbands, and we built 50% more women's shelters, that's all fine and good. If governments regularly spied on their people, and we increased funding for FISA courts, that's all fine and good. If the CIA regularly hunted down and killed investigative journalists, and we sent them a memo saying, "No, no, you're being naughty", that's all fine and good.

I think you need to take a step back from this discussion. You're not making any sense. (http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/122/3/a/what_the_fuck__by_stevesjobes-d4yckx9.jpg)

[The Feral Underclass]

I think the issue here is that there are two fundamentally different interpretations of sex work. Most people here don't really have any clue what sex work is in a general sense, their definition of it comes from the more sensational news stories and media stereotypes that create a caricature of prostitution as being invariably some hideous and sinister enterprise. On the other hand there are people who actually have experience with the sex industry and sex workers (not as Johns) who understand that for them it is simply a job in an industry that is just like any other industry.

Of course, those sections of the sex industry that involve slavery and forced participation should be opposed, just like any slavery or forced participation in anything should be opposed. But that view doesn't account for the vast majority of the sex industry in which that caricature is not a reality.

[Sasha]

I think you need to take a step back from this discussion. You're not making any sense. (http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/122/3/a/what_the_fuck__by_stevesjobes-d4yckx9.jpg)


Its Cyu, he never made any sense to begin with and all the conspiracy new-age crap he reads makes it worse.

[RedWorker]

The arguments being made in this thread in favor of prostitution reek of male entitlement and right-wing "libertarian" ideas about individual freedom. I would not be surprised if all the people defending it in here were sexually repressed young males. Male and female attitudes on this issue are extremely divergent.

Looks like what a conservative or other right-winger would say.


I would venture that 99 out of 100 of them hated doing it.

No shit, isn't that what we're talking about?

[RedWorker]

Sex work is more harmful than other types of work, and sex work is forced. In a vacuum it may not be like that, but sex work within capitalist society is different. Even if every kind of wage-labor is somewhat forced; people would much rather do something else, but are forced to prostitute themselves. And for people, who are forced to prostitute themselves, i.e. prostitutes in general, this kind of work is much more harmful than other kinds of work.

Sex work is to be understood as a condition within capitalism, not as the 3 or 4 guys who would go to the street then unconditionally have sex with everyone on demand in exchange for nothing in communist society (which can already be done now but nobody does - guess why), which is a completely different phenomena.

Analyzing sex work in a vacuum should only be used in reply to moralist arguments. Analyzing sex work within capitalist society is what it should be about in any other case.

[Redistribute the Rep]

80-20 is the world wide prostitution ratio female-to-male with the number of men steadily increasing in some regions.

Of the 42 million estimated prostitutes 17 million are forced into the trade. This is a huge amount. But it is not in any way shape or form "most of the time".

Notice that there is a huge difference between "being forced into prostitution" and "getting raped as a prostitute".

Also notice that this debate is about consentual prostitution and whether or not this consentual prostitution should be legal. Unfailingly any debate about consentual prostitution is pushed towards the domain of forced prostitution...because...reasons.

Im really not impressed whenever somebody describes their opponents argument as "reasons." It's just lazy and pathetic. The reasons have been given to you. This debate is about prostitution, and it does nothing to view anything, including prositution, "in a vacuum" so to speak. You mentioned yourself that 17 million out 42 million prostitutes are forced, and some women take issue with this. Sorry we ruined what looks to be an almost exclusively male thread by pushing the debate towards... Reality and context.



60% of the world human trafficking originates from Eastern Europe...incidentally all countries with ridiculously high criminalization of prostitution.

Prostitute advocacy groups, rights organizations, activists, unions the world over...argue for legalization, the combatting of moralistic stereotyping, and the moral crusades against prostitution.

There is an argument against legalization and that is that the flow of human trafficking of people for the sex industry diverts to countries with legalized prostitution. This is a non argument however since the reverse fact is that the criminalization of prostitution increases the trafficking of people for the sex industry towards countries with legalized prostitution.

Legalization has proven to improve the safety, health and workplace of prostitutes and sex workers who work in the trade on a consentual basis and reduce the influence of and dependency on pimps, brothel owners etc.

You'll notice that the vast majority of users voted 'yes' in the poll to legalization, and this all has already been said. Kind of beating a dead horse, don't you think?

[human strike]

A couple of relevant questions: When is sex not work? What exactly is 'sex' and why do we have a concept of it as distinct from other forms of social and libidinal human activity?

Every day millions of housewives have sex with their husbands and in return they receive certain material compensations. Is this sex not a form of work? These husbands in turn use the sex their wives provide them as a means of relaxation before returning to the workplace, as part of the process of reproducing themselves as workers. Is this sex then not a form of necessary reproductive labour? Is the next generation of workers also not born unless this sex happens? How can we say then that it is not sex work?

Furthermore, where is the boundary between sex and not-sex? Where does sex actually begin? I think anyone who has had any exposure to BDSM can see that this isn't as silly a question as it might initially seem. Why do we even have this idea of 'sex' when its boundaries are so ill-defined? What social purpose does it serve? I argue that it serves as a method of policing and social control. Without the construct of 'sex' it becomes impossible to police gender and sexuality and we would relate to each other in a radically different - and I claim better - way.

For me it's not a question of abolishing sex work, but of abolishing sex and work.

[jullia]

No shit, isn't that what we're talking about?

No.
The majority of people argue that prostitutes are consentants and enjoy theirs works. That forced prostitution is minority phenomen. And that prostitution is less harmfull and less oppressive that other type of job.

[cyu]

the 3 or 4 guys who would go to the street then unconditionally have sex with everyone on demand in exchange for nothing in communist society (which can already be done now but nobody does - guess why)


An important question to answer I think.

This isn't to say that oppressed people should be made to feel ashamed of themselves. It's not like you walk on to a cotton plantation and tell the slaves, "Haha, I can't believe you idiots let yourselves be enslaved." If anything, the point is to make the oppressed happier, and frustrate attempts by oppressors to declare themselves happy.

But it isn't just about a cultural change to make the oppressed feel psychologically happier. That does need to happen, of course - there's no point in being a revolutionary if you're not trying to make others happy - but we're not trying to become a perfect opiate of the masses. Sure, psychological happiness is one goal, but if we're not also trying to end the physical and systemic conditions of oppression, then we're just becoming opiates ourselves.

[bricolage]

No.
The majority of people argue that prostitutes are consentants and enjoy theirs works. That forced prostitution is minority phenomen. And that prostitution is less harmfull and less oppressive that other type of job.
But I think the problem is that this is always spoke about in terms of absolute opposites where sex workers are either all trafficked and enslaved or sex workers all love their jobs and make shit loads of money. Whereas these two extremes do exist, for the majority it's much more mundane and, like lots of people, they neither love nor hate their job but just see it as that - a job.

[The Feral Underclass]

No.
The majority of people argue that prostitutes are consentants and enjoy theirs works. That forced prostitution is minority phenomen. And that prostitution is less harmfull and less oppressive that other type of job.

No one has said it's less harmful or less oppressive, only that it is no more harmful or oppressive than any other work. All work is exploitative, by its nature. Prostitutes don't consent to being prostitutes in the same way as a factory worker doesn't consent to being a factory worker. They do those jobs because they have to -- because it's a job.

[consuming negativity]

it's not a difference between the opinions of men and women; there are as many women ITT on either side, and to frame things otherwise is just fallacious

the difference here is that one side of the debate thinks their anecdotal evidence from knowing a sex worker or two makes them experts on an issue that affects millions of people around the world; and they assume that the rest of us have never been sex workers or known any, because they, like the people above, are using shitty fallacious arguments to try to seem authoritative

if anecdotal evidence of the "do you even know prostitutes" type was drawn out in any other thread, the people would be laughed out of it and told to stop being capitalist apologists

if someone brought out anecdotal evidence against, say, a black person, they would rightfully be labeled reactionary and be restricted

but for some reason we tolerate that shit in these discussions.

well, it's a bunch of bullshit if you ask me, and to say that the status quo of privileged white prostitution in western capitalist countries is the average experience of persons who engage in prostitution around the world is to have your head in the fucking sand and to ignore the fact that there is a rest of the world

"oh, but sex work isn't just prostitution! strippers are sex workers, phone sex operators are sex workers..."

yeah and it doesn't matter what type of sex work we're talking about your "evidence" is still bullshit in the face of real statistics.

[Creative Destruction]

^^Slavery has nothing to do with the specific form of social relations that is unique to capitalism. In fact, slavery is the antithesis to capitalism, because it inhibits the very exchange of labour power in exchange for a wage that is fundamental to capitalism's existence.

:unsure: Are you talking about slavery as a dominant mode of production, or the institution and act of slavery itself? As a mode of production, yes, it's the antithesis of capitalism. But as it existing itself, it exists comfortably within capitalism, and is a tool wield by capitalists around the world (we are at a point where slavery -- not just sex slavery -- is at its highest point ever, despite being illegal in all countries.)

[Rafiq]

Given the lingering issue of forced prostitution (particularly, for example, with the trafficking of women/children to be used as sex 'slaves' from certain countries to NW Europe), it is interesting that some people still claim that prostitution cannot exist without capitalism, when even under capitalism you have evidence within the sex trade of non-capitalistic social relations being retained, even after centuries of capitalism's existence.

Except Marxists reorganize capitalism as a totality, not a mode of production in which relations to production separate from it are able to thrive while at the same time depending on its existence. Human trafficking and slavery in its current form is especially unique to capitalism and indeed would not exist without it. The only thing that's shocking is how you designate the sex trade to take the form of "non-capitalist relations". All this demonstrates is the utter poverty of your understanding of the scope of capitalist relations. Again, sex trafficking is exemplary of not only the conditions of wage-labor relations in its most brutish form, but uniquely of capitalist sexual relations.

It is appalling that a self-declared Marxist would conduct themselves in this manner - to prattle of "non-capitalist" relations to production regarding a phenomena which absolutely depends on the conditions of capitalist relations to production. In your mind, the sex trade is simply a marginal, "outside" force consequential of... Human nature? We can never know.


I am no more in favour of prostitution than I am of bakery or construction or teaching. It is a job. Sometimes workers in that job experience really shitty conditions and get paid very little, other times they are able to set their own conditions and be paid large amounts of money. The sex industry is an industry like any industry.

What cack. The sex industry is certainly unique. When we speak of a mode of production, we speak of the conditions of the reproduction of life itself. If we recognize the necessity of capitalism to regulate and control the sexual reproduction of life and sexual relations, we must also recognize that the sexual industry takes a unique form actively perpetuating this. The problem is that you, and Phoenix have this idea that capitalism is predisposed to social conservatism. We aren't living in the early 20th century - we live in an era of post-68 consumerist hedonism. I don't know how old you two are, but we aren't living in the counter-culture anymore. It's pleasant to think about fighting the old conservative capitalist square, but this simply isn't exemplary of our conditions today. Capitalism necessarily perpetuates the sexual slavery of women, but these relations of domination are not nearly as direct as they were before... JUST AS ALL relations of domination are not. Women's sexual freedom is deprived through the illusion of sexual freedom itself.

Under your logic, feminism shouldn't even exist at all. After all, the oppression of women is absolutely the same as all other forms of oppression - right? Wrong. Prostitution should indeed be uniquely condemned and attacked, but the means by which it can be attacked cannot be done through the criminalization of prostitutes or through conservative, religious reaction. But let's play the devil's advocate. Let's say that prostitution is indeed the same as any other form of wage-labor. If we recognize wage-labor as wage-slavery, then we must also recognize prostitution as a form of wage-slavery. This would categorize prostitution as rape - because you can't pick and choose exceptions out of yoru ass! It doesn't matter how many prostitutes who are happy with their job you know, it doesn't matter how independent they appear or how safe the environment is - it would be categorized as rape. So don't fucking tell me prostitution is the same as any other form of wage-labor, because EVEN YOU are making exceptions here!


80-20 is the world wide prostitution ratio female-to-male with the number of men steadily increasing in some regions.

Of the 42 million estimated prostitutes 17 million are forced into the trade. This is a huge amount. But it is not in any way shape or form "most of the time".


Can you provide a source for this? Not that I call bullshit just yet. I don't know what the fuck you're trying to argue - even you admitted that prostitution is gendered.

[Rafiq]

To be clear: the implications here in their immediate form seem to be IRRELEVANT for now, being that no one is arguing that prostitutes should face harassment or scrutiny by the state. The point is that the nature of the issue must be made clear.

[human strike]

What cack. The sex industry is certainly unique. When we speak of a mode of production, we speak of the conditions of the reproduction of life itself. If we recognize the necessity of capitalism to regulate and control the sexual reproduction of life and sexual relations, we must also recognize that the sexual industry takes a unique form actively perpetuating this. The problem is that you, and Phoenix have this idea that capitalism is predisposed to social conservatism. We aren't living in the early 20th century - we live in an era of post-68 consumerist hedonism. I don't know how old you two are, but we aren't living in the counter-culture anymore. It's pleasant to think about fighting the old conservative capitalist square, but this simply isn't exemplary of our conditions today. Capitalism necessarily perpetuates the sexual slavery of women, but these relations of domination are not nearly as direct as they were before... JUST AS ALL relations of domination are not. Women's sexual freedom is deprived through the illusion of sexual freedom itself.

Under your logic, feminism shouldn't even exist at all. After all, the oppression of women is absolutely the same as all other forms of oppression - right? Wrong. Prostitution should indeed be uniquely condemned and attacked, but the means by which it can be attacked cannot be done through the criminalization of prostitutes or through conservative, religious reaction. But let's play the devil's advocate. Let's say that prostitution is indeed the same as any other form of wage-labor. If we recognize wage-labor as wage-slavery, then we must also recognize prostitution as a form of wage-slavery. This would categorize prostitution as rape - because you can't pick and choose exceptions out of yoru ass! It doesn't matter how many prostitutes who are happy with their job you know, it doesn't matter how independent they appear or how safe the environment is - it would be categorized as rape. So don't fucking tell me prostitution is the same as any other form of wage-labor, because EVEN YOU are making exceptions here!

Say if we accept what you say here (which I might), what practical difference does it make? How does this affect how we might treat sex work?

EDIT: Missed your following post. So you're saying it makes no practical difference?

[Rafiq]

EDIT: Missed your following post. So you're saying it makes no practical difference?

It makes a difference because we're talking about the definitive character of the struggle. And it is pertinent to a wide array of other positions which would be different. We're on an internet forum, and we don't have time to play this stupid pragmatic game. Theory is indeed relevant. Supporting something for the wrong reason is dangerous and no theoretical unity can be shared simply because support is granted - intent, reason is of absolute importance.

If this were parliament, maybe it would be different. But it's not, it's a discussion board where none of our posts will affect anything. I love it though. I love how everyone's so confused that I don't abide by their infantile caricature, after all. Theory is the only real game in town, everything else is drivel.

[The Feral Underclass]

What cack. The sex industry is certainly unique. When we speak of a mode of production, we speak of the conditions of the reproduction of life itself. If we recognize the necessity of capitalism to regulate and control the sexual reproduction of life and sexual relations, we must also recognize that the sexual industry takes a unique form actively perpetuating this.

There are plenty of jobs that are forms of wage-labour that specifically oppress women. Accepting that prostitution plays a unique role in the perpetuation or regulation of certain aspects of capitalist society and accepting that the purpose of work in one job is not different to that of another are not mutually exclusive. Yes, prostitution, along with modelling, women's magazines, the marriage industry actively perpetuate "the sexual reproduction of life and sexual relations" in a capitalist society, but the function of working as a prostitute or as a model or as a body-image columnist are not different. They are done for a wage.


The problem is that you, and Phoenix have this idea that capitalism is predisposed to social conservatism. We aren't living in the early 20th century - we live in an era of post-68 consumerist hedonism. I don't know how old you two are, but we aren't living in the counter-culture anymore. It's pleasant to think about fighting the old conservative capitalist square, but this simply isn't exemplary of our conditions today. Capitalism necessarily perpetuates the sexual slavery of women, but these relations of domination are not nearly as direct as they were before... JUST AS ALL relations of domination are not. Women's sexual freedom is deprived through the illusion of sexual freedom itself.

I don't see how any of this relates to my argument.


Under your logic, feminism shouldn't even exist at all. After all, the oppression of women is absolutely the same as all other forms of oppression - right? Wrong. Prostitution should indeed be uniquely condemned and attacked, but the means by which it can be attacked cannot be done through the criminalization of prostitutes or through conservative, religious reaction. But let's play the devil's advocate. Let's say that prostitution is indeed the same as any other form of wage-labor. If we recognize wage-labor as wage-slavery, then we must also recognize prostitution as a form of wage-slavery. This would categorize prostitution as rape - because you can't pick and choose exceptions out of yoru ass! It doesn't matter how many prostitutes who are happy with their job you know, it doesn't matter how independent they appear or how safe the environment is - it would be categorized as rape. So don't fucking tell me prostitution is the same as any other form of wage-labor, because EVEN YOU are making exceptions here!

Prostitution is the same as any other form of wage labour...So...

How you have come to the conclusion that my logic means feminism shouldn't exist is beyond me and you don't actually explain your view (as per usual). Acknowledging that prostitution is a form of work just like working in a factory does not deny the necessity for feminism. The oppression of women is not the same as other forms of oppression, I agree, but that doesn't mean the job of being a prostitute, which is to earn a wage, is any different to the job of being a factory worker, which is also to earn a wage.

I don't have a problem with you calling prostitution rape. It's technically correct I suppose, although the exploitative nature of wage-labour is fundamentally different to the exploitative nature of forcing sex upon someone who has specifically said no. The exploitation of labour is something unique and using terms like "rape" simply because a specific form of exploited labour relates to sex is misleading and simplistic at best if not an outright incoherent. Yes, someone being forced into the job of having sex with people they don't necessarily want to have sex with just to earn money is technically rape, but that definition doesn't adequately account for the complexities and dynamics of capitalist economics and doesn't really serve any function except to appeal to someone's emotions...It also doesn't alter the nature of prostitution as wage-labour.

[PhoenixAsh]

Im really not impressed whenever somebody describes their opponents argument as "reasons." It's just lazy and pathetic. The reasons have been given to you. This debate is about prostitution, and it does nothing to view anything, including prositution, "in a vacuum" so to speak. You mentioned yourself that 17 million out 42 million prostitutes are forced, and some women take issue with this. Sorry we ruined what looks to be an almost exclusively male thread by pushing the debate towards... Reality and context.

You know. I don't actually give a flying fuck whether you are impressed or not since I basically don't give a fuck about what you think. Maybe harsh...but I just want to push this towards reality and context. So there you go.

You know what I find pathetic....is that discussions about prostitution is ultimately pushed by people with a moralistic conservative agenda based on the predisposition to regulate female sexuality and reduce women to either saints, victims or whores outside of the scopes we are actually debating. The use of the word "reasons"was to not have to say that we are dealing with a bunch of closet petit-bourgeois sexist moralistic white knights who have not actually worked in, worked with or know any actual sex workers.

So no...it is not lazy. It is getting really fucking tired with some people's madonna whore complex.

Now I also find it sad and pathetic that some people feel the need to talk about "reality and context" when, female or not, they are shifting the debate itself from the subject of consentual prostitution to some issue which is not even in dispute about rape and forced prostitution in order to
derail the actual debate, cast suspisions about the motives of proponents of the protection of prostitutes and legalization and legal protection. In other words...those who actually take the position of all the sex worker unions, advocacy groups and organizations.

So no.



You'll notice that the vast majority of users voted 'yes' in the poll to legalization, and this all has already been said. Kind of beating a dead horse, don't you think?

Go follow the actual thread.

[Redistribute the Rep]

it's not a difference between the opinions of men and women; there are as many women ITT on either side, and to frame things otherwise is just fallacious

While there are women on both sides, That's not to say this isn't a gendered topic. Much of this thread is from a male perspective, some of us can't relate to posts like these:


sex work is certainly a skilled profession, like with gasfitting you get what you pay for, sure you can get it cheaply done by some untrained illegal who is willing to forgo your and their safety to drop the price but chances are you'll end up with a leaky pipe.

Pheonixash tried to silence women who took issue with the more dangerous and oppressive aspects of prostitution and told them to stay on this topic. Well that's nice that as males some of you have the privilege of seeing prostitution only from the buyers side in a western country and can ignore everything else. But some of us have more important issues to discuss than the cost and quality of our prostitutes (even the unsafe immigrants? Really the above comment is concerning)


the difference here is that one side of the debate thinks their anecdotal evidence from knowing a sex worker or two makes them experts on an issue that affects millions of people around the world; and they assume that the rest of us have never been sex workers or known any, because they, like the people above, are using shitty fallacious arguments to try to seem authoritative

if anecdotal evidence of the "do you even know prostitutes" type was drawn out in any other thread, the people would be laughed out of it and told to stop being capitalist apologists

if someone brought out anecdotal evidence against, say, a black person, they would rightfully be labeled reactionary and be restricted

but for some reason we tolerate that shit in these discussions.


Anecdotes can be useful if they're well integrated into an argument, but their references to the sexworkers they know are bizarely vague. It sounds more like "I know a sex worker and you don't, na na na boo boo!" Than an actual discussion (not to mention much of their opposition has close relationships with sex workers ourselves). Let's be honest, this is just a silencing tactic.

[PhoenixAsh]

it's not a difference between the opinions of men and women; there are as many women ITT on either side, and to frame things otherwise is just fallacious

the difference here is that one side of the debate thinks their anecdotal evidence from knowing a sex worker or two makes them experts on an issue that affects millions of people around the world; and they assume that the rest of us have never been sex workers or known any, because they, like the people above, are using shitty fallacious arguments to try to seem authoritative

if anecdotal evidence of the "do you even know prostitutes" type was drawn out in any other thread, the people would be laughed out of it and told to stop being capitalist apologists

if someone brought out anecdotal evidence against, say, a black person, they would rightfully be labeled reactionary and be restricted

but for some reason we tolerate that shit in these discussions.

well, it's a bunch of bullshit if you ask me, and to say that the status quo of privileged white prostitution in western capitalist countries is the average experience of persons who engage in prostitution around the world is to have your head in the fucking sand and to ignore the fact that there is a rest of the world

"oh, but sex work isn't just prostitution! strippers are sex workers, phone sex operators are sex workers..."

yeah and it doesn't matter what type of sex work we're talking about your "evidence" is still bullshit in the face of real statistics.

Except that that is not true at all...as has been proven based on these supposed statistics.

Your fallacious argument that people here know a "few sex workers" on which they base their authority is of course a complete and utter dismissive assumption.

Perhaps you should actually read up on the subject matter at hand to know how completely and utterly ridiculous the position is that sex workers actually have opposing arguments to the ones given here by the people who support the view that sex work is work. Globally.

Of course we know your position is so far from neutral in this debate to be even taken seriously on these arguments.

Now I could send you a resume about the projects, initiatives and NGO's I worked for and with based on my job as a Fundraiser for 4 years....if you require this to actually take somebody who directly opposes your arguments based on what actual sex workers think...seriously.

[Sasha]

Ugh. I was picking on the type of Johns that think like Dan e boy. But don't let context get in the way of your preconcieved trenches.

[Redistribute the Rep]

What cack. The sex industry is certainly unique. When we speak of a mode of production, we speak of the conditions of the reproduction of life itself. If we recognize the necessity of capitalism to regulate and control the sexual reproduction of life and sexual relations, we must also recognize that the sexual industry takes a unique form actively perpetuating this. The problem is that you, and Phoenix have this idea that capitalism is predisposed to social conservatism. We aren't living in the early 20th century - we live in an era of post-68 consumerist hedonism. I don't know how old you two are, but we aren't living in the counter-culture anymore. It's pleasant to think about fighting the old conservative capitalist square, but this simply isn't exemplary of our conditions today.

Pheonixash and others haven't provided specific references to the accused "moralism" of others. As far as I'm concerned, the word has lost its meaning is just being used to silence women's concerns while hiding under the guise of being crusaders against traditional morality. It's starting to become interchangeable with the word "prude," a user in the other thread on sex work even told you to go masturbate (!)

ETA

@pheonixash: it appears that you do care what I think, given that you took the time to respond

@Sasha: it wasn't meant to single you out personally, but to describe the overall atmosphere of the beginning of the thread, so yes thank you for mentioning context. I still take issue with your post, facetious or not, as, like I said, some of us have legitimate concerns beyond discussing that, and found the joke in bad taste

[BIXX]

I no longer feel deserving of such high praise as Rudest Person on RevLeft.
give it to me you bastard

(I will post something more substantial in a moment still working my way through this shit hole of a thread)

[PhoenixAsh]

Pheonixash tried to silence women who took issue with the more dangerous and oppressive aspects of prostitution and told them to stay on this topic. Well that's nice that as males some of you have the privilege of seeing prostitution only from the buyers side in a western country and can ignore everything else. But some of us have more important issues to discuss than the cost and quality of our prostitutes (even the unsafe immigrants? Really the above comment is concerning)

Anecdotes can be useful if they're well integrated into an argument, but their references to the sexworkers they know are bizarely vague. It sounds more like "I know a sex worker and you don't, na na na boo boo!" Than an actual discussion (not to mention much of their opposition has close relationships with sex workers ourselves). Let's be honest, this is just a silencing tactic.

I take issue with people derailing the issue beyond the scope ad nauseum in the subject of prostitution to such an extend that it is impossible to actually have a normal debate about the subject.

I actually had no idea she was a woman. And pretty much I don't give a flying fuck. If you say stupid shit then I call you out on it regardless of your sex and gender. But apparently...according to you... I need to treat women as if they are precious and who have some special inside knowledge about prostitution... I am not sure what that says about you.

Now you saying that our arguments are from the perspective of Johns is of course inane as fuck as is your dismissive argument that the perspective is from a western perspective rather than based on extensive world wide knowledge on the subject....so long as you keep being able to moralize about female sexuality based on false arguments within the reality and context of the actual subject we are debating. And perhaps if you would actually interest yourself in the broader scope of prostitution instead of rehashing your limited amount of knowledge about the subject you would not try to silence the actual voice of the workers in the field.

Now get off your fucking high horse because you are beyond ridiculous.

[BIXX]

Theory is the only real game in town, everything else is drivel.

this is why we can't have nice things

[Creative Destruction]

this is why we can't have nice things

Well, I think Rafiq is overstating it, but probably for good reason. People do away with theory, much of the time altogether. Action not informed with theory just leads to an unending maelstrom of "action" that leads nowhere.

[BIXX]

anyone here ever been a prostitute? how many people know prostitutes?

lets ask them what they think ought to be done, rather than acting like we know better than them.

god damn this thread makes me angry for some reason.

9537

[Creative Destruction]

anyone here ever been a prostitute? how many people know prostitutes?

lets ask them what they think ought to be done, rather than acting like we know better than them.

god damn this thread makes me angry for some reason.

9537

Yes. Like TFU, the prostitutes I knew wanted legalization. One of the primary reasons I heard is that they're afraid that when they're assaulted, they won't be able to go to the police. That has problems itself, of course, since police are notoriously disbelieving of women, generally, when they say they've been assaulted, but at least the complaint can be heard and the problem be known.

[BIXX]

Yes. Like TFU, the prostitutes I knew wanted legalization. One of the primary reasons I heard is that they're afraid that when they're assaulted, they won't be able to go to the police. That has problems itself, of course, since police are notoriously disbelieving of women, generally, when they say they've been assaulted, but at least the complaint can be heard and the problem be known.

my experiences exactly

but then again we have disagreed with rafiq so we must be wrong/bourgeois moralists/counter revolutionaries

[cyu]

my experiences exactly

but then again we have disagreed with rafiq so we must be wrong/bourgeois moralists/counter revolutionaries

I agree with Rafiq in general, but I'm trying not to thank posts containing personal attacks or hyperbole, even if I do agree.

This isn't to say that I think prostitutes need to be punished, fined, jailed, or shamed for doing what they do. After all, I think "stealing" food should be legal if you're hungry. However, I think simply legalizing theft misses the point - it's not really about creating a society where everyone runs around taking bread, even if I don't believe there's anything morally wrong with that. The real question is why some people even consider it a crime in the first place, and why some people would do it regardless of whether it's a considered "wrong" or not.

[PhoenixAsh]

I have quite a few friends who work as sex workers all over Europe. As well as my ex and her best friend who for years worked as sex workers. Half my friend group has worked at one time or another or still work as prostitutes. The vast majority are either Communists or Anarchists/Autonomen or are radical socialists. Aside from that first hand knowledge of these "few" prostitutes...

I also worked with organizing an advocacy group of sex workers in Russia. Worked for a company that specialized in fundraising initiatives for globally operating NGO's, Charity foundations and NFP organizations where I was a consultant. We have worked for a huge list of organizations involved in all kinds of issues. But specifically I worked with 17 organizations which were either involved with prostitution, sex workers and human trafficking in general as well as underage sexual slavery. I have been on location talking to sex workers in India for a Dalit protection and rescue group which used DA and intervention to rescue Dalit girls and boys who were either sold in slavery or working in slavery like conditions. As well as in a few other countries outside Europe. We have designed and implemented awareness programs for lover boys as well as several projects directed at prevention. On top of that we have organized through our political group directed at the interests of incarcerated sex workers and have a judicial solidarity fund which operates in North-Africa and the Middle East to pay for legal battles of threatened sex workers. We have ties with organizations and groups within the sex workers community as well as specific individuals who advocate for rights of their gender and sex identification being protected as well.

So yeah. I think that qualifies as a western orientation based on limited personal experience.

[consuming negativity]

not only that, but he also got a phd in marxist prostitution studies at a university that was also a brothel which specializes in global women's issues that was completely staffed by current anarchist-communist sex workers, all of whom fought with the cnt-fai during the spanish civil war

gimme a break, literally dropping credentials on the internet lmao. you did the same thing before in an israel topic and were equally as wrong there

[BIXX]

not only that, but he also got a phd in marxist prostitution studies at a university that was also a brothel which specializes in global women's issues that was completely staffed by current anarchist-communist sex workers, all of whom fought with the cnt-fai during the spanish civil war

gimme a break, literally dropping credentials on the internet lmao. you did the same thing before in an israel topic and were equally as wrong there
Prove that he's wrong.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I actually had no idea she was a woman. And pretty much I don't give a flying fuck. If you say stupid shit then I call you out on it regardless of your sex and gender. But apparently...according to you... I need to treat women as if they are precious and who have some special inside knowledge about prostitution... I am not sure what that says about you.

Asking somebody not to immediately silence women's concerns is not the same as saying women are "precious" or "have some special knowledge about prostitution." Could you provide a specific quote where I actually said that? As usual, you're talking out of your ass. Tell me more about what my imaginary words say about my imaginary self in your head.

In response to your once again vague reference to the voices of sex workers, you still haven't elaborated them and connected it to your argument, and like I said before it looks more like a "na na na boo boo" to hide behind than really wanting to include their voices


Now get off your fucking high horse because you are beyond ridiculous.

I don't believe I'm the one on the "high horse," acting like a crusader against the "moralists" whose existence in this thread I haven't been able to provide evidence of. Provide me one example of my "moralizing" of female sexuality. I'll be waiting (forever probably)

[Palmares]

not only that, but he also got a phd in marxist prostitution studies at a university that was also a brothel which specializes in global women's issues that was completely staffed by current anarchist-communist sex workers, all of whom fought with the cnt-fai during the spanish civil war

gimme a break, literally dropping credentials on the internet lmao. you did the same thing before in an israel topic and were equally as wrong there

Look... I understand your point, but really, did you think it was really necessary to make that joke? Even if PA, say, isn't telling the truth... making a joke about this issue is in bad taste in my opinion. It trivialises the issue we're talking about here.

But yeah, on this subject of credentials, I also don't see how you can get more proof than what PA has presented. Sure, it's not evidence in court. But do you require a resume? What even holds as proof on the internet? So of course you don't have to believe anything anybody says on the internet, but if you were to believe something, what would it require?

For me personally, I see it as unlikely PA is fabricating thus experience. Not just because they said it, but because of the way they said it. I've never met PA in real life so I can't verify anything, but I think it would have been at least some effort to create this fabrication, if that is what it is. And I'd like to think they wouldn't do that just for some silly internet polemics. How fucking boring would that be.

[JamesG]

Prostitution should certainly be legal, but the current social conditions in which it has been allowed to flourish need to be eradicated. A woman should not be put in a situation whereby she feels selling her body is the only option, which, as far as I have seen is generally the only reason anyone turns to prostitution to make a living.

[consuming negativity]

it wasn't meant to be taken as an accusation. you're taking me way too seriously.

[Palmares]

If that's the case, what was the purpose of your post?

[jullia]

If somebody at minimum wage salary, who must keep the job to make his family survive, tell you he is happy like this and need just a bit more protection.
What should be your answear? You should told him he is crazy and this situation is just slavery.

Why your answear is differents in prostitution case. Indeed 40% at least of prostitutes make it against their will.

[The Feral Underclass]

If somebody at minimum wage salary, who must keep the job to make his family survive, tell you he is happy like this and need just a bit more protection.
What should be your answear? You should told him he is crazy and this situation is just slavery.

Why your answear is differents in prostitution case.

Well, first of all I think it would be incredibly rude to tell someone they were crazy for wanting their job to be better. Secondly, and more importantly, this is an entirely different question altogether. It's not the job of communists to judge people for the work they do or for the fact they want better conditions in their work. Our task is to bring meaning to the conflicts workers have with their bosses and to provide solutions to that fight that seek to escalate conflict and build working class power.


Indeed 40% at least of prostitutes make it against their will.

I'm thinking you just pulled that statistic out of thin air.

[Rafiq]

I'm thinking you just pulled that statistic out of thin air.

Indeed she's wrong. According to the source provided by PheonixAsh, which I asked him to cite (he did not), 40% of all prostitutes world wide, 17 of the estimated 42 million are confirmed to be forced, in other words sexual slaves. Now to say that only 40% of those 42 million continue their job willfully without any threat of violence, or without a trace of coercion is a gross underestimation. Also we can assume that the number of prostitutes who would like to leave the profession, but are unable to for other reasons is much, much higher. That's assuming his source is valid, which we can never know. We have no reason, however, to assume that Phoenix would over-exaggerate the number, since he's trying to make it as though the conditions of prostitution in Northern and Western Europe are identical to that in say, India or Cambodia (even though conditions in the former are not even close to being as sound as he claims).

But hey, the western European condition of prostitutes is universal and world-wide, right? "Hey, I know people who work in the job, it's fine bro! Sometimes after shifts we all head down to Ihop and discuss comical stories!" Try again. This isn't even close to the conditions faced by prostitutes world-wide. And I am willing to bet a significant number of prostitutes IN western Europe can't even enjoy this either.

[jullia]

I'm thinking you just pulled that statistic out of thin air.

It's the only statistic who have been given in this thread. Feel free to find new one.
40% is the number of prostitute who are sexual slaves. In this number aren't take in account the women who are push in this by their environment.

I can't get how people can tell there are no more oppression in prostitution than in other jobs...

[The Feral Underclass]

I can't get how people can tell there are no more oppression in prostitution than in other jobs...

I'm yet to be provided with a cogent reason why it is...

[Sasha]

Do you have any idea how many people are working in slavery in the 3th world in mining, chocolate farming or the textile industry?
Is that an argument to fight against mining, chocola farming or textile factories or do you fight against slavery, for legal employment, fair pricing, for union rights, government oversight etc etc?
No you wouldn't, but the sex-industry is apperently something special, which raises the distinct possibility that what it boils down to is that people are not having problems with the industry bit but the sex bit.

[PhoenixAsh]

Asking somebody not to immediately silence women's concerns is not the same as saying women are "precious" or "have some special knowledge about prostitution." Could you provide a specific quote where I actually said that? As usual, you're talking out of your ass. Tell me more about what my imaginary words say about my imaginary self in your head.

You weren't doing this at all however. What you were doing was discrediting arguments by overt accusations of sexism based on the fact that the person argued against was a woman instead of a user who pushed and derailed a debate topic beyond its boundraries and thereby obfuscating the actual issue.

Instead of addressing the arguments themselves...YOU addressed the fact that the exchange of arguments was between a man and a woman and therefore the man was trying to shut down a woman based on the fact that she is woman rather than the fact that her arguments are incorrect and her proposition tilts the debate away from the actual topic and subject.

In doing so you were actually saying that her arguments are not the reason she is argued against and therefore her arguments are legitimate because she is a woman.

You litterally did that in the post of yours I quoted in the post you quote here.



In response to your once again vague reference to the voices of sex workers, you still haven't elaborated them and connected it to your argument, and like I said before it looks more like a "na na na boo boo" to hide behind than really wanting to include their voices

Really? Do you have shit in your eyes as well in your brains?

At this point I am beginning to wonder if you are actually participating in the debat, know the debate topic, read the actual posts...or are just here as some gender police unit who is monitoring if we do not perhaps incidentally argue against a woman.

You are unbelievable.



I don't believe I'm the one on the "high horse," acting like a crusader against the "moralists" whose existence in this thread I haven't been able to provide evidence of. Provide me one example of my "moralizing" of female sexuality. I'll be waiting (forever probably)

Really? Because you do not seem to realize that any and all debates about prostitution even when they are explicitly about voluntary prostitution are pushed towards the same subject that prostitution is wrong based on one of several generalizations and fabricative arguments that are never ever used in any other field:

1). Human trafficking
2). Prostutution is not voluntary and therefore structural rape
3). Women don't know what they want and actually do not have free will when it comes to sex

These arguments are made in the face of the organizations and voices of the sex workers themselves and are blatant over-generalizations....facts apparently do not matter nor do the actual sex workers. The objective evaluation of all these arguments boil down to one origin that is the main problem...since all these factors also apply to all other jobs: morality about sex.

And as it turns out...eventually all these debates will degenerate to some of the opponents of prostitution making arguments that fall in the category of the madonna whore complex.

You were explicitly contributing to this moralization by deflecting the topic from consentual prostitution to forced prostitution thereby explicitly ignoring that huge group of the sex workers who do chose to become prostitutes as a job, profession, carreer in order to facilitate an attack against prostitution in general. Because the sex part makes this profession stand out for you. Your position is not one of objectivity but subjectively trying to enforce a stereotype on to the debate.

[PhoenixAsh]

Indeed she's wrong. According to the source provided by PheonixAsh, which I asked him to cite (he did not), 40% of all prostitutes world wide, 17 of the estimated 42 million are confirmed to be forced, in other words sexual slaves. Now to say that only 40% of those 42 million continue their job willfully without any threat of violence, or without a trace of coercion is a gross underestimation. Also we can assume that the number of prostitutes who would like to leave the profession, but are unable to for other reasons is much, much higher. That's assuming his source is valid, which we can never know. We have no reason, however, to assume that Phoenix would over-exaggerate the number, since he's trying to make it as though the conditions of prostitution in Northern and Western Europe are identical to that in say, India or Cambodia (even though conditions in the former are not even close to being as sound as he claims).

But hey, the western European condition of prostitutes is universal and world-wide, right? "Hey, I know people who work in the job, it's fine bro! Sometimes after shifts we all head down to Ihop and discuss comical stories!" Try again. This isn't even close to the conditions faced by prostitutes world-wide. And I am willing to bet a significant number of prostitutes IN western Europe can't even enjoy this either.

And again Rafiq doesn't actually read threads. But lets counter argue his point for...reasons

1). Posting statistics about 9 countries does not accurately reflect world wide figures. Articles about 9 countries does nothing more than to say what the statistics are for those nine countries. The sourced site named the average as 50% and stated explicitly that these numbers were higher than normal and continued to explain why they were higher than normal.

2). Rafiq confuses several issues:

* being faced with violence on a job does not equal forced into the job
* doing a job does not imply enjoyment of said job
* not enjoying your job doesn't mean you are forced into the job in the first place
* wanting to leave a job but being unable to does not equal being forced into the job in the first place
* not enjoying your job, wanting to leave your job but being unable or being forced into a job in the first place, or aspects of coercion...is describing jobs in general and not particular to sex work

3). Rafiq makes the false assumption that a European person talking about prostitutes and knowing prostitutes or about prostitution advocacy groups base themselves only on the region where that person comes from....because only Rafiq is omnipotent and knows all beyond the boundraries of his own region. All hail Rafiq.


So far nobody has been able to make a convincing argument why prostitution is so damned special and has managed to bring up any other argument that does not apply for a whole range of others jobs or work sectors. And eventually these arguments all come down to one single factor that changes the whole paradigm: sex. A whole range of people however did manager to theorize about prostitution on one sides arguments and ignoring the voice of sex worker advocacy groups, sex workers and unions world wide. Of course this is justified by arguing that we need theory. And I am all for that. Except theory needs to factor in reality in all its factors and needs to come about in part through the actual struggle by the actual people involved rather than constructed in some office or basement somewhere.

[cyu]

In your (not directed at anyone in particular) favorite post-capitalist society, what percentage of the people will be coal miners? What percentage of the people should be coal miners?

What percentage will be police and private security? What percentage should be police and private security?

What percentage will be prostitutes? What percentage should be prostitutes?

[Sasha]

If society needs coal miners (i hope not coal but some form of miners will probably still be needed) and people are willing to be miners than there will be miners.
Hopefully we can in time do either away with mining all together or get technology do the most dangerous/unpleasant work.


Feel free to change the word miner for prostitute in above paragraph to answer question 3.

2 is a red herring.

[PhoenixAsh]

gimme a break, literally dropping credentials on the internet lmao. you did the same thing before in an israel topic and were equally as wrong there

Now, now...you do get that when you question arguments by questioning credentials and then laughing when the credentials are given....you come off as dishonest as fuck don't you?

Believe it or not...but some people, when they say they are active...they are not just posturing and actually are active. And some people are involved in stuff you wouldn't believe if they told you. Or involved in a wide variety of fields. Not everybody comes here with no actual experience beyond what they have read in books or on the internet.

[cyu]

Hopefully we can in time do either away with mining all together or get technology do the most dangerous/unpleasant work.

Feel free to change the word miner for prostitute in above paragraph to answer question 3.


I assume you would say "Hopefully we can in time do either away with prostitution all together or get technology do the most dangerous/unpleasant work."

I hope nobody on this thread (again, not directed at you in particular) believes men have some "right to sex", and there must always be some system in which women (or others) oblige them.

[Sasha]

You wouldn't have a right to art either, still think it would be benificial for society if someone was willing to provide it to those that need it.

And what's with the men and women? Men can be and are prostitutes too, women need sex too and not all of them can get it in a relationship either.

One of the sex workers i know is male and services physically and mentally handicapped women.

[cyu]

If there was a society where prostitution did not exist, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_surrogate also did not exist, would you consider it a society that oppresses you?

[Sasha]

If there was a society where prostitution did not exist, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_surrogate also did not exist, would you consider it a society that oppresses you?

Are you, or have you ever been a member of the communist party?
We played this game before Cyu, im not going to do that again, learn to communicate in a sincere manner or fuck off.

[consuming negativity]

If that's the case, what was the purpose of your post?

it doesn't matter what his credentials are, i'm not going to go "oh well your point doesn't make sense to me logically but i'll believe you now because you say you did X and Y, guy on the internet"

its contribution means absolutely nothing to the discussion.

even if my tall tale about him was true, it still wouldn't fucking matter

so then why even drop credentials in the first place?

it's an appeal to authority

and in the case of the internet, even if appeals to authority were legitimate, we still would not be able to verify any of it anyway

the only thing that could be even less useful than dropping credentials on the internet is having to explain all of this. :glare:

[The Feral Underclass]

If there was a society where prostitution did not exist, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_surrogate also did not exist, would you consider it a society that oppresses you?

A picture representation of where you are at in this debate. (http://k43.pbase.com/o3/10/634010/1/87651635.ExdwAP6i.DSC06554_s.jpg)

Do you consider the possibility that maybe you're wrong?

[PhoenixAsh]

it doesn't matter what his credentials are, i'm not going to go "oh well your point doesn't make sense to me logically but i'll believe you now because you say you did X and Y, guy on the internet"

its contribution means absolutely nothing to the discussion.

even if my tall tale about him was true, it still wouldn't fucking matter

so then why even drop credentials in the first place?

it's an appeal to authority

and in the case of the internet, even if appeals to authority were legitimate, we still would not be able to verify any of it anyway

the only thing that could be even less useful than dropping credentials on the internet is having to explain all of this. :glare:

:rolleyes:

...this would actually mean anything of it weren't for the fact that you were questioning arguments based on credentials in the first place....so now its just some hypocritical and disengenuous mumbo-jumbo.

[consuming negativity]

:rolleyes:

...this would actually mean anything of it weren't for the fact that you were questioning arguments based on credentials in the first place....so now its just some hypocritical and disengenuous mumbo-jumbo.
no, actually, I was criticizing it. was hoping you'd realized that but apparently not :/

well either that or you don't understand that there is a difference between recognizing your bias and questioning your credentials...

you can have credentials and still be wrong. that's why I don't care. can we move on now? :|

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes we can. I do indeed have a bias towards what sex workers themselves think about their profession and situation. So now that we have established that...We can indeed move on.

[gef-gons]

Who else but the state, perhaps the church mmmm, maybe the family ya thats the most conservative institution in society
In the peroid of transition to a proper socialist society the state will take the lead.
Sexuality will be governed by 'mutual inclination'. Yes there will still be some individual's who no one will want to F'k. The code of egalitarism (one might presume) would motivate
commited commrades to - so to speak - take one for the team.
We humans can look to the chimps who have a ridgid sexual caste system or we could see the bonobo as a sexual role model.
Just realize, prostitution is not something folks do by choice. Even if someone tells you she/he does it by choice - the ego - for self esteem reasons convinces the self of the efficacy of that position.
Mutual inclination will be the due process.

[Palmares]

you can have credentials and still be wrong. that's why I don't care. can we move on now? :|

Fair enough. Just wish you said that in the first place.

Was confused with all the "you're taking me too seriously" and then suddenly a serious reply which you made some strange paraphrasing of my post...

But moving on....