Prostitution, Stripping, Calling, and Pornography

[Cryotank Screams]

I thought this would be an interesting topic to bring to the general forum, since from what I have seen, this line of jobs is oft forgotten, but I feel it is important as revolutionaries to come to a decision, and opinion on the matter of the "oldest profession."

So the questions are, how do you view lines of work such as prostitution, pornography, sex calling, and stripping? Why? How are the workers being treated in these lines of works, and how does this effect the over all proletarian revolution? What would be the stance on these profressions in a post revolutionary society?

Any other explanations on related topics would be appreciated, those are just some of the top of my head.

[Knight of Cydonia]

how do you view lines of work such as prostitution, pornography, sex calling, and stripping?
those are the lowest class and most humiliating job...in my opinion.


Why?
coz it's humiliating...


How are the workers being treated in these lines of works, and how does this effect the over all proletarian revolution?
they've always exploited and oftenly oppressed.they've forced to do the kind job that most of people don't want to be in.poor them.....and it's have no effect for the proletarians revolution,cause they've always been oppressed.


What would be the stance on these profressions in a post revolutionary society?
hm.....dunno

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 15, 2007 06:03 pm
I thought this would be an interesting topic to bring to the general forum, since from what I have seen, this line of jobs is oft forgotten, but I feel it is important as revolutionaries to come to a decision, and opinion on the matter of the "oldest profession."

So the questions are, how do you view lines of work such as prostitution, pornography, sex calling, and stripping? Why? How are the workers being treated in these lines of works, and how does this effect the over all proletarian revolution? What would be the stance on these profressions in a post revolutionary society?

Any other explanations on related topics would be appreciated, those are just some of the top of my head.
The prostitute is, in my view, somewhere between a slave and a proletarian.
The prostitute does a job that she doesn't doesn't want, because she has a dependency on the pimp (bourgeois). The pimp contributes nothing, but accumulates all of the desert of the prostitute, and what she gets in return is a pitiful freedom (in the very loosest sense) from starvation and hypothermia.
The prostitute's welfare is based around the pimp's whims, and he encourages her that there is no point of getting rid of him.

You see where I'm coming from?

[Cryotank Screams]

The prostitute is, in my view, somewhere between a slave and a proletarian.

Wouldn't a more appropiate term be, lumpenproletariat?


The prostitute does a job that she doesn't doesn't want,

This is a common and I assume average condition, however what if say the male or female in question did want to prostitute themselves assuming conditions were better, say like a well established brothel, no "evil," or abusive pimp, security, and better working conditions?


because she has a dependency on the pimp (bourgeois). The pimp contributes nothing, but accumulates all of the desert of the prostitute, and what she gets in return is a pitiful freedom (in the very loosest sense) from starvation and hypothermia. The prostitute's welfare is based around the pimp's whims, and he encourages her that there is no point of getting rid of him.

This is true in the majority of cases, however what if the conditions were like they are above listed? What if there was no pimp, and there was security to ensure safety, a well furnished brothel, medical screening, things of that sort of nature, and the act of prostitution was divorced from what it is now, what would you say then?

Also, what about strippers, call persons, and pornstars?

[gilhyle]

You are conflating stripping and calling and prostitution and then conflating all the different types of prostitution. They are all different and its particulary sad to see the comment about prostitutes as somewhere between a slave and proletarian.

In a socialist society, one would hope that the economic imperative to prostitution could be eroded over time, making it an increasingly voluntary profession which would survive only to the extent that the ancient glories of the temple prostitute could be re-discovered in a secular society (which might well prove to be not at all !)

[dannie]

prostitution
noun [U]
the business of having sex for money

Prostitution in itself is a job like any other. When we are talking about prostitution that involves pimps and other parties opressing the prostitute we should always take a negative stance. Off course, post-revolution sex workers will have absolute freedom to work as they please.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 15, 2007 07:07 pm

The prostitute is, in my view, somewhere between a slave and a proletarian.

In some ways yes. Technically (i.e. according to the state), they are unemployed.
But dispossessed workers they are, and are therefore proletarian.

Even without a pimp, they have to sell their labour. And yes, if they made a reasoned decision to become prostitutes, they can, because let's face it: how many do make a reasoned decision? Economic or other circumstances drive them to it, whereas, under communism, there would be no desperation.

[Pirate Utopian]

i think when Communism is established sexual jobs wouldnt be nessary for those girls to do, because im sure if most had a chance to do something else they would

[Fawkes]

Wouldn't a more appropiate term be, lumpenproletariat?
No because lumpens are generally unemployed.


those are the lowest class and most humiliating job...in my opinion.

coz it's humiliating...
I do not disagree that it is humiliating, but why any more than any other job where one has to work as a wage slave?


So the questions are, how do you view lines of work such as prostitution, pornography, sex calling, and stripping?
Like any other worker, they are selling their labor power to stay alive.


How are the workers being treated in these lines of works, and how does this effect the over all proletarian revolution?
They are generally treated just as bad, if not worse than most workers. It is just another form of labor exploitation and is no different from a steel worker.


What would be the stance on these profressions in a post revolutionary society?
Whether they would be frowned upon or not I do not know, but I do know that they will always exist and that illegalizing it would just push it underground thus making prostitutes and porn stars even more at risk of abuse.

[Knight of Cydonia]

I do not disagree that it is humiliating, but why any more than any other job where one has to work as a wage slave?

have try to ask one of those workers about what they feel about their job? and tell them to answer it honestly :huh:

[Cryotank Screams]

According to the wiki/Marxian definition still consider prostitutes to be apart of the lumpenproletariat;


Originally posted by "wiki"
Marx's definition has influenced contemporary sociologists, who are concerned with many of the marginalized elements of society characterized by Marx under this label. Marxian and even some non-Marxist sociologists now use the term to refer to those they see as the victims of modern society, such as welfare recipients, beggars, and homeless people, who exist outside the wage-labor system, or people who make their living through disreputable means (prostitutes and pimps, swindlers, drug dealers, bootleggers, and operators of illegal gambling enterprises), but depend on the formal economy for their day-to-day existence.


Even without a pimp, they have to sell their labour.

Does not every worker sell his labour-power? Going upon the Marxist theory of labour-power, and thus couldn't this also be applied to sex labor?

"By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description."-Karl Marx.

"Labour-power, however, becomes a reality only by its exercise; it sets itself in action only by working. But thereby a definite quantity of human muscle, nerve. brain, &c., is wasted, and these require to be restored."-Karl Marx.


And yes, if they made a reasoned decision to become prostitutes, they can, because let's face it: how many do make a reasoned decision? Economic or other circumstances drive them to it, whereas, under communism, there would be no desperation.

What if say the conditions are as previous listed, like modern european brothels, what if a worker either male or female, who liked sex, was highly good at sex, decided rationally to make the sexual arts, and sexual pleasure their profession? Couldn't a worker make this decision, without scarce material conditions, poverty, and other ailments associated with the alleged "drive," to prostitution?

[Fawkes]

Does not every worker sell his labour-power? Going upon the Marxist theory of labour-power, and thus couldn't this also be applied to sex labor?
Lumpen-proles by definition are not workers.


have try to ask one of those workers about what they feel about their job? and tell them to answer it honestly
Ask any worker that question.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:52 pm
Lumpen-proles by definition are not workers.


True, however in regards to prostitutes, and other sex workers, it would depend upon which definition you are defining them, the Marxian definition, or some alternate definition.

[Fawkes]

True, however in regards to prostitutes, and other sex workers, it would depend upon which definition you are defining them, the Marxian definition, or some alternate definition.
I don't understand how sex workers are any different from any other worker that sells their labor power to make a living.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:27 pm
I don't understand how sex workers are any different from any other worker that sells their labor power to make a living.
I agree with you, I think the confusion was, that I was trying to explain both sides of analysis, while at the same trying to to shape and sort my thoughts, sorry, :blush:.


and from 100 workers, 89 said yes it's humiliating coz they actually didn't want to do such job just because their economical situation, they've forced to do that.

Who asked these workers? When? Where? What were their motives for doing so? How did the pose the question?

Also, it's also a oversimplification and unfair to assme that all prostitutes are forced into sex work, due to scarce material conditions and other ailments, a sex worker could make this decision rationally by themselves, as I have stated above in another post, see below;


What if say the conditions are as previous listed, like modern european brothels, what if a worker either male or female, who liked sex, was highly good at sex, decided rationally to make the sexual arts, and sexual pleasure their profession? Couldn't a worker make this decision, without scarce material conditions, poverty, and other ailments associated with the alleged "drive," to prostitution?

[dogwoodlover]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 15, 2007 06:03 pm
I thought this would be an interesting topic to bring to the general forum, since from what I have seen, this line of jobs is oft forgotten, but I feel it is important as revolutionaries to come to a decision, and opinion on the matter of the "oldest profession."

So the questions are, how do you view lines of work such as prostitution, pornography, sex calling, and stripping? Why? How are the workers being treated in these lines of works, and how does this effect the over all proletarian revolution? What would be the stance on these profressions in a post revolutionary society?

Any other explanations on related topics would be appreciated, those are just some of the top of my head.
I would consider those to be among some of the most explotive and degrading jobs in our society. Not only are they explotive of the individual women, but serve to objectify and exploit women as a whole. Most of those who are in involved in those professions do it simply for the money, and those jobs would likely not exist in a socialist society. Jobs whose essence is that of exploitation have no place in a society that is supposed to be free of exploitation.

Some of you seem to be a little disconnected. Why don't you try asking your wives/girlfriends what they'd think about being a prostitute purely out of enjoyment? I would almost gaurantee that every one of them would tell you that NO woman wants to be a prostitute. Though I'm not really a feminist, I would take up that position in wanting prostitution to be banned on the grounds that it is degrading and explotive of women as a whole.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:46 pm
I would consider those to be among some of the most explotive and degrading jobs in our society. Not only are they explotive of the individual women, but serve to objectify and exploit women as a whole. Most of those who are in involved in those professions do it simply for the money, and those jobs would likely not exist in a socialist society. Jobs whose essence is that of exploitation have no place in a society that is supposed to be free of exploitation.
No, doubt that the exploitation of men and women in prostitution, is sadly a common element in that line of work, and is most common in most of the areas of the world, however couldn't a sex worker, male or female, make a rational decision to be a sex worker, based on capabilities of sexual performance, the drive to work in this feild, and given better working conditions like furnished brothel, no pimp, disease screening, security, things like that? Couldn't this happen in a Socialist society?

[dogwoodlover]

Perhaps I'm not being objective here, but I would contend that no woman would desire to work in this field unless if for some reason or another she was being pressured/forced to do so (something other than economic neccessity). So, I would strongly promote a ban on all prostitution on the grounds that it is explotive of women as a whole.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:01 pm
Perhaps I'm not being objective here, but I would contend that no woman would desire to work in this field unless if for some reason or another she was being pressured/forced to do so (something other than economic neccessity). So, I would strongly promote a ban on all prostitution on the grounds that it is explotive of women as a whole.
True in most cases of modern prostitution it is exploitive towards women, however, to say all women find it degrading and such, is trying to speak for all women in general, which is unfair and impossible, because what some women wouldn't want to do, others might, some women might like science, while other might like some other form of work, point being what if giving the right conditions a woman, decided and wanted to be a sex worker, not based on scarce resources, or any other reason, but simply the desire to work as a sex worker?

[Fawkes]

Though I'm not really a feminist, I would take up that position in wanting prostitution to be banned on the grounds that it is degrading and explotive of women as a whole.
That would just put the women into more danger because the prostitution business would go underground.

[dogwoodlover]

Well then I suppose I would support their decision to do so.

However, they are many women who want to be models, and are, and parade themselves around on television and get slapped onto billboards, not realizing nor understanding that they are bringing down women everywhere, not only by destroying many (particularly young) girls' self-esteem, but also objectifying women in the eyes of many men.

From there you have rises in bulimia, anorexia, domestic violence, spousal-integrity compromises, etc, etc. Prostitution is part of a host of issues that creates a whole plethora of problems.

[Cryotank Screams]

However, they are many women who want to be models, and are, and parade themselves around on television and get slapped onto billboards, not realizing nor understanding that they are bringing down women everywhere, not only by destroying many (particularly young) girls' self-esteem, but also objectifying women in the eyes of many men.

This is different from prostitution, which is defined as strictly sex for wage, or sex as work, what you are talking about is modeling not prostitution, which in many cases, the down sides are propelled by capitalism, and the bourgeoisie, and not by the models, or the act of modeling, I mean that is like blaming what the victim is doing, and not the real reason which is what the bourgeoisie capitalists are doing, they market this in a manner in which to exploit people, in order to gain more income and capital, so it's not directly because modeling, plus it would depend on what you modeling, do you mean mainstream modeling, or do mean modeling like, fetish, pornographic both softcore and hardcore, artistic, things of that nature.


From there you have rises in bulimia, anorexia, domestic violence, spousal-integrity compromises, etc, etc. Prostitution is part of a host of issues that creates a whole plethora of problems.

This is again a by product of capitalism, and the working of the bourgeoisie, it's not the models fault per se, that things like this happen, but mainly the marketing, the media, and all other workings of the bourgeoisie capitalists, that do this, so it is a direct reflection on the act of modeling or sex work in general, so thus if this line of work was revamped and divorced from the bourgeoisie moneybags, what would you say then?

[Dimentio]

What do you think about creating sexual services managed by the state or a cooperative organ, intended to help disabled people to have orgasm?

[dogwoodlover]

I am all for artistic expression.

Part of my opposition is due to the fact that my girlfriend is a dancer and previously was bulimic, and still suffers from a lack of self-esteem about her body, which I know has been brought on by the fashion industry and the media.

I didn't intend to place blame upon the models, which after looking at my post I realize that I made it sound that way. I certainly rest the blame upon the bourgeoisie and the industry itself. If divorced from those areas, then yes, I would support it.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:37 pm
What do you think about creating sexual services managed by the state or a cooperative organ, intended to help disabled people to have orgasm?
Could you elaborate further on the question, and explain what exactly your asking, :blink:.

[The Bitter Hippy]

i think serpent's proposing a scheme of prostitution that would be radically different from the current idea of it, to portray it in a new and better light.

The workers in such a cooperative would not be "degraded", and it wouldn't "bring women down".

[Vargha Poralli]

The question itself is much tricky . Any way in a post communist society there would be no need for a woman to fall in to prostitution and no need for a man to drive woman in to prostitution.

Any way if some woman want to have something in a medical way (i.e) treating some men/women who have difficulty in intercourse thats a diffrent situation.I think a similar scheme is practiced by Masters and Johnson famous sexologists in US until they stopped because of a lawsuit.

Regarding Lumpen Proletariat:

The class is much different from Marx to modern sociologists. So IMO the prostitutes do not fit in to this category but other elements like thieves,mafia,smugglers and bandits fit well in to this category.

[dannie]

What do you think about creating sexual services managed by the state or a cooperative organ, intended to help disabled people to have orgasm?

I'm all for it because what we are talking about is basicly a need that has to be fullfilled (well, has is a strong word). If someone decides to contribute to society this way I feel i have to respect that descision. I think it's important that society provides a syndical and legal cadre for this line of work as in general it is very opressed line of work.I believe there are actually company's that offer this service in holland.
You should check for Stichting Alternatieve Relatiebemiddeling (sar) if you are more interested in this.


Part of my opposition is due to the fact that my girlfriend is a dancer and previously was bulimic, and still suffers from a lack of self-esteem about her body, which I know has been brought on by the fashion industry and the media.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to your friend, or anyone else that has or suffers from eating problems (I myself still do too). But i think it's a pretty dangerous way of coping with these problems. Off course media contributes to these problems but you should never forget about the biological causes that make one more suspectible too illness (wich is a really careful way of putting it). And the fact that your friend may have made the wrong choices, what i'm trying to say is that mental illness, low self esteem , ... are complicated problems. It's not a one way street, you can't put the blame solely on the media.


The question itself is much tricky . Any way in a post communist society there would be no need for a woman to fall in to prostitution and no need for a man to drive woman in to prostitution. Again, sex is a need, whenever people can't get sex trough conventional social interaction sex workers can come in the picture to fullfill this need.

[Luís Henrique]

A good read about the issue is Nicki Roberts' Whores in History.

Luís Henrique

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:46 pm
Why don't you try asking your wives/girlfriends what they'd think about being a prostitute purely out of enjoyment? I would almost gaurantee that every one of them would tell you that NO woman wants to be a prostitute. Though I'm not really a feminist, I would take up that position in wanting prostitution to be banned on the grounds that it is degrading and explotive of women as a whole.
Absolutely correct - who wants to do difficult physical work that also demands a lot of attention that has no pension......

But that is not the point

[dogwoodlover]

It's not a one way street, you can't put the blame solely on the media.

AFAIK, those kinds of issues coincided with the appearance of the mass media, beginning in the 1930's and becoming progressively worse over the decades.

[Cryotank Screams]

The question itself is much tricky. Any way in a post communist society there would be no need for a woman to fall in to prostitution and no need for a man to drive woman in to prostitution.

Fall into prostitution? Drive women into prostitution?

Though in some cases this is true however, what needs to be distinguished is that prostitution, the act, and work of sex, does not inherently mean the women is being forced, or that she is being oppressed, or that it is solely women, rather prostitution can be a choice that a women or a man could make as a work choice, and would not include oppression or risk of any kind, because I think the question should be, how do we as Socialists view sex work the act itself, as totally divorced from modern and past conceptions and conditions.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 17, 2007 03:11 am

The question itself is much tricky. Any way in a post communist society there would be no need for a woman to fall in to prostitution and no need for a man to drive woman in to prostitution.

Fall into prostitution? Drive women into prostitution?

Though in some cases this is true however, what needs to be distinguished is that prostitution, the act, and work of sex, does not inherently mean the women is being forced, or that she is being oppressed, or that it is solely women, rather prostitution can be a choice that a women or a man could make as a work choice, and would not include oppression or risk of any kind, because I think the question should be, how do we as Socialists view sex work the act itself, as totally divorced from modern and past conceptions and conditions.



Fall into prostitution? Drive women into prostitution?

Yes thats what happening in my observation in the country where i live.

1) Poor women who can't find a another job generally fall in to prostitution.

2) Many girls are kidnapped by criminal gangs and forced in to prostitution.

3) Some poor girls are generally traded(yes by their own parents) for a money and in turn forced in to prostitution.

4) In certain areas certain tribes have this custom of turning first born girls in to DevaDasis(Mean servant of god) and they become a property of all men in their village.Although eradicated completely in paper many journalist report that this practice is still widespread.

If prostitution is like mentioned above then IMO it will never be allowed to happen in a Communist society.


Though in some cases this is true however, what needs to be distinguished is that prostitution, the act, and work of sex, does not inherently mean the women is being forced, or that she is being oppressed, or that it is solely women, rather prostitution can be a choice that a women or a man could make as a work choice, and would not include oppression or risk of any kind, because I think the question should be, how do we as Socialists view sex work the act itself, as totally divorced from modern and past conceptions and conditions.

I think your scheme is some what contradictory. What you propose sounds very much like what Masters and Johnson practiced but still I don't find why somebody will have to pay/be paid for sexual pleasure in a communist society.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:49 am
I don't find why somebody will have to pay/be paid for sexual pleasure in a communist society.
That is probably true, although I'd rather leave it to history to work it out and, meanwhile, lets be careful about the moral compulsives who will want to front load that by banning prostitution....again.


And while we are at it, lets not forget the guys/transgender who 'fall' into prostitution as well.

[dannie]

Originally posted by gilhyle+January 17, 2007 08:55 pm--> (gilhyle @ January 17, 2007 08:55 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 05:49 am
I don't find why somebody will have to pay/be paid for sexual pleasure in a communist society.
That is probably true, although I'd rather leave it to history to work it out and, meanwhile, lets be careful about the moral compulsives who will want to front load that by banning prostitution....again.


And while we are at it, lets not forget the guys/transgender who 'fall' into prostitution as well. [/b]
I second.

We can not predict the social construct in a communist society although we can certainly form theories about what would be the best way to do this. The form prostitution in any society takes is dependent on that social construct.


AFAIK, those kinds of issues coincided with the appearance of the mass media, beginning in the 1930's and becoming progressively worse over the decades.

This is a discussion we should be having in a seperate thread. What's your source? Anorexia has been documented as early as the 17th century and has been documented as a disease by Gull in 1868 and by Lasègue in 1873. Also, recent studies have shown that certain genes increase the posibility for eating disorders, some doctors even go as far to say you need certain genes to get an eating disorder. I do agree media plays a role in eating disorders just like it does on our perception of eating disorders.

[LSD]

The prostitute is, in my view, somewhere between a slave and a proletarian.

No, actually, the prostitute is exactly between proletariant and proletarian.

Calling sex workers "slaves" is just a cheap attempt to de-proletarianize workers who's job happens to make some morally uptight people uncomfortable.

The only possible justification for calling prostitutes "slaves", would be that tired old nonsense that prostitution is akin to "selling one's body". A notion that means nothing from an economic or political perspective.

Does a janitor "sell his body"? Does a flight attendant? Are either of them "slaves" because of it? No???

Well why not? Neither of them produce any tangible products; both are merely performing service occupations and/or moving, re-aranging, and distributing pre-existing products, exactly like a prostitute.

You see it isn't the accoutrements that define proletarian, it'ss the production of surplus value. Junking that definition means junking basic Marxism and, functionaly, leads to an economic framework with a massively overrepresented petty-bourgeoisie (or lumpenproletariat, depending on which direction you want to go).

Sex workers are just as exploited as anyone else and just as proletarian. So instead of making fun of them and insulting their occupation, how about you show a little solidarity?

Nobody wants to work for the bourgeoisie, but we all do it because the only alternative is starvation. That applies just as much to prostitutes as it does to anyone else.

The only thing that differentiates a prostitute from a massage therapist is the particular part of the body that is being used to seve the client. So the one is only "lower" than the other if we accept the moralistic principle that there is something intrinsically "special" about sexuality.

There isn't.


I would consider those to be among some of the most explotive and degrading jobs in our society. Not only are they explotive of the individual women, but serve to objectify and exploit women as a whole.

Really? How?

People love to throw that phrase around -- "objectification of women" -- but what does it actually practically mean?

Does wanting to fuck a woman "objectify here"? By the same token, does her wanting to fuck you, "objectify" you?

Doesn't all sex that isn't "emotional" or "loving" constitute, to some degree, "obejctification" by both parties involved? It doesn't mean that either person "disrespects" the other person involved, but when they have anonymous physical sex (and I'm talking in their personal lives here, with no moneys exchanged), they are clearly "using" the other person for their own sexual gratification?

Well ...so what?

When two people play football, aren't they, in a manner of speaking, "using" the other person for physical enjoyment? If they're not actually friends and just meet to kick the ball around, isn't "objectification" occuring? ...actually, yes, but it doesn't matter.

'Cause that what human relations are about. Not every relationship has to be a "meaningful" one and that includes sexual ones.

So does the existance of sex workers "objectify" women? Not really, at least not any more than the existance of professional football players "objectifies" football players.

Prostitutes aren't the problem, patriarchy is and liberal sexuality is not pillar of patriarchy. On the contrary, the less repressed a society's views on sex, the less sexist it is liable to be. Traditional "moralities" go hand in hand.

So while attacking sex workers for "demeaning themselves" is the politically correct bourgeois approach, it doesn't actually do anything to help the real victims of sexism. All it does is further intrench this antiquated patriarchal notion that sexuality is a "male thing" and that any expression of female sexuality "must" be exploitation.

Now obviously prostitution is exploitation, it's the exploitation of capitalism, but no one goes around calling flight attendents names because they're "objectifying women" by working for a wage.

But in every way that counts, the two jobs are indistinguishable.


Most of those who are in involved in those professions do it simply for the money

Well ...yeah. Who doesn't?

I suppose in your world, janitors work for the "love of the craft"? :rolleyes:


Why don't you try asking your wives/girlfriends what they'd think about being a prostitute purely out of enjoyment? I would almost gaurantee that every one of them would tell you that NO woman wants to be a prostitute.

And you don't think that has anything to do with contemporary sexual morality which teaches us that sex work is "wrong" and "humiliating"?

I'm not saying that most people want to become prostitutes, they don't. But most people don't want to work at all. Work under capitalism isn't something that people enjoy, it's something that they are economically compelled to do.

And if one is forced to choose between collecting trash and fucking, in sexually liberated society, I'd venture that most would choose the latter. Obviously some would still choose the former which is why capitalism will never run out of trash collectors; but free of all its cultural baggage, prostitution truly is a job just like any other.


1) Poor women who can't find a another job generally fall in to prostitution.

That's certainly true, but that's to be expected when a job is considered "morally reprehensible" or, as knight of cydonia put it, "low [and] humiliating".

The less desirable an occupation, the more likely that it's going to attract primarily desperate people.

But keeping prostitution illegal, harrasing sex workers or their places of employment, calling them names, and demeaning their occupation doesn't help them, it just pushes them even further into the margins of society.

Which is why, again, we need to show sex workers the same solidarity we show any other worker and promote progressive working class solutions to their (many) problems, starting with broad unionization.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the more exploited prostitutes are such largely because moralistic laws have forced them into the black market of society. As long as drugs remain illegal and prostitution remains illegal, the only people that these women (and men) will have to go to are criminals and gangsters.

The only way to change that is to empower them to control their own lives, something that can't happen as long as they are held down by the "morally righteous" and their naive stooges.


2) Many girls are kidnapped by criminal gangs and forced in to prostitution.

3) Some poor girls are generally traded(yes by their own parents) for a money and in turn forced in to prostitution.

And that's wrong of course, but it's hardly relevent to this discussion.


but still I don't find why somebody will have to pay/be paid for sexual pleasure in a communist society.

They wouldn't. But then no one will have to pay for anything in a communist society, that's the whole point.

As long as we're talking about prostitution, we're talking about class society, because in a classless one, no one will have to work for a wage at all. That doesn't mean that anonymous sex will stop or even that some people won't make a career out of it, it just means that there won't be any money exchanged since there won't be any money.


So, I would strongly promote a ban on all prostitution on the grounds that it is explotive of women as a whole.

Really? That's sort of disgusting.

I can only assume that you don't actually know any sex workers, 'cause otherwise you would never take that anti-worker class trachorous position.

Well I do know sex workers and I've actually spoken to them and I can tell you that the last thing they "need" is the fucking cops busting them for "daring" to have sex. They've got enough problems without moralistic twits trying to shove the entire bourgeois state apparatus down their throats.

And, honestly, do you really think that patriarchy comes out of strip clubs and brothels?

It's rather remarkable then, isn't it, that some of the most patriarchal people out there are the ones crusading for these places to be shut down.

Don't get caught up in the moralistic bullshit. You may not like what capitalism does to sexuality, but the choice here isn't between the "commodifcation" of sex and some type of hippy utopian "free love". It's between liberal sexuality and repression.

And the less open that sexuality becomes, the more that strip clubs and escort services are shut down or pushed out, the weaker women become.

There's a reason that the explosion of "selling sex" coincided directly with the women's movement. After all, if capitalism's pushing it, it means that people are discussing it. And the more that sex is openly discussed the better for everyone, especially women.

The alternative, of course, being rolling the clock back 50 years and pushing it all back into the bedroom where men really did have a free hand to do virtualy anything they wanted.

If something's in demand, capitalism dictates that someone's going to try and sell it. That isn't "good" per se, but it's unavoidable. Trying to "outlaw" sexually charged materials and occupations won't stop that effect, it will only strike a blow for conservatism in its constant war against the liberalization of sexuality.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by LSD

And if one is forced to choose between collecting trash and fucking, in sexually liberated society, I'd venture that most would choose the latter. Obviously some would still choose the former which is why capitalism will never run out of trash collectors; but free of all its cultural baggage, prostitution truly is a job just like any other.

But isn't that replacement of the 'old cultural cabbage' with 'new cultural cabbage'? The replacement of the old morality with a new one, one that it would make it deem 'immoral' by the society not to have sex?

The idea of sexual liberation is to help people to freely have sex, if they want to, rather pushing them to have sex, even though they might not be mature enough to perform that act, in order to stop being stigmatized and become alienated by his surrounding, to stop being called a ''nerd'' or a ''weirdo''.

I believe that the current 'indictment' of sex stems from religious beliefs rather than capitalism. I also have observed that there is a systemic brainwash aimed towards the youth, that its not ''cool'' not to have sex, not to fuck three different girls per week. I often see young people making affairs not because they really do want it, but because nowadays the ideal man is: rich, famous, fucker.

What a communist society should aim is to abolish patterns of ethics and morality altogether. Stigmas altogether should cease to exist and everything should be a matter of free choice.

Its neither virginity until marriage, because his Holiness the Pope said so, neither screwing 300 different people per year because I have to seem ''cool''.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by LSD
And the less open that sexuality becomes, the more that strip clubs and escort services are shut down or pushed out, the weaker women become.

False. Its precisely because of society's conservatism why strip clubs, brothels, and porn are thriving. Because in such societies, these things can't be done with ''ordinary'' men/women thus the weight of a man's/woman's natural need for sexual satisfaction can be done only into such places/ways.

If anything, I would say sexual liberation would make prostitutes unemployed. Why pay for porn, strip clubs or a prostitute when you can do it free of charge? :lol:

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:49 pm
Yes thats what happening in my observation in the country where i live.

1) Poor women who can't find a another job generally fall in to prostitution.

2) Many girls are kidnapped by criminal gangs and forced in to prostitution.

3) Some poor girls are generally traded(yes by their own parents) for a money and in turn forced in to prostitution.

4) In certain areas certain tribes have this custom of turning first born girls in to DevaDasis(Mean servant of god) and they become a property of all men in their village.Although eradicated completely in paper many journalist report that this practice is still widespread.



word

and even sometimes the "girls" are doing this kind of job (being prostitute) just for fun. and in a several obeservation by somekind of women organization (in my country), the prostitute where most of them are between 17 - 25 years old were doing that because of their family matter.

most of 'em were depressed with the divorcion of their parent or some other family matter.

PS: i'm not doing this observe myself, so don't ask me to gave some proof.

[SPK]

Originally posted by gilhyle+January 15, 2007 02:08 pm--> (gilhyle @ January 15, 2007 02:08 pm)In a socialist society, one would hope that the economic imperative to prostitution could be eroded over time, making it an increasingly voluntary profession...[/b]
Touché. The problem with prostitution is not the act itself, but the fact that women (and many men btw) are forced into it out of economic necessity. Once capitalism is overthrown and the basic, material needs of life are guaranteed, that element of force and coercion will disappear. People will then be able to make truly free choices (or much freer ones, at least), and there will be no problem -- whether prostitution continues to exist in some form or not.


[email protected] 17, 2007 05:47 pm
The only possible justification for calling prostitutes "slaves", would be that tired old nonsense that prostitution is akin to "selling one's body". A notion that means nothing from an economic or political perspective.
I think that many workers do, in a strong sense, sell their bodies under capitalism. With prostitution it is more obvious, but the idea applies to others as well. Take the example of an assembly line and the whole workplace experience. You have to get up early in the morning and be at work by a certain time: that is a type of bodily discipline (instilled in people from childhood – through the school system). You have to stand at the assembly line for 8+ hours, 5+ days a week, and, generally, you can’t leave your post too often or talk too much to coworkers: those are also forms of bodily regimentation (enforced in the workplace, but with their origins, again, in institutions that are responsible for “socializing” youth). In a classic, Taylorized factory, you wouldn’t be performing a varied set of tasks, but instead repeating the same manual operation, potentially hundreds of times a day or more: that kind of bodily control is deadening and unnatural, as things like carpal tunnel syndrome indicate. And so on. Foucault wrote a lot on how capitalism historically constructed certain types of bodies that were functional for it, i.e. for maximizing surplus value extraction.

So, sex workers are just that – workers like any other: as LSD noted, there is nothing intrinsically “special” about sexuality in this case. The problem arises when people on the left have, in the past, used prostitution as a metaphor or trope to polemically denounce capitalism. This doesn’t really have the effect of deepening people’s understanding of exploitation or the bosses’ strategies (if someone wanted to do that, they would speak to the question of capitalism in a scientific and objective way, without using those kind of superfluous metaphors or tropes). Instead, it basically reproduces conventional, bourgeois social norms that marginalize and oppress sex workers. That gets us nowhere in terms of actually challenging capitalism.

[chimx]

No, actually, the prostitute is exactly between proletariant and proletarian.

I find it mildly amusing that from a by-the-book marxist analysis, prostitutes should be lumped together with other petit bourgeoisie, being that they are the owners of their means of (re)production.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:43 am

No, actually, the prostitute is exactly between proletariant and proletarian.

I find it mildly amusing that from a by-the-book marxist analysis, prostitutes should be lumped together with other petit bourgeoisie, being that they are the owners of their means of (re)production.


Good point. :lol:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Red Brigade+January 18, 2007 08:30 am--> (Red Brigade @ January 18, 2007 08:30 am) False. Its precisely because of society's conservatism why strip clubs, brothels, and porn are thriving. [/b]
Yes, precisely. But this should be understood correctly: those business are thriving because of their semi-legal status, not in spite of it (same as with drug-dealing: legalise it, and the super-profits vanish).

The bourgeois position on prostitution is a coin with two faces. Like Flaubert put it:


Flaubert
Prostitutes are the wards of the purity and innocence of our sisters, brides, daughters; they should be chased implacably.


If anything, I would say sexual liberation would make prostitutes unemployed. Why pay for porn, strip clubs or a prostitute when you can do it free of charge? :lol:

Of course, the "dark glow" of prostitution would vanish. But there would still be the issue of people who are not attractive enough to find sexual mates corresponding to their sexual needs and monetary disponibility.

(Or, to take other approach, we could ask also, why would people pay so much for an authentic scotch whisky, if they could just drink some alcoholic poison out of Tenessee? There is a societal value to seemingly irrational spending, or perhaps a logic of potlacht still remains.)

Luís Henrique

[manic expression]

At the end of the day, sex workers are just like any other worker. They do what they can to get money, and that's basically it. Strippers, unless I'm mistaken, are not ashamed of what they do, since it is simply their job, and they can feasibly make a pretty good living doing it.

I think prostitution is different, since it's not legal, regulated and above-ground. They have to deal with pimps as well, which doesn't really happen to strippers and pornographers. However, they are still people who are trying to get the money they need. IMO, there is no reason to see them as any different from another worker.

[Red October]

i havent seen much discussion on pornstars here. i think many pornstars do it because they like to, and it seems to pay pretty well.

also, prostitution is legal in some areas of nevada, but only in licenses brothels that require frequent tests for STDs.

[Prairie Fire]

I'm surprised that no one has even bothered on this entire thread to analyze the needs behind the market for prostitution, analyzing only the material needs of the prostitutes themselves, and the demeaning effects of moral norms on their proffesion.

Prostitution, Strip clubs, pornography, and all aspects of the sex trade are about one thing: Power.

If a man simply wanted to have sex, he would go to a singles bar or something and try to get lucky (it's definately a lot cheaper).

The problem with trying to fuck someone in a bar is, in the end, they have a say whether or not they are going to fuck you. In this way, both of the people in this sex act are on an equal basis of power.

Now, with a prostitute, the balance of power is totally lop-sided. The jon paying for sex has all of the power, and the prostitute is his sex toy. The jon isn't paying the prostitute to fuck him; he's paying her to submit.

It's the same with strippers, porn stars, etc. My friend, who frequents strip clubs told me a story of how he got thrown out of a strip club for throwing a penny at a stripper. I asked him "why would you do something like that?" He shrugged, and said he didn't know. The reason he flung a penny at the stripper (in addition to being drunk) was that he didn't respect her. He would have never flung a penny at a woman on the street or a female co-worker, but in the case of a stripper it is okay, because he has no respect for her. In the strip club, once again, there is a disequilibrium in power.

This is why so many sex trade workers are the victims of violence. In a sexual situaltion where one party has no power at all, what is to stop the other party from'
statisfying their darker, more violent urges?

Because of this, the sex trade in itself is inherently exploitive and oppressive.
It doesn't matter whether the prostitute has a pimp, or if she's independant.
It doesn't matter if she enjoys the sex. It doesn't matter if the moral objections against the practice are archaic.

The point is, prostitution is not the buisness of sex; it's the buisness of submission.
Because of this, you can not compare a one night stand to getting a prostitute, because wether a one night stand has "emotion" or not, there are still lines that
can not be crossed and a balance of power and respect based on consent; Prostiution doesn't have any of these things.

[LSD]

Prostitution, Strip clubs, pornography, and all aspects of the sex trade are about one thing: Power.

Strange, I thought they were about sex. I guess I was confused by the whole "sex" part of "sex worker".

But OK, I'll bite, what logical argumentation do you have that sex work is inherently more imbalanced than any other service job? ...oh right, none. You're just making another tired attempt to dress up your puritanism in progressive-sounding language.

How nice... <_<


If a man simply wanted to have sex, he would go to a singles bar or something and try to get lucky

And if a man wanted a steak he would just go buy the meat at the supermarket and cook it himself. He certainly wouldn&#39;t go to a restaurant and pay someone to cook it for him, that would be crazy, not to mention a complete "lop-siding" of the balance of power.

Obviously no good revolutionary ever eats out ...or sees a therapist ...or takes the bus ...or hires a plumber.

After all, we&#39;re all theoretically capable of doing those things ourselves. And it&#39;s definitely much cheaper to fix our own toilets than to hire someone else to do it for us.

I&#39;m assuming, though, that when your pipes stop working you call out for help. Well, like it or not that makes you exactly the same as the guy who calls out for an escort.

That may not sit well with your puritanical morality, but economically speaking, your relationship with a plumber is identical to a clients relationship with a prostitute.


Now, with a prostitute, the balance of power is totally lop-sided.

That&#39;s true for every single service job in the world. When you hire someone to clean your appartment the "balance of power" isn&#39;t even, you tell them what to do and they do it.

Does that mean that cleaning workers are in the "business of submission"? How about janitors? How about massage therapists?

Tell me, by your logic, who isn&#39;t in the "business of submission"? I don&#39;t know if you&#39;ve ever held a job, but if you have, I assume you did what your boss told you to do. Did that make you "in the power trade"? Or did it make you just another worker.

Seriously, this double standard bullshit is getting old.


The jon paying for sex has all of the power, and the prostitute is his sex toy. The jon isn&#39;t paying the prostitute to fuck him; he&#39;s paying her to submit.

No he&#39;s paying her to fuck him. Sometimes that means having her submit, sometimes it means having her take charge, it really depends on the personalities involved.

Generally, though, the client is primarily interested in sex and couldn&#39;t give a damn about whatever psychobabble "power dynamics" you&#39;re ranting about.

If all prostitution was about subjugation and submission, dominatrixes wouldn&#39;t have careers. The reality is that sexual psychology is a lot more complex and a lot more layered than you&#39;re making it out to be.

It&#39;s also, paradoxically, a lot simpler in many ways.

Yeah, sex and power and psychology are all tied together. But that doesn&#39;t mean that people don&#39;t occasionaly just want to fuck without having to worry about all the social games attatched to sex, without having to worry about ramifications, and without having to worry about quality.

Again, people visit prostitutes not only because they want sex, but because they want good sex and, believe it or not, that is not nearly as easy to get as you might believe.


It&#39;s the same with strippers, porn stars, etc. My friend, who frequents strip clubs told me a story of how he got thrown out of a strip club for throwing a penny at a stripper. I asked him "why would you do something like that?" He shrugged, and said he didn&#39;t know. The reason he flung a penny at the stripper (in addition to being drunk) was that he didn&#39;t respect her.

And that proves ...what? I mean other than that your friend&#39;s an asshole, I didn&#39;t learn a thing from that story.

Yeah, lots of people don&#39;t respect strippers, but you don&#39;t think that comes from a socirety that teaches us that women who show their bodies are "sluts" and "dirty"?

Sex workers are the "untouchables" of our society and that means that many many people don&#39;t consider them worthy of respect. It doesn&#39;t mean, however, that the solution is to denigrate their profession or further marginalize them.

I&#39;m assuming that you don&#39;t actually know any sex workers, &#39;cause if you did you wouldn&#39;t take this elitist attitude that they&#39;re all little lost puppies waiting for some "revolutionary" to sweep in and "save" them from their "submission".

The fact is sex workers are workers just like any other, they just happen to use a different part of their bodies. If that makes you squeamish, too fucking bad. Solidarity doesn&#39;t mean liking what they do, but it does mean respecting it.

So please take your anti-worker bullshit somewhere else; sex workers certainly could use some political help, and they&#39;d definitely bennefit from a revolutionary leftist perspective, but one thing that they definitely don&#39;t need is another moral crusader to insult and demean them.

They get enough of that crap from the Christian fucking right.


This is why so many sex trade workers are the victims of violence.

No the reason that sex workers are so liable to be abused is that, in large part, they have no one to turn to for help and their clients know that. Which is why criminalization is the worst thing for them.

It&#39;s also why street walkers are vastly more likely to be abused than escorts and why countries with more restrictive prostitution laws also have higher rates of prositution related assaults.

Repression always hurts.


The point is, prostitution is not the buisness of sex; it&#39;s the buisness of submission.

You keep saying that, but I&#39;m still waiting for a single coherent argument that makes sex work so different from any other form of service employment.

A massage therapists makes her clients feel good by rubbing their backs, a prostitute makes her clients feel good by rubbing their genitals. So aside from antiquated notions on "morality", what is it that seperates the one from the other?

What is it that makes the latter "in the business of submission", but not the former?

Unless you&#39;re making the insane proposal that all service workers are "in the business of submission"? It would be a moronic proposal, but it&#39;s actually the inevitable result of your line of thinking.

&#39;Cause if holding economic power over another person (i.e., hiring them to perform a service) is akin to subjugating them, then basically the entire planet is in the "power trade".

What a bizarre world you must live in... :unsure:


But isn&#39;t that replacement of the &#39;old cultural cabbage&#39; with &#39;new cultural cabbage&#39;? The replacement of the old morality with a new one, one that it would make it deem &#39;immoral&#39; by the society not to have sex?

No.

Eliminating sexual "morality" doesn&#39;t mean nescessitating sex or stigamtizing virginity, in fact, just the opposite, it means removing all social "values" associated with sex.

It means treating sex just like any other pleasurable activity. That doesn&#39;t mean that people will stop carrying about it, but it almost certainly does mean that it won&#39;t have the focus that it does now. Not from social conservatives trying to ban it, and not from advertisers trying to exploit it.


I also have observed that there is a systemic brainwash aimed towards the youth, that its not &#39;&#39;cool&#39;&#39; not to have sex

Well, yes and no. Certainly there&#39;s a concerted effort going on to disuade teenagers from sex, hence all the "abistinence only" crap and anti-sex TV commercials.

But at the same time, the bourgeoisie realizes that sex is very much on the minds of young people so, in order to move their products, they exploit sexuality in their marketing.

That leads to a kind of mixed message in which sex is simultaneously condemned and glorified; which, of course, only contributes to the general confusion on this issue.

It should be pointed out, however, that sex is a natural and highly enjoyable activity. And so, with rare exceptions, left on their own, the "youth" are going to experiment sexually.

Those who don&#39;t are probably going to be considered weird. That&#39;s not a "good thing", but the nature of adolescents is that teenagers tend to be judgemental. I suppose there are a lot of psychological reasons for that, but whatever they are, I highly doubt that they&#39;re going to go anywhere in the forseeable future.

But then teenagers get ostracized for all sorts of stupid crap. I would hardly say that sex (or a lack thereof) is "unique" in that respect.


False. Its precisely because of society&#39;s conservatism why strip clubs, brothels, and porn are thriving.

Not exactly.

Obviously prostitution in one form or another has always been here, but the more repressed a society, the more underground sex workers are forced to go. That&#39;s why there are no strip clubs in Tehran.

In highly repressed societies, sex is kept entirely in the bedroom. It isn&#39;t discussed, it isn&#39;t advertised, and it certainly isn&#39;t considered a legitimate profession.

Our society is nowhere near sexually liberated, but it certainly is more liberated than it was 50 years ago and its no coincidence that that liberalization has gone hand in hand with an increase in sexual commodification.

It&#39;s also no coincidence that it&#39;s similarly gone hand in hand with the women&#39;s movement.

Again, the more the sexuality is repressed, the weaker women become. Which is why those who argue for the criminalization of sex work are actually betraying the feminist movement and everything it stands for.

And I think it goes without saying that they&#39;re betraying the workers movement too.


If anything, I would say sexual liberation would make prostitutes unemployed. Why pay for porn, strip clubs or a prostitute when you can do it free of charge?

For the same reason that people pay therapists when they could just talk to their friends, or that they go out to eat when they could just make their own food.

Finding a partner can be a lot of work, especially if one has very specific tastes, and there&#39;s no guarantee that the sex will be at all good. As such there&#39;s nothing wrong with paying for the services of someone who&#39;s job s to know what they&#39;re doing.

That&#39;s why the service industry is doing so well, people like good service&#33;

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:10 pm
The jon isn&#39;t paying the prostitute to fuck him; he&#39;s paying her to submit.


Why do men get their hair cut commercially? Its a simple business, cutting men&#39;s hair, anyone can learn how to cut a man&#39;s hair with ten minutes concentration ? So why dont men get their hair cut by members of their family ? Its clear why they go to barbers - they dont really just want their hair cut, they want the hairdresser to submit to them. Barber shops are about power.....RAD

[gilhyle]

Just make sure you pay by results &#33; ;)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:37 pm
But the employers are gonna have to try a little harder
If prostitution is legalised, what are the odds there will be employers in the trade?

Luís Henrique

[The Bitter Hippy]

why wouldn&#39;t there be?

OK, it may take a while for the skills balance to adjust, and for a generation or three there may be the same skills/demand balance currently present in the plumbing and electricians trades, due to a huge increase in demand over the last fifty years, without so great an increase in newly-qualifying practitioners. In the case of prostitution, this lapse would be due to the pace of change of social prejudices and &#39;morality&#39;.

After that you will get self-syndication and mutual-cost-saving enterprises such as a barrister&#39;s chambers in britain forming. However, the trend in industries such as these, especially the slighty more economically advanced solicitor trade, points ever more towards the larger, more structured entities, and it appears that they will mostly end up like supermarkets.

Before long, economies of scale will tell in terms of space-rental, legal fees (and later on even advertising), and the capitalist model of exploitation will take root.

People will visit branded brothels because they will be cheap, accesible and the quality of product, while not the best, will be relatively assured. Small-scale brothels will be unable to compete in such a climate, and will mainl die out. Of course, there will always be demand outside the mainstream markets, for unusal tastes or for ultra-high quality services...much the same as the car market is today.

[The Bitter Hippy]

well if prostitution could be cooperativised and employee-operated, so could any service industry. Why aren&#39;t they? Because there is money to be made by doing things the cappie way. The only people making any sort of money in a cooperative are the workers themselves. This is economically unsustainable in a capitalist environment in the long term. The labour pool for sex-workers would swell, until there was enough competition between cooperatives to make a corporation more profitable.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:54 pm
Finding a partner can be a lot of work, especially if one has very specific tastes, and there&#39;s no guarantee that the sex will be at all good. As such there&#39;s nothing wrong with paying for the services of someone who&#39;s job s to know what they&#39;re doing.

That&#39;s why the service industry is doing so well, people like good service&#33;
Its not the same. Sex is pleasurable precisely because you do it first and foremost for your own(when it doesn&#39;t involve other emotions) pleasure and you do it with partners that turn you on. Now when other things are involved, like getting rewarded for what you do*, the pleasure thing whithers away, because when sex turns professional and you live from that kind of work, regardless on whether the reward is material or anything else, you are pushed to have sex even with people whom you may not find attractive, precisely because you are a professional and this is where sex turns into a mere job and not a pleasure. A job can be pleasurable, but the process of &#39;having pleasure&#39; can&#39;t turn into a job because of the profesionalism that it involves as you said.

And how many people are there who would fuck some random guy or woman who doesn&#39;t turn them on? Eww, I don&#39;t think many. Its practically impossible, if you know what I mean. :lol:

* and in a Socialist society people still do get rewarded for doing a job.

[dez]

I would fuck a woman that didn&#39;t turn me on.
Turn the lights off, and/or get a little drunk or high and use your fucking imagination.
Beats the shit of jerking off.


Back to thread, what makes you think a whore won&#39;t be turned on by a costumer? That would be the same as saying an actress wouldn&#39;t be able to fall in love with an actor whom she&#39;s making a romantic movie.
It doesn&#39;t happens every time... But it does.
And whores can always pretend they are playing with themselves in order to be a little horny.
I&#39;ve made a few whores cum... And i gotta tell ya, one of them i even think enjoyed the sex as much as i did
[:D]

[Coggeh]

I think while were in a capitalism society prostitution would be completely legal to ensure the safety of the women and try and keep it from becoming a practice where pimps run it etc.

In a socialist society however i believe that the drive to sell your body for money would be more or less gone as much more job opportunities and economic safety nets for people are in place.

Also i believe sex is a natural thing , its not a commodity to be bought and sold and should be looked down on completely .





-Oops didnt realise this thread was so old ... sorry :unsure:

[Labor Shall Rule]

I noticed that the second poster made a logical leap, ignoring all historical characteristics of slavery and capitalism.

In looking at value producing labor, we never look at the moral, ethical, preferential questions. The sex worker is a member of the working class, because their profession fulfills all the criteria of value producing labor under capitalism. First and foremost, it is socially directed, which is why a prostitute is &#39;paid&#39; in the first place - it qualifies as work. They also produce commodities, and in this case, it is not a t-shirt or the sofa you might be sitting in, but it is the service of sex.

The fact is that &#39;prostitution&#39;, just as any other profession under capitalism, is commodified.

As so, there should be efforts to unionize them.

There is nothing inherently incorrect with it; it is not is conclusively &#39;humiliating&#39;, considering that all humans thrive off of the mental activity of the procreational act of a sexual relationship. If you are less attractive to the opposite sex, then you will search for someone outside of your social network that offers their services with no strings attached. It will no longer be universally exchangeable, but there will always be (and I use this with a non-sexist connotation) a group of &#39;sluts&#39; that are willing to freely cooperate with other humans in a sexual manor.

I don&#39;t think that brothels and strip clubs will continue to exist, but there could be associations of sexual laborers that are trained and willing to engage in sexual acts. This is where the more permissive concept of &#39;free love&#39; comes into the picture.

[Nosotros]

I think in the present society we are in those jobs are exploitative, involving people trafficing, drug addiction and poverty, well prostitution anyway.I don&#39;t see the point in strip clubs at all.However I don&#39;t have a problem with pornograghy as long as it is not exploitative or immoral (such as sex with animals or gonzo porn).I think though that prostitution should be &#39;legalised&#39; or legitamized because it provides a useful service for people who are not good with relationships/the opposite sex, people who are disabled etc.Making it illegal doesn&#39;t work and I think that if people want to be prostitutes then thats down to them and we shouldn&#39;t stop them.If we are gonna have brothels/prostitution they should be collectivised as they were during the Spanish revolution.Of course in a post revolutionary society less people would need to be prostitutes.