I see sex work as somewhat analogous to coal mining. It’s not that it isn’t real work, or that those who work in that capacity don’t deserve rights, dignity, or a society that works for them. The problem, of course, is the ever-present exploitation of the workers coupled with the severe unpleasantness of the occupation which ensures that the people who do work these jobs are those with few other options. That isn’t to say that all sex workers and/or coal miners are miserable. Even so, the patterns around this kind of work are unmistakable.
Given these facts, I think most reasonable people understand that sex work should go extinct. That isn’t to say that you can’t make pornography or have sex with strangers. However, it’s impossible to gauge enthusiastic consent when money is changing hands, and enthusiastic consent is a vital component for an ethical sexual encounter.
My question for the community is how exactly this is meant to be accomplished. How can sex work be abolished without harming the very people it’s meant to protect? The number one problem western sex workers face, more so than creepy clients, is the cops, who profile them, steal their wages, and arrest them on a whim. Clearly, criminalizing sex work hasn’t done much for sex workers. What are some alternatives?
is this our site’s own little recurrent struggle session?
No, it is every single leftist space recurring struggle session*. For some reason nothing else cause so much emotion so fast and so often.
*In the internet that is, IRL it is discussed much much less often.
I think “what constitutes genuine socialist patriotism” is more of a recurrent struggle session on this site, along with the somewhat related “is the Russian Federation just a useful ally at this point, or a based anti-imperialist country which is on the way back to socialism?”
But with regard to the sex work question – I honestly don’t get why it’s such an emotional topic, or why so many otherwise intelligent people start arguing like liberals the moment it’s broached. We can argue all day about whether sex is “sacred” or not, but the fact of the matter is, it’s certainly something having to do with human connection, and connection on a deeply personal level. Now when any other type of personal relationship becomes an industry, Marxists are rightly angry. If some enterprising capitalist, for instance, started a “Friend for Hire” service, each one of us here would mock and denounce it as a heartless commodification of a basic human interaction. However, when sex (something much less essential to human beings than friendship) is introduced into the equation, so many self-proclaimed Marxists start commodifying right alongside the dumbest NYT liberals.
I don’t understand why some people say sex is something less essential than friendship. If this were really the case:
Sure, you could suggest that people could just pleasure themselves (or not) to control their sexual drives, but most religions forbid it; forcing the religious to seek the above two methods.
You could even suggest people to “channel” their horniness to something more productive, but most people wouldn’t be able to get that done, likely because the horniness would cloud/distract your brain from getting things done.
Because plenty of people can function normally without sex, and a few even willingly give it up (Ho Chi Minh was one). People who are completely without friends, on the other hand, tend almost always to sink into deep depression, and even suicide. I’m aware that there are people who have killed themselves over sexlessness, but you almost always find that these individuals are isolated in other ways, and are in fact making sexual desire a sort of proxy for their natural desire for companionship. Look at Elliot Rogers. Sexlessness was clearly not the root cause of this guy’s issues.
Of course people are horny; nobody is denying that. But people have an even stronger drive for companionship, because humans are species beings. Ask yourself: would you, given the choice, either have (1) no friends, but all the one-night stands you could possibly desire, or (2) friends, but no sex for the rest of your life? Depending on one’s level of sexual drive (this varies between individuals), it might not be an easy choice, but most people over 14 would ultimately choose the latter.
Is that why so much rape/sexual abuse happen around the world? Because plenty of people can function without sex?
Then why do some people cheat on their partners, end their relationships after a few flings or have fights/don’t hesitate to end their companionship/cheat on them if their companion is unable to satisfy their sexual goal/desire? If companionship really has a stronger drive among “everyone”.
Generalizing everyone to be this pure-hearted group of people is wrong honestly.
Hardly anyone is pure, and most people will take sex when they can get it – it’s just that they suffer more from friendlessness than they do from sexlessness. And nobody commits rape out of some sort of need. That they do is honestly incel rhetoric.
I think rape usually happens when someone can’t keep it in their pants anymore and they are extremely desperate (asides from trying to “assert dominance” in a horrific manner to another; or as “revenge/punishment”), but if this comes across as “incel rhetoric” to you, then do educate me on why you think rape happens.
Note that I’m not trying to justify rape. In the end it’s still a horrible thing to do to another person.
Most cases of rape are actually about dominance, specifically misogynistic dominance (which is one reason men rape more often then women). Otherwise, people rape because they want something which they can’t get, and they refuse to keep a handle on themselves as a disciplined human being should. There is no “need” involved, only a “want” – if it really were a need, punishing rapists would certainly be unjust.
Furthermore: rape, though far more widespread than it should be, is still committed by a small minority of people. Most sexless people are frustrated by their sexlessness, but very few end up committing rape.
You would denounce “friend for hire” as heartless commodification? Do you oppose professional therapists?
deleted by creator