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?
Legalize it, regulate it, address poverty, and have open access to educational and career change opportunities. Hit all of these and sex work will naturally fall away. Just banning it only drives it underground making the lives of those forced into by circumstance worse. Its important to keep in mind that sex work is a symptom of larger societal problems, not a direct cause in and of itself.
I have a similar line of thinking when it comes to abortion
You dislike abortion?
deleted by creator
There is a difference between liking something and viewing it neutrally. I don’t “like” abortion but I don’t view it negatively. Its ultimately just a routine medical procedure. I feel about abortion the same way I feel about surgery. Its good we know how to do it, sucks it needs to happen and it should ultimately be between the patient and medical provider to choose to do it.
Also abortions are very safe procedures. Its not wire hangers in a back alley.
If you replace “bourgeois” with “Jew” you take a communist and make a fascist, as it turns out replacing words changes the meaning of a sentence. Shocker I know.
I understand the line of thinking, whether you think it is negative morally or slightly annoying, most people will agree it’s better to reduce the need for abortions by addressing the reasons people get them. Is it not desireable to have fewer unwanted pregnancies? Even if you are completely pro-choice you’re not going to convince all the Catholics immediately, why not do what is positive for both? Also, many people would like to have children, but don’t have the means to do such, and therefore abort. This is why abortion was originally supported by eugenicists.
For what reason? I’m genuinely wondering here.
This line gives me centrist vibes for some reason.
Also, why do we need to appease to the religious anyway? Not like most of them would support LGBT rights either anyway, let alone basic rights for women such as the right to have full control to their own wombs. By that logic, we should continue to also oppress LGBT people like in Stalin’s USSR just because most religious people find gays and trans people “icky”.
So what, we should keep women from having control over their own wombs just because a few eugenicists supported it? Jesus.
deleted by creator
Okay, then why did they say in the next line that that’s why abortion was originally supported by eugenicists? How is
[being forced to abort for not having the means to raise a kid]even equatable to eugenics? I thought Eugenics was about only having humans with the most “pure/good” genes live?deleted by creator
My point about eugenics is that some eugenicists support contraception and abortion because they see it as a positive if (poorer) non-white people will reproduce less. For example a lot of WEF types support such things being promoted in the third world because they think they’re overpopulating the planet, and people will choose to (or be forced to) use such more.
Wait… do they also not support it being promoted in the First/Second World?
I’m not opposed to abortion, i was saying that it would be better that people have resources to raise children if they’d like, rather than abortion being the only option.