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?

  • QueerCommie
    link
    61 year ago

    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.

    • alunyanneгs 🏳️‍⚧️♀️
      link
      21 year ago

      most people will agree it’s better to reduce the need for abortions

      For what reason? I’m genuinely wondering here.

      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?

      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”.

      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.

      So what, we should keep women from having control over their own wombs just because a few eugenicists supported it? Jesus.

      • @redtea
        link
        71 year ago

        deleted by creator

        • alunyanneгs 🏳️‍⚧️♀️
          link
          21 year ago

          The argument was not to prohibit abortion so that the babies could be given to others who cannot have children. The words were (emphasis added):

          many people would like to have children, but don’t have the means to do such, and therefore abort.

          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?

          • @redtea
            link
            61 year ago

            deleted by creator

          • QueerCommie
            link
            51 year ago

            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.

            • alunyanneгs 🏳️‍⚧️♀️
              link
              21 year ago

              For example a lot of WEF types support such things being promoted in the third world

              Wait… do they also not support it being promoted in the First/Second World?

              • QueerCommie
                link
                21 year ago

                They probably do, but mostly to look consistent, and so people will think you’re just a normal philanthropic liberal.

      • QueerCommie
        link
        61 year ago

        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.