u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhou
After a (now locked) discussion on prostitution arose not too long ago, we were reminded that there still remains a large portion of Marxist-Leninists who lack a concrete view on āsex workā, i.e. prostitution, pornography, and so forth, and who, as a result of this position, take on accident an apathetic and passive view towards what is in reality one of the cruelest and most severe forms of exploitation which arose from the development of not only modern capitalism, but from property relations in general; āsex-workā is a practice which has roots in the very beginning of our history as human beings, emerging during our transition from primitive savagery into organized civilization. What is the nature of this curious form of work, and what are we, as Marxist-Leninists, supposed to make of āsex-workā?
To be doing this, we will be studying Engelsā Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, in particular Chapter 4, The Monogamous Family, which is itself an analysis of anthropologist Lewis Morganās Ancient Society; for reference, it will take us a short bit before we get to talking about prostitution, because itās necessary to understand the history of marriage first.
The History of Marriage and its Reasons
In his work, Engels takes time to explain ā among other things ā the various conditions which led to the rise of the monogamous social relation as the common form of marriage which all humans adhered to. This comes as the result of thousands of years of primitive social development, as humankind slowly organizes into tribes and by way of natural selection, those tribes which fail to adapt to the changing social relations are doomed to collapse internally or fall to outside pressures.
For example, Engels explains in a previous chapter that one of the first developments in human social relations was the development of the concept of pedophilia, that it was wrong to have intercourse with a child of a certain developmental level, prior to sexual maturity. Those tribes which lacked this instinct, and which permitted pedophilia, quickly died due to birth-related illness, dysfunction, etc. The prevention of pedophilia, i.e., the relation in which all adults were allowed to have intercourse with one another, but children were excluded and not permitted, is the Consanguine family type. This is the first instance of āmarriageā ā all members of the society were āmarriedā to one another, except for the children.
In this form of marriage, therefore, only ancestors and progeny, and parents and children, are excluded from the rights and duties (as we should say) of marriage with one another. Brothers and sisters, male and female cousins of the first, second, and more remote degrees, are all brothers and sisters of one another, and precisely for that reason they are all husbands and wives of one another. At this stage the relationship of brother and sister also includes as a matter of course the practice of sexual intercourse with one another.
The prohibition of incest was the second social development to form, with many tribes adopting the idea that intercourse between people of the same mother was wrong ā this led to the first instance of Punaluan marriage, a social relation by which those in a tribe were all married to another, except children were excluded, and intercourse between brothers and sisters was prohibited. A group of brothers from one mother would marry a group of sisters from another mother. The taken partners are then referred to as wives and husbands. Over time, the concept grew to include prohibiting incest between cousins, both āfirstā cousins and āsecondā cousins. Engels explains that this stage is infinitely more important than the Consanguine phase, because it is truly the first step into an actually organized form of social marriage as a means of preserving property relations.
If the first advance in organization consisted in the exclusion of parents and children from sexual intercourse with one another, the second was the exclusion of sister and brother. On account of the greater nearness in age, this second advance was infinitely more important, but also more difficult, than the first.
Through all of this, humankind adopted these forms of marriage to conform to manās developing but still very primitive society. Consanguine and Punaluan marriage evolved as ways of sustaining the tribeās population prior to the development of private property. In these times, we might observe that, rather interestingly, women occupied a very high social position in relation to men when compared to modern industrial societies:
Communistic housekeeping, however, means the supremacy of women in the house; just as the exclusive recognition of the female parent, owing to the impossibility of recognizing the male parent with certainty, means that the women ā the mothers ā are held in high respect. One of the most absurd notions taken over from eighteenth-century enlightenment is that in the beginning of society woman was the slave of man. Among all savages and all barbarians of the lower and middle stages, and to a certain extent of the upper stage also, the position of women is not only free, but honorable.
But this system was doomed to collapse eventually as well. It worked when the tribe needed to sustain itself while there was very limited social contact, homes were temporary, and bad weather could mean death of a thousand year lineage at a dayās notice. But after the development of private property, the interests of the components making up the tribe changed, and the position of women in society plummeted.
āFakeā Monogamy: Controlling Women
Monogamyās rise as the predominant social form of marriage coincides nearly perfectly with the development of manās concept of private property, which emerged after the productive forces of society reached such a point that certain forms of labor ā hunting, gathering, and so on ā became superfluous, and thus a surplus of goods took place and some people had to work less than others. How did this situation lead to monogamy as a social construct?
The simple explanation is that, owing to the fact that children are an extension of their parents, the children of those who own private property are an extension of the propertied class, i.e., it is in their self interests, just as much as their parents, to defend the sacred right to property, the new developing social form of unequal and exploitative development. The child, after all, is the one who inherits your property. This isnāt just some universal rule: all tribes at some point had a struggle between the ones that stood to lose from development into this system of private property inherited along family lines, and those that stood to gain. But in each case, those that stood to gain won the struggle, and in the cases where they didnāt, the tribe ended in destruction owing to its primitiveness and lack of development in the face of changing material conditions.
It [monogamy] is based on the supremacy of the man, the express purpose being to produce children of undisputed paternity; such paternity is demanded because these children are later to come into their fatherās property as his natural heirs.
Engels explains that, in many societies, there lies a period wherein group marriage and monogamous marriage exist side by side, and women are required to āpurchase their chastityā in order to be owned by only one husband rather than a group. It was through this manner that the best off women of society were granted elevation from group marriage into the monogamous system first, while the lower castes were left behind for some time.
What causes the arrival of monogamy? Monogamy arose as the social structure to guarantee the validity of the child as the inheritor of property. The concept of private property is incompatible with the concept of group marriage, of all the primitive marriage types, because the child as the āheirā to oneās property cannot be secured ā with multiple husbands and multiple wives, any kid could come from a number of places with no definite father from whom he was guaranteed the right of property. So monogamy ā a strict social relation of marriage between one woman and one man ā became the norm. This method granted everyone to know which kid belonged to whom, which property was going where after which personās death, etc. It was of course a very convoluted and unstable system in its beginnings, but over time it strengthened and became more formalized.
Engels, however, explains that the āmonogamyā which we know is, in reality, not āmonogamyā at all, but rather, a āmonogamyā only for women and a free, open āpolygamyā for men, owing to the nature of the property relations that gave rise to monogamous marriage in the first place:
It is distinguished from pairing marriage by the much greater strength of the marriage tie, which can no longer be dissolved at either partnerās wish. As a rule, it is now only the man who can dissolve it, and put away his wife. The right of conjugal infidelity also remains secured to him, at any rate by custom (the Code Napoleon explicitly accords it to the husband as long as he does not bring his concubine into the house), and as social life develops he exercises his right more and more; should the wife recall the old form of sexual life and attempt to revive it, she is punished more severely than ever.
It is here that we can see the monogamous system, although representing an irreversible advance in society, is a system wherein the position of men is invariably higher than the woman. Whereas the man retains all the privileges of group marriage, the woman is put under the most brutal and coercive regiments of the monogamous form. Engels points out that this is a massive contradiction, as, despite being the strictest form, the monogamous marriage drives the two parties to have the most acutely conflicting interests; and that, under the private property relation, monogamous marriage is inherently exploitative as its primary purpose is the preservation of the maleās private property. In a sense, we can see that the monogamous marriage is only monogamous for the woman. It is here that the inevitable road to prostitution, to moral and physical degradation, and to the solution we seek as Marxists is paved.
Private Property and the Monogamous Form: The Birth of Prostitution
Now that we have sufficiently studied the history of marriage, its forms, and its relation to private property, we can properly study the history of its offshoot, prostitution, and its forms, relations to private property, and so forth.
Engels explains that, though it might appear opposite in dynamic, the ceremonial āpurchase of chastityā was, in reality, the birthplace of modern prostitution. The right to ābuyā and āsellā oneās chastity was, at its core, the reverse of the idea that one can ābuyā and āsellā sex. Once this institution was formalized and so prominently celebrated in religious thought, its counterpart, the purchase and sale of sex, was an inevitable outcome.
Hetaerism [concubinage, in this case quasi-prostitution] derives quite directly from group marriage, from the ceremonial surrender by which women purchased the right of chastity. Surrender for money was at first a religious act; it took place in the temple of the goddess of love, and the money originally went into the temple treasury. The temple slaves of Anaitis in Armenia and of Aphrodite in Corinth, like the sacred dancing-girls attached to the temples of India, the so-called bayaderes were the first prostitutesā¦
Similarly, Engels explains how, in this seemingly āmonogamousā form of chaste marriage, women ā owing to their relegation as mere objects of producing heirs to private property ā fade into machines, into non-persons, and the sanctity of the social relation that is marriage is undermined to an extreme extent as its robbed of its various components and left merely as the bare acquisition of a mate for offspring, without love or passion:
Young women are booty and are handed over to the pleasure of the conquerors, the handsomest being picked by the commanders in order of rank; the entire Iliad, it will be remembered, turns on the quarrel of Achilles and Agamemnon over one of these slaves. If a hero is of any importance, Homer also mentions the captive girl with whom he shares his tent and his bed. The legitimate wife was expected to put up with all this, but herself to remain strictly chaste and faithfulā¦ a friend who preferred his friendās wife could share her with him; and it was considered quite proper to place oneās wife at the disposal of a sturdy āstallion,ā as Bismarck would say, even if he was not a citizen. In Euripides a woman is called an oikourema (the word is neuter), a thing for looking after the house, and, apart from her business of bearing children, that was all she was for the Athenian ā his chief female domestic servant. The man had his athletics and his public business, from which women were barred; in addition, he often had female slaves at his disposal and during the most flourishing days of Athens an extensive system of prostitution which the state at least favoredā¦
It was not in any way the fruit of individual sex-love, with which it had nothing whatever to do; marriages remained as before marriages of convenience. It was the first form of the family to be based, not on natural, but on economic conditions ā on the victory of private property over primitive, natural communal property.
It is this bizarre state of affairs which leads the prostitute, the woman who has surrendered all of her being in order to satisfy menās needs, to become somehow a simultaneously despised and respected member of society; as a prostitute, she is respected for her obedience, but as a woman she is despised for her promiscuity:
The Spartan women and the elite of the Athenian hetairai [prostitutes] are the only Greek women of whom the ancients speak with respect and whose words they thought it worth while to record. It was precisely through this system of prostitution that the only Greek women of personality were able to develop, and to acquire that intellectual and artistic culture by which they stand out as high above the general level of classical womanhood as the Spartan women by their qualities of character. But that a woman had to be a prostitute before she could be a woman is the worst condemnation of the Athenian family.
Similarly, Engels explains that the horrendous view of women that monogamous marriage imparted upon men is also responsible for the birth of formal homosexual relations, specifically in an abusive and pedophilic form.
The men, who would have been ashamed to show any love for their wives, amused themselves by all sorts of love affairs with hetairai; but this degradation of the women was avenged on the men and degraded them also, till they [the men] fell into the abominable practice of Knabenliebe [pedastry/pedophilic homosexuality]ā¦
I feel that I should note, because I know how some of our comrades might perceive this: this is NOT a condemnation of homosexuality, not on my part or Engelsā part. It is only an acknowledgement of how this form of love arose originally under harsh and exploitative conditions. I kept this in because I felt it might be useful for our comrades who struggle to understand the seemingly odd stance communist parties in countries like China take on LGBT issues.
The homosexual social form will (and mostly has) developed out of this. But originally, it came as the result of a social system alienating women.
To conclude this section, I will extrapolate: we can see from all we have learned that prostitution arose as a social form to allow women an escape from this miserable condition under the monogamous marriage; whereas group to monogamous marriage was characterized by the āpurchaseā of chastity, prostitution under the monogamous system is characterized by the sale of chastity. The woman sells her chastity for a period of time, and in that time is granted relief from the monogamous system.
Prostitution: An Analysis
Now that we have sufficiently studied the origins of prostitution, of marriage, and of prostitutionās relation to property, itās time to analyze prostitution and its place in history. To do this, we must understand the objective facts about prostitution and its future development:
-
Prostitution arose as a social form to appease menās desires; after men had alienated women into property, had robbed them of their status of human beings and relegated them only to wives, to āhousekeepersā. The element of āsex-loveā, as Engels calls it, was eradicated, and sex became a mere formality for the propagation of babies. Sex-love became separated into sex, with wives, and love, with lovers/mistresses/concubines. Sex became a mere mechanic in the process of developing and replicating private property.
-
Prostitution is the sale of a womanās chastity. It is the surrender of a womanās right to self, āpurchasedā from them. Itās inherently exploitative: should a woman retain her dignity, refuse to sell her self as a prostitute, refuse the absolute degradation of her body as a means of avoiding starvation ā in other words, sex under the threat of actual death ā then she retains her status as āwomanā prior to āprostituteā. This is the contradiction: capitalism cannot guarantee women the right to be a human before a prostitute. It is the best off ā those who first had the money to purchase their chastity, and who have never sunk to such a level that they were required to surrender it for food ā that are guaranteed their status as women above all else, and with dignity, even if only to a partial extent of that granted to men. This is, under capitalism, the exception, and cannot be the norm.
-
The abolition of private property means the abolition of prostitution. Prostitution is a direct result of private property, and is one of its most intensely exploitative and degrading forms, on par with using child-labor in the acquisition of minerals in mines. Prostitution was the direct commodification of womenās chastity, of their right to self, and to defend the idea of prostitution under socialism is to 1. defend private property, as a necessary relation for upholding prostitution and 2. to out oneself as having no grasp of the womanās historical position as an exploited person, who has always been at the disadvantage of private property relations, who have always had the coercive system being used against them, and who would never willingly degrade themselves in such a way if they had a choice. They do it for bread and not for the sex.
-
Prostitution is objectively wrong, a vestige of a primal form of social organization, the Punaluan family. It is an objective step backwards into a primitive social relation that was already developed out of, and an attempt at the re-subjugation of women to men adapted to modern monogamous marriage. It decidedly prevents the active development of the women proletariat by strengthening their position as wives and servants and by granting them only freedom through slavery.
Prostitution is, in the final analysis, a social relation which uses the propertied status of men to coerce unpropertied women into sexual intercourse, in defiance of the monogamous system. The monogamous system itself is not something which is inherently bad ā itās developmentally an improvement from previous systems. But it can only truly become a monogamous, i.e. for both parties, marriage under socialism, when property relations are in the process of being abolished and the relation between man and woman is a relation, as Engels said, of sex-love, of passion, and not of proprietorship. A true monogamous system demands the actual fidelity of not just the woman, but the man. Itās only through this that a truly prosperous, truly equal society, wherein women and men are equal not on an ideological ground, but on a real, material basis, can be achieved. To conclude, from Engels:
What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a womanās surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual ā and that will be the end of it.
Edit: /u/ComradeFrunze made a good comment I thought worth adding:
the Marxist idea of supporting sex-workers is to ensure they are not assaulted or killed (as is common in capitalism), and to assist them from escaping the sex work industry. While in a capitalist idea of āsupportingā sex-workers is to directly support the sex-work industry by being Johns.
The goal under socialism is to eliminate prostitution and sex-work, by changing the material conditions that causes it to appear. It should just be SEX, not SEX WORK.
u/ComradeFrunze - originally from r/GenZhou
And to add on to it:the idea of supporting sex-workers as Marxists is to ensure they are not assaulted or killed (as is common in capitalism, murder and rape of sex workers is incredibly common), and to assist them from escaping the sex work industry. While in a capitalist idea of āsupportingā sex-workers is to directly support the sex-work industry by being Johns. as well as encouraging people to participate in the sex work industry
The goal under socialism is to eliminate prostitution and sex-work, by changing the material conditions that causes it to appear. It should just be SEX, not SEX WORK.
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhou
Yes, precisely thisu/AyyItsDylan94 - originally from r/GenZhou
I wish more leftists understood this. Absolutely agreed.
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhou
btw I intend to make a second part to this sooner or later, detailing how socialist societies like the USSR and PRC handled the eradiation of the āsex industryā and the history of pornography in dictatorships of the proletariat, namely the DDR and PRCu/darkcalling - originally from r/GenZhou
Based. o7.Also Iāll note itās interesting that I see people who claim this is just another job. Well if it is then like any other job you could fold prostitution and its duties into another role and no one should have objections.
Whatās to stop a company or an organization lets say in a socialist country from employing for example a secretary and demanding that part of her duties is giving blowjobs to the leadership or to important partners who visit, etc? Or just to co-workers, whatever.
If itās just another job and some other duties then thatās not specifically exploitative or perpetuating of misogyny and patriarchy by their logic. No one would claim a plumber being asked to run wires like an electrician was being especially exploited (misused maybe or unwisely employed for a task not suited, but not degraded) or a plumber being asked to do some data entry was being specifically degraded and exploited by that and yet overwhelmingly most women and reasonably so would say that being asked to give blowjobs on command or something less invasive, letās say strip and do an erotic dances on command, is degrading in a way other work is not. And like it or not thatās what you end up with when you say āsexual labor is like any other labor and itās fine to charge for it and label it a jobā.
It shows so well how male-centric the western left is that views contrary to this and in support of exploitation of women are so common.
u/G1adi4tor - originally from r/GenZhou
Hey this might be the best post Iāve ever read on this site (and I was a lurker for a couple years before I made this accountā¦). Thank you so much for putting so much work into this.I was one of the people in that thread who was waffling but you definitely set my mind right on whether or not prostitution should be illegal, you 100% changed my view on that. Also Engels on point as always.
But also Iām curious. I kind of noticed there was a huge cultural divide in that thread. Iām a yankee bastard for context so I could just have some residual lib brainwashing here, but I support a sexually permissive culture - honestly in my experience girls Iāve dated have been way more into exploring exhibitionism than I was. I totally support womenās liberation and the porn industry is inherently exploitative. I totally think it should be a crime to produce porn commercially, but I actually donāt think itās that uncommon for couples to just make porn just for the hell of it.
Iām having a hard time filtering out the culture-related perspectives (commenters from sexually repressive cultures vs commenters from sexually permissive cultures) from material analysis though.
I guess this might be kind of a huge question, but whatās the materialist answer? I personally think sexual permissiveness is an indicator of secularity, which results from prosperity & uplifting people from the social conditions that enable religion & reactionary social conservatism to spread. I thought that was the Marxist position, but Iām willing to open my mind again on that.
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhou
Aw thank you comrade, Iām glad I could help <3Iām curious. I kind of noticed there was a huge cultural divide in that thread. Iām a yankee bastard for context so I could just have some residual lib brainwashing here, but I support a sexually permissive culture - honestly in my experience girls Iāve dated have been way more into exploring exhibitionism than I was. I totally support womenās liberation and the porn industry is inherently exploitative. I totally think it should be a crime to produce porn commercially, but I actually donāt think itās that uncommon for couples to just make porn just for the hell of it.
This is definitely true. This post was more about prostitution than pornography, I want to make a second post on pornography sometime but itās a slightly more complicated issue. Pornography under a commercial context is exploitative like you said, and is essentially just advanced prostitution, but sexually explicit material isnāt necessarily inherently pornography. Hereās an example: if you were to film a video of you doing something sexually explicit, in a socialist society, where would you post that? Without intending to make profit on it, you donāt really have any reason to be putting it out for mass consumption. Perhaps you simply want to show yourself off ā in that case, you can find someone who would like to see you, and send them the video in question; is it still porn in that case? Or is it just a private, erotic video?
Thatās the kinda way you have to think with this, under a socialist society, at least over time, the places where pornography is shared would likely be gone, and the motive for mass production/consumption of pornography would have been phased out. Itās not that porn would be viewed as abhorrent, itās that it would be viewed as nonsensical. Why put yourself out for all to see, when you could put yourself out for whoever you want to see instead?
Two examples: both the PRC and DDR (east germany) banned and criminalized the production of pornography. But, while consumption is illegal in both cases, you wouldnāt know it if you visited. East Germany actually had such a thriving āpornā industry that the state practically helped manage it at some points, though it was tame (not censored, but not graphic either), and often was presented with a quasi-medical or ānaturistā/nudist context, rather than a pornographic one. In China, pornography is illegal but not only is it relatively easy to find non-pornographic āeroticaā online, itās also possible to find actual pornography made in nearby countries like Japan. The most the authorities ever do is visit your house if you downloaded pornography to tell you, āPlease donāt download pornography because itās illegalā and then leave. Most of the time they wonāt even bother doing that since everyone knows the person is going to get a VPN and then immediately go back to watching porn once the cops leave lmao. Production of porn (as a producer, not actor) is a BIG nono though, and can get you time in prison. I forgot the laws on the actual actors themselves.
But like you said, itās also a cultural thing. In the DDR, sex and pornography were WAY more openly talked about than in China. Germany has a strong nudist culture, and it was not at all infrequent during the DDR era for the party to publish nudist magazines that had slightly sexual undertones. Similarly, foreign porn was rarely labeled as porn by the state, and was usually categorized as āadult entertainmentā or āeroticaā. It was only the particularly hardcore things that were labeled as pornography and banned.
I personally think sexual permissiveness is an indicator of secularity, which results from prosperity & uplifting people from the social conditions that enable religion & reactionary social conservatism to spread. I thought that was the Marxist position, but Iām willing to open my mind again on that.
Yes and no. Itās not āpermissivenessā, permissiveness can actually be a sign of sexual immaturity a lot of the time, and overestimating ownās own permissiveness to sex is what leads to so many incidents of women who are raped and donāt fully realize they were raped until sometimes years after. Itās moreso that sexual maturity, i.e., understanding the consequences of sex, the material and ideological implications, where sex came from, and so forth, that indicates a healthy and thriving society. A natural consequence of this is society seems to become more āpermissiveā, but in reality, itās becoming less permissive of the negative aspects. 2020 Americans might be more permissive towards the idea of consensual premarital sex than 1960s Americans, but they are much less permissive of catcalling, harassment, and so forth. As per the unity of opposites, itās less permissions which grant us more permissions. Women are freer to dress in a sexually provocative way if they live in a society where men are unfree to grope passing women, if that makes sense.
u/veinss - originally from r/GenZhou
Itās an excellent post but hereās the problem: Engels, the main source here, had a limited knowledge of world history and non-european cultures and reactionary ideas like romantic love and relating love to sex filter through his arguments. Heās right both in his analysis of the origin of patriarchy through patrilineal family and (fake) monogamy and in his conclusions on the abolishment of property relations but thereās a lot of missing nuance on the transitional and alternative forms to the patrilineal family and heterosexuality. I wonāt dwell on that because Iād rather look towards the present and futureSo, a material class based analysis. Weāre all aware that poverty and desperation are the main drivers behind sex work, like they are the main drivers behind any other form of work under capitalism. But a very peculiar thing happens with sex work where cultural capital can come into play and lead to very different outcomes. Take two poor working class girls armed with nothing but a phone and their cultural capital wanting to get into sex work. One might decide to escort independently on twitter, start an onlyfans, start camming and start making porn while the other may be struck standing in a cold street corner because she lacks the information, the knowledge, the cultural capital to do these things. She may be entirely unaware of these possibilities. Poverty itself plays a limited role here because not much other than a phone and internet is needed at least to start, itās a matter of education and culture. The difference here is major. We canāt as marxists consider the escort making top 5% income compared with the rest of the national population to be in the same position as the street prostitute in severe poverty. We have to acknowledge the fact that there is a petty bourgeoisie sex work and a proletarian/lumpenproletarian sex work.
Which leads me to the next thing, the future world, IF we are being successful in building socialism then year after year millions upon millions of people will stop being poor, will get phones (porn production studios) and will get access to education and culture. The naive and honestly baffling expectation Iāve found often among the more prudish communists is that people will then cease to consider sex work an option. This is highly unlikely though. I think people having financial stability, decent jobs, their basic necessities met, extremely powerful handheld computers and cameras plus knowledge of thousands of years worth of philosophical discussion on sex and gender theory might actually lead to more porn and sex work. Perhaps even more so in a society with collective child-rearing and early education. Youād need a literal horny police to prevent this. Same thing with drugs by the way in that the poorer and lesser educated are less likely to try them and far more likely to harm themselves if they do. The scientific and technical aspects need to be considered too, by the end of this century (much earlier for many of these) we will likely have improved male and female contraceptives, cures for all known STDs, artificial wombs, all senses enabled VR, and widespread robots and androids for all sorts of functions. Thatās the environment where people living under advanced socialism-near communism will get to decide whether they want sex work to be a thing or not.
Even after the value form is abolished and currency is no longer used I doubt people will stop exchanging sex for intangibles or some other kind of *thing* tbh. The main issue here is that while some are adamant about conflating love and sex, idealizing sex and reproducing social structures like the family our increasingly cosmopolitan future society comes with a good deal of people for whom sex is a casual thing that might be done out of play or boredom. I agree with Engels when he says āWhen these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individualā
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouEngels, the main source here, had a limited knowledge of world history and non-european cultures and reactionary ideas like romantic love and relating love to sex filter through his arguments.
Everyone has limited knowledge of world history and non-european cultures. Engels was far ahead of his time in this regard. The bulk of his analysis is based on Lewish H. Morganās Ancient Society, an anthropological work from 1877, which was groundbreaking in that it was a thorough study of all sorts of groups and tribal organizations, from Iroquois to Ethiopians. This wasnāt Engels from 1845, this is a late work from 1884; for reference, Lenin was 14 years old at this time.
As for romantic love, and the relation between sex and love, I canāt quite understand how these are reactionary concepts.
Heās right both in his analysis of the origin of patriarchy through patrilineal family and (fake) monogamy and in his conclusions on the abolishment of property relations but thereās a lot of missing nuance on the transitional and alternative forms to the patrilineal family and heterosexuality.
The type of family structure Engels is observing in particular in the chapter I used for this was the Greek monogamous family. This is the most developed type of familial structure; there isnāt an āalternative formā to the patrilineal family, because any āalterative formā invariably leads up to the patrilineal form by default, when given enough time. The inherent laws of development always lead to this natural conclusion when arriving at the division of private property, the creation of social classes, and the development of the state as an institution for upholding property laws. This is what Engels explains in the chapters after the one I used.
American Indians are essentially identical with the genea of the Greeks and the gentes of the Romans; that the American is the original form and the Greek and Roman forms are later and derivative; that the whole social organization of the primitive Greeks and Romans into gens, phratry, and tribe finds its faithful parallel in that of the American Indians; that the gens is an institution common to all barbarians until their entry into civilization and even afterwards (so far as our sources go up to the present) ā this proof has cleared up at one stroke the most difficult questions in the most ancient periods of Greek and Roman history, providing us at the same time with an unsuspected wealth of information about the fundamental features of social constitution in primitive times ā before the introduction of the state.
In some exceptional cases, sometimes as a result of colonialism, outside contact, or sometimes just insularly, there would be found primitive societies which seemed to possess characteristics of both group marriage and monogamous marriage at the same time: for instance, certain societies had structures wherein a man would have a āwifeā, and then under her a group of āsecond wivesā, with whom he could replace his main wife at any time, and who were all as equally responsible to bear heirs as the first wife.
We have to acknowledge the fact that there is a petty bourgeoisie sex work and a proletarian/lumpenproletarian sex work.
This is a really good point that I wish I mentioned. There is definitely a difference, and it seems like many people here are arguing because they see āsex-workā and immediately think of the petit-bourgeois, self-employed kind, and not of the lumpenproletarian kind. The former is arguably exploitative, the latter is inarguably exploitative.
IF we are being successful in building socialism then year after year millions upon millions of people will stop being poor, will get phones (porn production studios) and will get access to education and culture. The naive and honestly baffling expectation Iāve found often among the more prudish communists is that people will then cease to consider sex work an option.
Itās not an expectation out of prudishness, nor is it an expectation that people will cease āconsidering sex work an optionā. Moreso, itās that people wonāt consider sex work to be work. It will be just sex. If they are having sex because they need to sustain themselves, it is sex work. If they are having sex because itās fun, itās sex.
Even after the value form is abolished and currency is no longer used I doubt people will stop exchanging sex for intangibles or some other kind of thing tbh.
Shame on those people. I would hope a good socialist society would see such āmenā dragged to the street and beaten if they tried to pull such a thing. Sex should be a free relation between free individuals. The second you introduce commodification, sex becomes an unfree thing.
idealizing sex and reproducing social structures like the family our increasingly cosmopolitan future society comes with a good deal of people for whom sex is a casual thing that might be done out of play or boredom
Or passion or love, too. All of these reasons work. But the one thing sex should not be is a coercive means of survival. This is the crux of my position.
I agree with Engels when he says āWhen these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individualā
Yes! Thatās why I included it, I think itās a truly insightful example of āthe negation of the negationā (or sexual relations in this case)
u/veinss - originally from r/GenZhouItās not an expectation out of prudishness, nor is it an expectation that people will cease āconsidering sex work an optionā. Moreso, itās that people wonāt consider sex work to be work. It will be just sex. If they are having sex because they need to sustain themselves, it is sex work. If they are having sex because itās fun, itās sex.
This is the core of the matter. So if someone studies insects because its fun and doesnāt gets anything out of it what he does is no longer work or science? And what does this imply? Can this person no longer contribute or be taken seriously since heās no longer working? Or on the contrary does this person become more relevant or respected once they stop working? And if our socialist society advances to the point where near everyone is doing whatever they find fun, is nobody working then? Work as a concept ceases to have any meaning then? What concepts do you propose then to distinguish the thing you do most of your time because you enjoy the most, the thing you do to collaborate with others in creating common living conditions, the thing you do because itās necessary? the thing you also enjoy and do in your spare time? the thing you do or know about youāre socially renowned for?
I think thereās a much better way to think about this. Ask a physicist. To work is to spend energy. Even playing entails work. Not only the work involved in building the playground or producing the videogame but also the work involved in motion, in jumping, in figuring out the game mechanics, in practicing and getting good. Sex is always work, it involves the expenditure of energy you get from your daily food. Sex with several people in one day is a lot of work. Sex also involves skill and has an aesthetic, artistic dimension and surely it isnt too much of a stretch to say that it can be art. Soā¦ in the communist future sex will just be sex? The work (as in energy spent) involved, the skill, the artistry, the fame of people will somehow become irrelevant?
Shame on those people. I would hope a good socialist society would see such āmenā dragged to the street and beaten if they tried to pull such a thing. Sex should be a free relation between free individuals. The second you introduce commodification, sex becomes an unfree thing.
Can you explain why though? Lets say Iām back in middle school and a girl wants me to do her homework in exchange for a glance at her boobs. What exactly becomes unfree and does my decision even matter?
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouSo if someone studies insects because its fun and doesnāt gets anything out of it what he does is no longer work or science?
Yes! No longer work at least. It is leisure. It would still very much be science though, thatās a different thing altogether.
Can this person no longer contribute or be taken seriously since heās no longer working?
I think you will find that in socialist societies, āsex workersā were met with this exact attitude. āYou have sex with people for money? That is not work, that is merely rape with concessions to the victim; letās find you a real job and really provide for yourself, sustain yourself, and live a prosperous life.ā
And if our socialist society advances to the point where near everyone is doing whatever they find fun, is nobody working then?
Itās not whether or not they āfind it funā. Itās whether or not they are doing it because they find it fun, or because they need to in order to survive.
What concepts do you propose then to distinguish the thing you do most of your time because you enjoy the most, the thing you do to collaborate with others in creating common living conditions, the thing you do because itās necessary?
We already have a science to do this, Marxism-Leninism. By appraising the material conditions and implications of each of these activities, we can understand if they are forms of work done out of necessity, leisure, a mixture of the two (selling accordions on etsy or something), etc.
I think thereās a much better way to think about this. Ask a physicist. To work is to spend energy.
I think Marx says this in Capital actually:
For, in the first place, however varied the useful kinds of labour, or productive activities, may be, it is a physiological fact, that they are functions of the human organism, and that each such function, whatever may be its nature or form, is essentially the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, etc.
You say:
Not only the work involved in building the playground or producing the videogame but also the work involved in motion, in jumping, in figuring out the game mechanics, in practicing and getting good.
But, I have to point out a flaw here. The obvious implication it seems youāre making is that, itās not only work to produce the commodity, but to consume it. It would be, essentially, tantamount logic to saying eating bread was work.
If figuring out the game mechanics, practicing to get good, jumping, etc., were work and not leisure, then people would be payed to play video games. But theyāre not, except under exceptional conditions, wherein playing the game ceases to become a leisure and begins to become work; ceases to become āfriendly competitionā and becomes a thing which is trained for, gambled on, and so forth.
Video games are played for leisure, except by specialists who do it as a profession, as work. The same applies for sex.
Sex is always work, it involves the expenditure of energy you get from your daily food. Sex with several people in one day is a lot of work.
Then, pardon me asking such a slippery slope question but, according to the only conclusion of your logic ā running in a circle for hours on end until you die is work.
Work must be done to accomplish a task. It is the task, and the conditions under which the task are determined, that should be analyzed.
Lets say Iām back in middle school and a girl wants me to do her homework in exchange for a glance at her boobs. What exactly becomes unfree and does my decision even matter?
I dunno dude thatās kinda middle school stuff, not really whatās on my mind when I think about prostitution and the development of patriarchal family relations over history yāknow. If she said sheād do it for ten dollars then itās unfree because itās coerced by her economic need for ten dollars. So I guess if you really wanna use middle schoolers for the example then yeah, if she was coerced by her need (and presumed inability) to complete her homework, itās an unfree decision on her part, regardless of what you say in the matter.
Out of curiosity, are you asking because this actually happened? Iām sorry if that sounds sarcastic but Iām serious. Itās okay to say, āHuh, maybe I shouldnāt have done thatā if you feel guilty about it. It doesnāt make you a bad person or anything of the sort. Thatād only be if you continued to do it repeatedly after learning it was wrong.
u/veinss - originally from r/GenZhouVideo games are played for leisure, except by specialists who do it as a profession, as work. The same applies for sex.
Yes. The same applies to everything. Any activity can be taken to the level where it becomes work. And yes, society can shame any of this work into obscurity based on ideology. Should we shame sex work into obscurity? The problem here is youāre not giving any reason why we should other than pointing out than past socialist states have done it but these states were wrong on several issues (homosexuality, trans rights, understanding drugs). More importantly weāre trying to figure out if sex work is likely to happen in advanced socialism and communism because if it is then what is the point of banning and shaming during the lower phase of socialism?
Then, pardon me asking such a slippery slope question but, according to the logical conclusion of your logic ā running in a circle for hours on end until you die is work. Work must be done to accomplish a task. It is the task, and the conditions under which the task are determined, that should be analyzed.
Running in circles is work. Work can be dumb. Mountains of oil are burned for stupid ass reasons every day, thousands upon thousands of man-hours of work are spent inefficiently and sometimes doing the exact opposite of the intended goals. Itās still work, it still costs, itās so real it can kill you or kill a society. Animals work as hunters and if they spend energy in a dumb way they can become weak and easy prey for other animals.
But anyway, socialism develops the productive forces towards ever increasing automation, constantly freeing up human labour from menial mechanical tasks so I guess youād agree that in advanced socialist society necessary activities are less likely to require direct human labour. This means most work will be done in non-necessary non-essential activities. Science, administration, entertainment, art. But no value form, no currency, no exchange. Can trading for sex happen under these conditions?
If weāre trying to think about future socialist society then middle school is an excellent place to look at. Most of us werenāt behaving like drones of capitalism back then. The thing with the girl happened. That girl was from a much wealthier family than me and mostly wanted to flirt, I got to see them without doing work for it but I also did her homework a few times. It was win-win cooperation, I dont think it was wrong at all and this is exactly the kind of thing I think will happen in full communist post scarcity utopias. You cant police people from making these kind of deals. And this is just a softer version of what other poster here was saying about how theyād suck dick for someone to mow their lawn. The important thing is that policing is entirely unenforceable
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhousociety can shame any of this work into obscurity based on ideology.
this isnāt true for any socially necessary form of work. the second it becomes not socially necessary, it ceases to be work.
The problem here is youāre not giving any reason why we should other than pointing out than past socialist states have done it but these states were wrong on several issues
I donāt think I did this? I did for pornography because itās a much trickier position to understand without examples. For prostitution it takes only a historical materialist analysis to show its backwardness as a social system.
Running in circles is work.
Who pays for this kind of work? What do you call someone who does this kind of work? Where are there examples of anybody doing this kind of work?
Labor must be socially necessary, it cannot just be superflous labor. Marx explains that in Capital.
Mountains of oil are burned for stupid ass reasons every day
But āoil burningā is not work, and there is nobody hired to āburn oilā. There are people employed to do other things, to do work, who burn up oil in the process.
But no value form, no currency, no exchange. Can trading for sex happen under these conditions?
No, because as you said, there is no exchange of commodities. This implies near communism, that the society is working āfrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needsā. This would mean that sex is taking place not as an exchange of commodities, but from two people according to their ability, to two people according to their needs. I.e., straightforwards, consensual sex. Not sex work.
If weāre trying to think about future socialist society then middle school is an excellent place to look at.
Iām not sure I agree with that.
The thing with the girl happened. That girl was from a much wealthier family than me and mostly wanted to flirt, I got to see them without doing work for it but I also did her homework a few times.
If it was flirting and not done in exchange for you doing her homework then it was free and consensual from both parties yes.
this is exactly the kind of thing I think will happen in full communist post scarcity utopias
People will flirt? Iād say so yes.
Though, there will be no āutopiaā.
And this is just a softer version of what other poster here was saying about how theyād suck dick for someone to mow their lawn.
Now this is different. This is sex work, i.e. straightforward prostitution. And it would not be permissible in any socialist society, no matter how āwillingā the party selling sex says they are.
[] - originally from r/GenZhou
[removed]
u/ComradeFrunze - originally from r/GenZhouIf weāre trying to think about future socialist society then middle school is an excellent place to look at.
you cannot use middle school as a future socialist society example just because a girl flashed her boobs there
u/not_a_normie100 - originally from r/GenZhou
thank you for putting in so much effort, this was very insightful.u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhou
donāt mention it <3
u/comrade_kenz - originally from r/GenZhou
Hey, this is awesome. Would love for you to cross post to r/proletarianfeminism_!u/danielsan901998 - originally from r/GenZhou
From what i understand of this analysis the abolition of prostitution is only possible with the abolition of private property.Does this mean that communist should oppose the non-marxist feminism that propose the abolition of prostitution while mantaining capitalism like the Swedish model?
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhou
Well, oppose non-marxist feminism yes, but only in the sense that we should expose its contradiction ā namely, that capitalism cannot eradicate prostitution. It can only enact social control against it, through the state, but it cannot change the objective material conditions which give rise to prostitution as a social system. We shouldnāt oppose bourgeois-democratic initiatives to combat prostitution though, this would only serve to protect and uphold it. These forms should be encouraged, but criticized for their inevitable shortcomings owing to their limitation under the capitalist system.
u/Newtonshmooton - originally from r/GenZhou
In relation to the section on homosexual relationships Iām still unclear as to what is being stated?As the basis of homosexually in pedophilic and explotarive relationships of dominance, comes across as limited in its relevance outside of Very specific cultural conditions, rather than a decisive application to all human development.
Also, specifically what relation it has to Chinaās stance on LGBT rights? As far as I was aware china for thousands of years had acceptence if homosexual relationships. That it was only during the colonisation the regressive western aversion to homosexually took root as it did in similarly colonised nationās. Therefore Chinaās current divided wasnāt based on application of marxist analysis, a divide between the party and the people. Instead its a cultural conflict between the traditionalist attetudes of older people and the younger generation?
u/ComradeFrunze - originally from r/GenZhou
Iām not sure what question or point youāre trying to make. the PRC is accepting of LGBT and advances LGBT rightsu/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouAs the basis of homosexually in pedophilic and explotarive relationships of dominance, comes across as limited in its relevance outside of Very specific cultural conditions, rather than a decisive application to all human development.
The analysis Engels made were based on observations made by Lewis H. Morgan, the anthropologist, who was studying the development of various cultures across the globe. The phenomenon here, i.e. pedastry developing as a reaction to womenās reaction to monogamy, was observed in cultures from Greece to Germany, as well as in the Caucasus slightly later on. Itās not universal to all cultures, but itās an example of the cultural response men had to the development of, as Engels put it, āthe cuckold husbandā as a social position, which was universal to all cultures. It was by no means the worst thing men did in response to womenās defiance of social rules.
Also, specifically what relation it has to Chinaās stance on LGBT rights? As far as I was aware china for thousands of years had acceptence if homosexual relationships.
Yes, I shouldāve said more specifically, the CPCās stance on LGBT rights. Iāll edit that.
People often criticize them for having a somewhat weird, seemingly ādetachedā, dispassionate view of sexuality and LGBT issues. I think understanding Engelsā position is crucial to understanding the CPCās position and defending it from unfair criticism.
Itās different from the view held by the Chinese masses in general, in that its a little more sophisticated and nuanced than simply āWell, LGBT are people too, and thereās nothing wrong with it, so we support them of courseā.
u/MaoZeDeng - originally from r/GenZhou
How about you address the actual arguments already made in the original thread first:Hereās the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/m3cxgs/the_real_reason_the_west_thinks_china_isnt_free/gqooy10/
Nothing you wrote here actually addresses the arguments already provided against your position.
I will respond to your arguments above in separate comments.
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouHow about you address the actual arguments already made in the original thread first
Iāve been wanting to make a post about Engelsā analysis of sex work for a while.
Hereās the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/m3cxgs/the_real_reason_the_west_thinks_china_isnt_free/gqooy10/
Nothing you wrote here actually addresses the arguments already provided against your position.
I never saw your comment, I was referring to the parent comment youāre responding to there, which is now deleted. But Iām glad you showed me this because I want to respond to it:
Sex is good. Sexuality is a fundamental part of human existence and an amazing thing that shouldnāt be moralized or controlled. Having sexual fantasies is okay. Porn is okay and not evil.
These arenāt what Iām supposed to respond to, Iām sure, but I want to say ā we shouldnāt be looking at if things are āOkayā and āGoodā or not. We should be looking at what they are, how they work, and where they inevitably develop towards, and how we should help carry out this development. Porn isnāt okay and ānot evilā, but neither is it bad or āevilā.
Most porn is amateur porn thatās just being produced by people because they want to share it with the world.
Porn generates $97 billion a year globally. For reference, the gaming industry generates about $115 billion a year globally. To argue porn is mostly small, petit-bourgeois producers and not done on an industrial scale for mass consumption would be almost the same as arguing that video games are almost all indie games and not a triple A industry.
They donāt even get paid, the just film themselves having sex and having people watch them is exciting.
Then it isnāt porn, in the real sense of the word. Itās still āpornā in that its sexually explicit material, but itās no longer a commodity. If they arenāt selling it, what are they doing with it? Giving it to people privately? Then itās not really āpornographyā in that itās not sexually explicit media for mass consumption, but for private, individual consumption, even if by multiple individuals.
Yes, porn can also be used for exploitation and oppression (especially female exploitation and oppression), but that doesnāt make porn bad. It makes exploitation and oppression bad.
Would you argue too then, that capitalism is not bad, but only the exploitation and oppression capitalism brings? And that, by this logic, capitalism is fixable and will continue to exist under socialism in a more āpureā, ānon-exploitativeā way?
Porn will be exploitative for as long as private property exists, and its consequential superstructure, patriarchy. Your comment mentioned āespecially female exploitationā, but I feel this is misleading ā it is almost only female exploitation. It is a tool invented for the oppression of women and the service of men. Youāre viewing pornography from the social relation it means to a man, not a woman.
Yes, porn can be addictive, but that doesnāt make porn bad.
But it is not just āaddictiveā. It is not something, as you suggest, that āpeople with compulsive personalities prone to addictionā become hooked on. Porn is pervasive, it is addictive to everyone, it doesnāt require mental illness to be addicting; itās addicting because it paints an unrealistic, āperfectā picture of a subservient, sexually permissive woman, whoās sole role and function is pleasuring men. This doesnāt exist in real life, and so the effect achieved by pornography is unique to the pornography, provides short term satisfaction, but is detrimental towards the viewersā overall health, their view on women, sex, etc. Rape culture would not exist without porn. In a sense, pornography is the propaganda arm of patriarchy.
anti-porn comrades should ask themselves what they believe to be different between selling oneās body for sex and selling ones body for high see fishing
Unless the high-sea fisherman is being told to do some unspeakable things with fish, I donāt think the exploitation brought on him by losing a hefty chunk of the fruits of his labor is comparable to coerced sex with strangers at the threat of economic poverty and even death.
being a policeman
You used other examples but this one stood out because it shows a particular disconnect I think you arenāt seeing in your own line of thinking. How is a policeman, an armed representative of the ruling class and their state, comparable at all to the plight of the sex worker, who is targetted by the ruling class and their state and policemen, who is unarmed, who is impoverished and not trained in matters of combat and self defense, who knows only one trade ā sex? I donāt know of many societies were the general population fears the ground the prostitutes walk on, lest they look at them the wrong way and catch a beating and possible arrest. The positions of the policeman and the sex-worker are, literally, direct opposites (especially so in societies where prostitution is a crime!)
If you are anti-wage labour thatās fine, but if you single out sex work as bad while tolerating other types of wage labour, then all you do is moralize sex and trying to get involved specifically in peopleās sexual activity and try and control their sexuality, which is cringe.
Is there any other form of ālaborā which can be said to be, in essence, commodified rape? If there is, I will oppose it as harshly as prostitution.
u/MaoZeDeng - originally from r/GenZhouIāve been wanting to make a post about Engelsā analysis of sex work for a while.
Itās really cringy work by a known and outspoken homophobe and social conservative that has zero relevance to discourse on human sexuality other than as an example of someone unqualified having strong opinions about things outside his field of expertise.
These arenāt what Iām supposed to respond to, Iām sure, but I want to say ā we shouldnāt be looking at if things are āOkayā and āGoodā or not.
Your entire argument in this thread is based on your personal moral views.
We should be looking at what they are, how they work, and where they inevitably develop towards, and how we should help carry out this development. Porn isnāt okay and ānot evilā, but neither is it bad or āevilā.
Yes, that is correct.
Porn generates $97 billion a year globally. For reference, the gaming industry generates about $115 billion a year globally. To argue porn is mostly small, petit-bourgeois producers and not done on an industrial scale for mass consumption would be almost the same as arguing that video games are almost all indie games and not a triple A industry.
Game development and porn production are completely different and differently structured industries. And porn is actually mostly small, proletarian producers, most of which arenāt even doing it to make money but fun. Obviously big porn studios exist but the vast majority of professional porn studios doesnāt have any kind āpetit-bourgeoisā air. In most cases, even professional porn is just a guy (maybe working with 1-2 partners who hold the mic and do the lighting and editing) who rented a fancy camera and a hotel room and fucks women. Most of those people never get rich off of it, but just generate a halfway decent income on the side.
Meanwhile, big corporations obviously make a lot of money by distributing porn. Sites like pornhub rake in the cash, but they arenāt producers. The big corporations like pornhub are to porn what youtube is to the Ice Bucket Challenge.
Then it isnāt porn. People can do this all theyād like. It becomes porn when you begin to post it in a public context for mass consumption.
Of course itās porn.
You are trying to argue semantics here in the most ridiculous way. If you donāt even know the basic definitions of terms, why comment on these topics? Seriously, this is frustrating. Just look these things up, itās not difficult.
Would you argue too then, that capitalism is not bad, but only the exploitation and oppression capitalism brings? And that, by this logic, capitalism is fixable and will continue to exist under socialism in a more āpureā, ānon-exploitativeā way?
No, I argue that capitalism is bad because it brings exploitation and oppression, which is an inherent part of capitalism and unfixable.
Porn will be exploitative for as long as private property exists, and its consequential superstructure, patriarchy.
First of all: No. Porn is just porn.
Secondly: Yes. Sex work will stay exploitative as long as capitalism exists. JUST LIKE ALL OTHER WORK.
Why are you talking about sex work in particular if all your arguments are against all work?
It is a tool invented for the oppression of women and the service of men.
This is just absurdly false. Can porn be used to oppress women? Yes, just like having children and lots of other things. Is that its purpose? No. Porn exists to give sexual pleasure to the consumer and - sometimes - the producer. Thatās all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with oppressing women.
Capitalism is bad. Patriarchy is bad. Porn is just porn.
Again: You are arguing against capitalism, not porn.
But it is not just āaddictiveā.
It almost never is addictive.
The rest of your paragraph is just you making up more random and absurd nonsense without basis in reality, so itās difficult to respond to you.
You need to lern to differentiate between your personal beliefs/conjecture and factual reality. If you base your arguments on your personal beliefs and *conjecture, your arguments will be nonsensical.
You canāt just make things up and expect others to go along with it. You need to clearly establish common premises and cite your bases for arguments.
Unless the high-sea fisherman is being told to do some unspeakable things with fish, I donāt think the exploitation brought on him by losing a hefty chunk of the fruits of his labor
Having sex with fish is less dangerous and harmful than just normal high sea fishing. I would rather get paid for fucking a fish than having to go out into sea during a storm to catch it. Again, you moralizing sex is cringe.
is comparable to coerced sex with strangers at the threat of economic poverty and even death.
Literally nobody is talking about these things except for you. Pornography and sex work have nothing to do with sexual slavery. NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
If you cannot differentiate between work and slavery, I donāt know what to tell you.
And yes, there are slaves in the fishing industry, too. In fact, the fishing industry is one of the most filled with slavery.
If your argument is against wage labour then, again, you are arguing against capitalism, not sex work and itās cringe to single out sex work and just means you are moralizing sex.
You used other examples but this one stood out because it shows a particular disconnect I think you arenāt seeing in your own line of thinking. How is a policeman, an armed representative of the ruling class and their state, comparable at all to the plight of the sex worker, who is targetted by the ruling class and their state, by the policeman, who is unarmed, who is impoverished and not trained in matters of combat and self defense, who knows only one trade ā sex? I donāt know of many societies were the general population fears the ground the prostitutes walk on, lest they look at them the wrong way and catch a beating and possible arrest. The positions of the policeman and the sex-worker are, literally, direct opposites (especially so in societies where prostitution is a crime!)
You sound like an anarchist. Jesus fucking Christ. At this point it has become clear that you are just arguing in bad faith. Just re-read that shit and ask yourself whether you understood and reasonable addressed what you are pretending to argue against.
Is there any other form of ālaborā which can be said to be, in essence, commodified rape? If there is, I will oppose it as harshly as prostitution.
Okay, so you openly admit to moralizing sex. I have given you the benefit of the doubt, but there are no two ways around this anymore.
Again: Having sex in exchange for a wage is no different from shoveling earth or reaping corn or fishing fish or doing any kind of sports or doing any other kind of physical labour for pay. All of those things mean selling your body in exchange for payment. Got it? Thereās nothing magical about sex. Sex is normal. Sex is a physical activity like any other. Itās also pleasurable and amazing and part of human reproduction. Sex work is also less physically harmful and less mentally harmful than a lot of other jobs that you arenāt moralizing. Your problem is that you moralize sex. Thatās it. Thatās all. You need to get the idea out of your head that sex is something shameful or magical or special. Itās just a normal part of all human nature. Sex is common. Itās a physical activity like any other. Some people like it. Some people donāt. Your mind needs to be liberalized from outdated, conservative conceptions of sex. That way you will also understand that having sex for money isnāt any different from swinging a tennis racket for money or kicking a ball for money. You will also understand that having sex for money is, for example, better than playing American football for money. Something you currently arenāt moralizing.
You also need to learn to actually engage with the arguments of others in good faith and comprehensively and not just cherrypick what you believe you can contradict. The point of a scientific conversation isnāt to try and win by makign the other person agree with you, itās to find and acknowledge the factual truth. Your personal morals arenāt relevant.
Seriously, itās very frustrating to argue with a person who just wants to push their moralizing agenda instead of trying to actually understand reality.
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouItās really cringy work by a known and outspoken homophobe and social conservative that has zero relevance to discourse on human sexuality other than as an example of someone unqualified having strong opinions about things outside his field of expertise.
The āsocial conservativeā Engels, known for such conservative views as:
What will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a womanās surrender with money or any other social instrument of power.
Also:
āThe most popular of Engelsā works, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, the sixth edition of which was published in Stuttgart as far back as 1894.ā [1](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s1)
Thatās of course, Lenin prior to using the book you just called āa cringy work by a known and outspoken homophobe and social conservativeā as the foundational work for the analysis that propel the Bolsheviks to seize state power.
Iām not going to bother responding to you further. You have no grasp on the issue and are only angry that youāve been told that, for us to build socialism, you will have to stop viewing women as objects of your sexual gratification.
source ā©ļø
[] - originally from r/GenZhou
[removed]u/ComradeFrunze - originally from r/GenZhouGirls chose everything themselvesā¦ but according to Engels were still forced.
source?
His idea that prostitution is an example of female āsubmissionā or women ābeing enslaved by menā is a male-chauvinistic, heteronormative interpretation that is denying female agency/emancipation and the idea that female sexuality exists.
the entire idea is that by gettign rid of sex work, the woman is free to enjoy sex without it being work
Engels believes the most ācivilizedā (and therefore optimal) form of sexuality is between a man and woman in an equal and permanent relationship for the purpose of procreation and family-creation.
source?
Prostitution must be banned because he believes women donāt have sexual agency
source?
In his arguments, the concept of female sexuality independent of male desire straight-up doesnāt exist and isnāt considered. All human sexuality, to him, is driven exclusively by male desire.
source?
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouCalling political opponents things like āAssfuckersā as a degrading slur was one of Engelās specialties and he was literally spreading anti-gay conspiracy theories, e.g. the idea that homosexuals are trying to homosexualize society and oppress men who like women.
Please give me a source for this, because that is fucking hysterical lmao
u/measmaer - originally from r/GenZhou
Its literally in the article they linked in prev comment. Use translate if need from German, use āFind in pageā lookup the word āfuckā.āā¦ Liebknecht is of course angry because the whole criticism was aimed specifically at him and he is the father who created the lazy program together with the assfucker Hasselmann ā¦ā (MEW vol. 38, p. Engels to FA Sorge, February 11, 1891)
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhou
Iām so confused. That source has absolutely nothing of the sort in it.
u/Mrfish31 - originally from r/GenZhouThen it isnāt porn. People can do this all theyād like. It becomes porn when you begin to post it in a public context for mass consumption.
ā¦ But they do post it online for mass consumption, for free because they want everyone to see it. By your own definition, thatās porn. Why wouldnāt this still occur under socialism? This subset of people donāt cease to exist.
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhou
Okay, I see what you mean. I spoke a bit carelessly, I shouldnāt have said āThen it isnāt pornā.I suppose what I should say is, donāt think about things as formally; think about the essense of things. The argument Iām making is that pornography, as we know it now, is exploitative towards women and that very few have any real self-motivation to post it for all to see instead of in a private context. If for some reason, there is an exceptional case where a woman would like to post such a thing purely out of some innate desire, for no personal benefit, and is able to find a place to do this, in such a way that it does not hurt the standing of women or otherwise degrade them in the face of society as a whole, I donāt see any problem with it personally, though I would like to further analyze it (which is what my next post will be for).
u/Mrfish31 - originally from r/GenZhou
āAs we know it nowā doesnāt mean what it is.Yes, porn as we know it now is incredibly twisted and exploitative of women for many of the reasons you outlined in your OP. But if your definition of porn is āsexually explicit images or videosā, then there is zero morality involved. A couple posting a video of themselves having sex is still porn, and I think you underestimate the number of people who would and do do that, and given the more liberal attitudes toward sex over the past couple of decades I would wager that the number of people who do will only rise.
If your definition of porn is āvideos or images of sex produced under Capitalism and therefore exhibiting exploitationā, then what are you calling āA loving couple uploading a video of themselves making love to the internet because it gives them a thrill to do soā other than āamateur pornā? Suddenly you need a new word to be created because you donāt like the āexploitative connotationsā that porn has. Again, this just comes down to the semantics of what we call things.
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouāAs we know it nowā doesnāt mean what it is.
Well, if youāre talking about something other than sexually explicit films, you might want to use a different word than āpornographyā.
Yes, porn as we know it now is incredibly twisted and exploitative of women for many of the reasons you outlined in your OP. But if your definition of porn is āsexually explicit images or videosā, then there is zero morality involved.
I bolded the part at the end because thatās the crux of it. Thereās no morality involved. We need to analyze this from a materialist perspective, and from this understand the origins and development of pornography and prostitution. Thatās why I wanted to make a separate post for porn.
If your definition of porn is āvideos or images of sex produced under Capitalism and therefore exhibiting exploitationā, then what are you calling āA loving couple uploading a video of themselves making love to the internet because it gives them a thrill to do soā other than āamateur pornā?
This is what I mean by, itās important not to think of things formally. My definition of porn is just āsexually graphic material intended for mass consumptionā, or something along those general lines. If a loving couple made such a video, it would depend on the nature of intended consumption for the video. By āuploading it because it gives them the thrillā, are they sending this privately to friends and (god forbid) family? Thatās their prerogative, this is merely privately sharing explicit images. But are they uploading it to, say, social media, where itās to be seen and shared? Then this, regardless of what we call it ā I use the term āpornā, we can call it āpublic pornā as opposed to the other āprivate pornā for this example ā is different in nature than āprivateā porn. Regardless of their names, thereās a characteristic difference, namely, that one is for public mass consumption and one is for private personal consumption. Whatever name you use to distinguish the difference, I think the difference is an important one and determines the exploitative nature of the material involved. I donāt want to elaborate a lot on that right now though, because I feel the comments have gone a little off topic talking about porn, which is intended to be another post, than prostitution.
So in other words, if it helps make sense of things, I think āprivateā porn is okay while āpublicā porn is generally harmful and exploitative and comes from an exploitative social relation.
deleted by creator
u/ComradeFrunze - originally from r/GenZhou
creating amateur erotica is not sex work. if someone decides to have sex and film it, that is not at all sex work, thatās just sex. if someone has sex, films it, and sells it, that is sex work.the issue with sites like pornhub is that most of pornhub consists of people directly being porn actors - which are paid to have sex, etc. or people who are creating amateur pornography but with the purpose of getting paid and producing a profit from it. Both of these are exploitative and end up strengthening the oppressive sex work industry. not to mention the various sexist patriarchical things that are very abundant in capitalist societies which are to be stamped out in socialist ones. which is why we see that sex in socialist countries like the DDR were better for all parties involved, as well as seeing the various erotic material produced in the DDR and in other socialist countries today.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZhou/comments/m3twr1/marxists_and_sex_work/gqr3tj5/
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhou
And one should point out, on pornhub the very few āamateur producersā who did it not for profit were often angry ex-boyfriends sharing what were supposed to be private videos, or sometimes even outright footage posted by rapists of their crimes. It got so bad that Pornhub doesnāt allow people to post on there without being verified members anymore, and they deleted all their non-verified videos. Other porn sites have done this too, so itās not an isolated issue.u/MaoZeDeng - originally from r/GenZhouon pornhub the very few āamateur producersā who did it not for profit were often angry ex-boyfriends sharing what were supposed to be private videos, or sometimes even outright footage posted by rapists of their crimes.
Citation needed on all of those things.
Hereās reality:
- There arenāt āvery fewā amateur producers, amateur porn constitutes the majority of all porn produced.
- Pornhub removes all non-verified content and has very tight quality controls. There is VERY little illegal porn on that website and is removed very quickly and systematically. Lots of sensitive search terms (e.g. related to rape, revenge, pedophilia, beastiality, etc.) are disabled. This has been the case for years now.
- The majority of all amateur content is uploaded by women, not āangry ex-boyfriendsā.
You seem to have a habit of making things up to fit your worldview. You arenāt interested in finding the truth and making informed decisions, but pushing an agenda based on your pre-existing moral outrage and false beliefs. Thatās not how constructive discourse works.
In fact, you seem to have very little insight into these topics to begin with, which is why I will do a Mao Zedong here and ask you why you feel entitled to an opinion that you havenāt actually earned?
It got so bad that Pornhub doesnāt allow people to post on there without being verified members anymore, and they deleted all their non-verified videos. Other porn sites have done this too, so itās not an isolated issue.
You say that as if it were a bad thing that the porn industry is making progress.
u/ComradeFrunze - originally from r/GenZhouYou say that as if it were a bad thing that the porn industry is making progress.
please tell me how the oil industry is making progress as well.
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouCitation needed on all of those things.
There arenāt āvery fewā amateur producers, amateur porn constitutes the majority of all porn produced.
Whatās the āmajorityā? āAmateurā porn isnāt a $90+ bil industry. āProfessionalā porn is.
Pornhub removes all non-verified content and has very tight quality controls.
You literally cut out the part of my comment that mentions this. I donāt know what the fuck your deal is but from defending pedophilia, to this, youāre being very strange.
Lots of sensitive search terms (e.g. related to rape, revenge, pedophilia, beastiality, etc.) are disabled. This has been the case for years now.
You would know LMAO
You say that as if it were a bad thing that the porn industry is making progress.
You were the one who just made a three point list defending the porn producers that caused these problems to begin with bro. Are you on absinthe or something?
u/veinss - originally from r/GenZhou
Amateur porn is by far the majority of porn the same way shitty games made by random ass college students and unemployed people in garages are most videogames. This is obvious from spending 10 minutes at either Pornhub or the Play store (or Reddit!). Of course most money is concentrated in a handful of major companies but thatās irrelevant to the argument.You really do seem like you havent actually done the research OP
u/Mrfish31 - originally from r/GenZhoucreating amateur erotica is not sex work. if someone decides to have sex and film it, that is not at all sex work, thatās just sex. if someone has sex, films it, and sells it, that is sex work.
But then by that definition no job anyone does under communism is work. Nobody is selling their labour, therefore no work is being done?
Do the jobs of āactorā, ādirectorā, etc just cease to exist under communism? After all, if making a film with sex in it isnāt āsex workā, then it stands to reason that making any film isnāt āworkā at all.
Is a communist theatre troupe exploitative for putting on a performance of āa midsummer wet dreamā rather than the more usual āA midsummer nightās dreamā?
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouBut then by that definition no job anyone does under communism is work. Nobody is selling their labour, therefore no work is being done?
Youāre actually more correct than you think. Communism can only be really achieved when society reaches a stage of development so advanced that human labor is not required to sustain it. Marx explains that, as time has developed, man spends more and more time out of his day being leisurely and less and less time doing work, owing to the development of productive forces. With robotics and automation and electronics and so forth, eventually this will reach the exact opposite of what it was from the beginning, and we will know only leisure and not work.
Do the jobs of āactorā, ādirectorā, etc just cease to exist under communism? After all, if making a film with sex in it isnāt āsex workā, then it stands to reason that making any film isnāt āworkā at all.
Youāre not selling the sex when it comes to a movie with a sex scene. Youāre selling a movie. The person is not a prostitute. They are an actor.
Is a communist theatre troupe exploitative for putting on a performance of āa midsummer wet dreamā rather than the more usual āA midsummer nightās dreamā?
I would absolutely question any communist group that had an organizational body which compelled its women members to degrade themselves like this, yes.
u/Mrfish31 - originally from r/GenZhouYouāre not selling the sex when it comes to a movie with a sex scene. Youāre selling a movie. The person is not a prostitute. They are an actor.
Then it stands to reason that a person in a porn film is also an actor. What does it matter what the content of the film is if there is no exploitation?
I would absolutely question any communist group that had an organizational body which compelled its women members to degrade themselves like this, yes.
This is just moralizing! Why is it degrading to have sex on camera when the people involved want to have sex on camera? Who are you to say what is and isnāt degrading to someone? Is it also degrading to āforceā actors into fantasy movies where theyāll have to say made up words or act to nothing but a green screen?
When did I ever imply coercion? Itās a communist theatre troupe, nobody is compelled to do anything, only the people who really want to make the porn parody will make it.
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouThen it stands to reason that a person in a porn film is also an actor
They are a porn actor.
What does it matter what the content of the film is if there is no exploitation?
Assuming there is no exploitation, there is none. But exploitation is a lot more complex than āare they having a portion of the profit takenā.
This is just moralizing!
Not particularly
Why is it degrading to have sex on camera when the people involved want to have sex on camera?
Because in the scenario you gave, a communist organizational body requested a subordinate member to get naked and film herself having sex. Whether or not she agrees, a communist that asks this should be immediately removed from their leadership position. I canāt believe this is a question.
Communism is meant to be a deliverance of all mankind from the vestiges of savage, feudal, and capitalist backwardness. Itās not meant to be a male sex fantasy where all the women are for some reason absurdly permissive of sex and promiscuity and are asked by directive communist bodies to strip naked and have sex for the entertainment of the masses.
Is it also degrading to āforceā actors into fantasy movies where theyāll have to say made up words or act to nothing but a green screen?
no because all of humankind hasnāt been a process of forcing women into fantasy movies. itās been a process of forcing them into prostitution, coercive marriages, abusive social relations, and so forth
Itās a communist theatre troupe, nobody is compelled to do anything, only the people who really want to make the porn parody will make it.
Are you implying that itās a theater troupe in a communist society? And someone said, āLetās film a porn parody,ā and everyone agreed to it? I guess that could happen? But itās so far from professional pornography and prostitution that it doesnāt feel particularly useful to analyze. I just donāt know why anyone would do that in a society which has no work and all leisure, when social relations are at their most advanced ā in other words, when itās easiest to go have sex whenever you want, but with an actual person who you respect and who respects you.
And of course, thereās the āto each according to his needsā; who would need or even want this in a society without patriarchal social relations?
u/MaoZeDeng - originally from r/GenZhoucreating amateur erotica is not sex work. if someone decides to have sex and film it, that is not at all sex work, thatās just sex.
Cool, that supports my argument that porn shouldnāt be banned.
if someone has sex, films it, and sells it, that is sex work.
Cool, nothing wrong with that either. Work is work.
the issue with sites like pornhub is that most of pornhub consists of people directly being porn actors - which are paid to have sex, etc. or people who are creating amateur pornography but with the purpose of getting paid and producing a profit from it.
Why is that an āissueā? Thatās called work.
Both of these are exploitative and end up strengthening the oppressive sex work industry.
You are arguing against wage labour, not pornography or prostitution.
I agree that wage labour is exploitative and oppressive.
not to mention the various sexist patriarchical things that are very abundant in capitalist societies which are to be stamped out in socialist ones. which is why we see that sex in socialist countries like the DDR were better for all parties involved, as well as seeing the various erotic material produced in the DDR and in other socialist countries today.
Prostitution and porn also existed in the DDR. As it does in all socialist societies. As it did in all societies in all of human history. Always. And always will.
Meanwhile, exploitative and oppressive capitalist structures arenāt unique to sex work.
u/ComradeFrunze - originally from r/GenZhouWhy is that an āissueā? Thatās called work.
are you unable to see how thatās exploitative? if someone is forced, by capitalism, to have sex in order to survive, that is rape. Under socialism and communism, āsex workā is to be gone and instead made into simply sex. Sex shouldnāt be work and the only reason it is āworkā is due to capitalism
u/Mrfish31 - originally from r/GenZhou
And if someone is forced by capitalism to be a deep sea fisher and has to work in extremely dangerous conditions to survive, that is also exploitative. Why is sex work inherently more exploitative? The potential repercussions are more open, likely more severe, but inherently, all work is exploitative under Capitalism.Why does sex work simply become sex when other work does not simply become āhobbyā? You would still call a communist deep sea fisherman a āworkerā, even if theyāre no longer being exploited by it. So why is the communist porn star, who is doing it because they really want to show off having sex to the world, not a āsex workerā?
[] - originally from r/GenZhou
If my boss asks me to suck their dick to get my paycheck, is that a fucking labor dispute?If I am on the streets and have no recourse but to do sex work to survive because my identity and my class have marginalised me and shut off access to shelter, protection and sustenance, it is not the same as having to do work I donāt like and having the value of my labor stolen.
The commodification of the worker herself into a site upon which violence is done, usually bourgeois violence (or at least violence done for the benefit of bourgeois access to proletarian bodies) is not the same as mining or construction work or whatever other labor-intensive job you want to draw an analogy to. A line of āworkā where safety is non-existent, that is predatory by design and seeks out those in the most vulnerable state and is disproportionate in the levels of assault (both physical and sexual) that occurs is not a normal, comparable line of work.
Ignoring the vulnerable, who are usually in the global south, usually in poverty and usually have no other recourse, in favor of a bourgeois view of sex work and sex workers who have much more privilege and ability to choose their clientele and levels of risk is to harbor a fundamentally warped view of the sex industry and sex trade, and a fundamentally Western and frankly imperialist one at that.
If you respond with āwhat about the horny people who want to consensually share their nudes onlineā to āwhat about the people who are deliberately shut out of the economy and have no other option to surviveā, I donāt even think youāre having the argument in good faith.
Do McDonaldās workers often get attacked, spit on, punched by their clients, or is that not a regular occurrence even in the most nightmarish of customer service stories? Is it not possible for a customer to abuse a worker, not matter how āreal workā that work is, and how well-compensated? Do customers often take the food from a restaurant and turn around and attack if pay is demanded, and often get away with this behavior?
There *is* a difference, the difference is that your *labor* and your *product* are both your own body, and there *are* deleterious effects on oneself, physical and psychological and traumatic, to turning yourself into a vessel for anotherās sexual gratification and having to dissociate simply as a routine matter of work.
For the question of consensual sex work to matter, we have to live in a society where the forces of coercion into sex work no longer exist, where the most common recourse to complete economic deprivation isnāt sex work, and where part of that coercion isnāt the simultaneous criminilisation and commodification of the worker herself. Simply *regulating* the industry isnāt enough, we must have the right material conditions for it to be properly abolished. If it persists in a consensual, non-exploitive manner after that - who gives a fuck? But the absence of coercion comes first, and is paramount.
I really would encourage you to read this essay and its follow up, which detail these issues very well and with a grounding in materialism and not idealism.
u/Mrfish31 - originally from r/GenZhouFor the question of consensual sex work to matter, we have to live in a society where the forces of coercion into sex work no longer exist, where the most common recourse to complete economic deprivation isnāt sex work, and where part of that coercion isnāt the simultaneous criminilisation and commodification of the worker herself. Simply regulating the industry isnāt enough, we must have the right material conditions for it to be properly abolished. If it persists in a consensual, non-exploitive manner after that - who gives a fuck? But the absence of coercion comes first, and is paramount.
Nobody in this thread has denied this. We all know that sex work in a society that forces you into it is horrible. I know that the industry cannot be regulated under the current system. I have never once argued that it is acceptable, just as I never argue that any form of exploitative work like the logging or fishing is acceptable.
But the OP insists that Sex Work will cease to exist or should be banned in a communist society. But as you say, āIf it persists in a consensual, non-exploitive manner after that - who gives a fuck?ā
I am not responding āwhat about the horny people who want to consensually share their nudes onlineā to the current system. I know thatās not an argument. I am saying āwhat about the horny people who want to consensually share their nudes online under a communist systemā. Are the communists in a fully non exploitative society who want to film āA Midsummer wet dreamā not workers while the ones who film āA midsummer Nightās Dreamā are?
Again, I am not arguing that sex work, in itās current exploitative form, should continue existing or is tolerable. I am saying that removing that exploitative element doesnāt mean it necessarily stops being work, because an actor or actress who has sex in their movies under an non exploitative system is just as much an actor or actress as one who does not.
Removing wage labour and itās inherent exploitation from McDonaldās doesnāt mean that being a part time fry cook in the new āgeneric fast food restaurant #1ā stops being work, and removing exploitation and coercion from the porn industry doesnāt mean that it stops being work either. My point is that āSex workā will still exist. In a radically different form like all forms of labour in a Communist society, but it will still exist.
[] - originally from r/GenZhou
[removed]u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouThere is so much conjecture, self-righteous assertions and non sequiturs in this, it will be difficult to respond to this without frustration seeping into my comments.
I dunno itās literally just an exanimation of Engelsā analysis of Lewis Morganās anthropological work
What does marriage have to do with sex work? Prostitution has existed before marriage.
Uhā¦? Did you read the post? No it didnātā¦
First of all: Engels isnāt an authority on the history and theory of sex now, is he?
No, but Lewis H. Morgan, the anthropologist, is, and Engels is applying a Marxist analysis (which he IS an authority on!) to Morganās findings.
Here, you are trying to normalize an idea of monogamy by referring to a non-specialist from a very specific white, European, Christian cultural background which is already a pretty shaky premise to build your argument on.
oh no are you about to try and sell me some freak orgy shit
If anything, itās probably monogamy that could be linked to feudalism/capitalism.
Itās not probable. Itās definite. Read the fucking post. Idfk why youāre arguing with something you clearly didnāt read (or at least, didnāt understand)
At this point of your comment you havenāt yet explained what point you are trying to make by discussing these things.
Big brains can figure it out
Iām gonna leave out the spicy racism contained in statements such as ātribes that lack certain instinctsā and will just say that entire passage isā¦ completely wrong. Itās just objectively false. Pedophilia has always been incredibly common and very much accepted as normal throughout the world throughout all of human history.
Get the fuck outta here before I get Hansen on you. Trying to call me racist for saying certain tribes had instincts that others did not, and then immediately defending pedophilia as āacceptedā and ānormalā.
u/ComradeFrunze - originally from r/GenZhouWhat does marriage have to do with sex work? Prostitution has existed before marriage. If anything, marriage is a form of prostitution. Already, using the concept of marriage as premise seems like pure mental masturbation.
did you read the post?
First of all: Engels isnāt an authority on the history and theory of sex now, is he?
in that Engels isnāt an authority on economics or politics either
u/MaoZeDeng - originally from r/GenZhouCommunistic housekeeping, however, means the supremacy of women in the house
From the get-go: You donāt see whatās problematic/outdated about this statement?
Again, I wouldnāt consider comrade Engels and authority on these matters.
Anyway, non of what Engels matters, what matters here is your eventual conjecture based on Engels claims:
It is here that the inevitable road to prostitution, to moral and physical degradation, and to the solution we seek as Marxists is paved.
No. That doesnāt follow from anything you said.
- Prostitution is called āthe oldest professionā for a reason. It existed long before the concept of economics even existed. Prostitution (i.e. the exchange of sex for something you want) is something that lots of animals do. Chimps trade sex in exchange for meat.
- āMoral and physical degradationā is a meaningless statements without proper context and just sounds like you are reading from some reactionary pamphlet. Your morals and ideas arenāt universal.
- The solution āweā seek as Marxists is historical materialism, material dialectics and workersā liberation based on material analysis. I see very little differentiated analysis here, but a lot of conjecture based on moral norms supported only by very shaky premises.
Now that we have sufficiently studied the history of marriage, its forms, and its relation to private property
Look, you are trying to sound academic here, but you arenāt. We (and by that I mean you) certainly havenāt āsufficiently studiedā the history of marriage. Or sexuality in general. And especially not prostitution. Sorry, not to be callous here, but you are just trying to sound reasonable but really arenāt. Your arguments are incoherent at best.
Engels explains that, though it might appear opposite in dynamic, the ceremonial āpurchase of chastityā was, in reality, the birthplace of modern prostitution.
I can see the argument that marriage is just a more socially elaborate form of prostitution, yes.
As a Marxist, I also oppose the concept of traditional marriage.
Once this institution was formalized and so prominently celebrated in religious thought, its counterpart, the purchase and sale of sex, was an inevitable outcome.
Except that is false and the opposite is what happened: With the rise of organized religion and religious indoctrination, society also saw opposition to prositution increase.
Prostitution - something completely normal throughout all of human history - was suddenly being criminalized in religious societies. Thatās because prostitution is the opposite of marriage and undermines the promises of sexual purity, chastity and monogamy.
Hetaerism is a concept different from prostitution. Hetaerism is another word for concubinage. It refers to a situation where someone (usually a man) is holding lots of women āin commonā while being married.
And yes, of course the rise of hetaerism coincides with the rise of marriageā¦ you know, because canāt engage in hetaerism without being married.
the sanctity of the social relation that is marriage is undermined to an extreme extent as its robbed of its various components and left merely as the bare acquisition of a mate for offspring, without love or passion
This is a bizarre statement. The sanctity of marriage isnāt being āunderminedā: Those things are literally the point of traditional marriage. Historically, marriage has always been primarily an economic transaction.
It is this bizarre state of affairs which leads the prostitute, the woman who has surrendered all of her being in order to satisfy menās needs, to become somehow a simultaneously despised and respected member of society; as a prostitute, she is respected for her obedience, but as a woman she is despised for her promiscuity:
This is nonsense. Why prostitution has nothing to do with marriage or capitalism has already been explained. Your original premise is flawed therefore all your arguments are flawed.
Thereās nothing wrong with engaging in prostitution. Your comment raises a good point, though: People shouldnāt be despised for being promiscuous and there should be no social stigma attached to being a prostitute.
That social stigma is a result of backwards patriarchic society where women are expected to be pure and serve only the man that owns (i.e. married) them.
Similarly, Engels explains that the horrendous view of women that monogamous marriage imparted upon men is also responsible for the birth of formal homosexual relations, specifically in an abusive and pedophilic form.
Uhhhā¦ no. Engels himself is just randomly engaging in conjecture here based on his personal moral views (which were highly conservative, even for his time). I also feel like you are misinterpreting history here. Hetairai were literally celebrated by society, which is amazing. Being a professional prostitute in Greece was a well-respected job. This is a good thing. The only thing that was degrading was marriageā¦ women who were being used as hosuewives to produce offspring and take care of the household. Meanwhile, the hetairai were literally part of the elite. They were the equals of their male counterparts (the hetairoi).
By bringing up hetairai, you are arguing against yourself. Hetairai = respected profession with high social status. Married housewife = degrading child-birthing slave cleaning the house of the men who own them.
When bringing up hetairai, you arenāt arguing against prostitution, you are arguing against marriage. And yes, I fully agree with you that marriage is degrading and oppressive.
I feel that I should note, because I know how some of our comrades might perceive this: this is NOT a condemnation of homosexuality, not on my part or Engelsā part.
And this is you engaging in defensive conjecture to deal with cognitive dissonance. Engels certainly was an overt homophobe who consider non-cis, non-hetero relationships āunnaturalā and opposed people who wanted to ānormalize such disorders by publishing them as political theoryā. No two ways around it.
Engels is explicitly addressing people he disagrees with as āPƤderastenā (which is a German word nowadays commonly used for pedophiles but historically simply meant āhomosexualsā in general). It is an absurd mistranslation to claim Engels was just against pedophiles, he was rabidly opposed to homosexuals. He used homophobic terms such as āboy-loversā and āpederastsā to describe his political opponents. He also misused used the perfectly proper word āUrningā as a homophobic slur and the aforementioned āpederastsā and āboy-loeversā in particular to attack sexual/gender progressive political opponents such as Karl Heinrich Ulrich. Ulrich was commonly known as āthe first actual gay person in historyā and was responsible for compiling some of the first comprehensive works on homosexual emancipation (spoiler: Ulrich was not a pedophile). Engels absolutely hated Ulrich and his ideas and anyone like him.
Again, that doesnāt mean Engels sucks in general. He made very important contributions to economic philosophy. His beliefs on homosexuality, albeit conservative, were completely normal at the time. Ultimately, Engels should in no way be used as a reference for socially progressive views when it comes to human relationships. Engels views on sexuality are completely backwards and, again, were conservative even for his own time and should be generally disregarded.
I kept this in because I felt it might be useful for our comrades who struggle to understand the seemingly odd stance countries like China take on LGBT issues.
Engelsā and Chinaās views on homosexuality are completely different and evolved out of completely different situations. For Engels, homophobia is a straight-up political issue that must be opposed, because āthe [homosexualization of society] will make us poor people, with our apparently infantile preference for women, miserableā.
To conclude this section, I will extrapolate: we can see from all we have learned that prostitution arose as a social form to allow women an escape from this miserable condition under the monogamous marriage;
Again, not trying to be harsh, but: No, we certainly canāt see that. And I certainly wouldnāt call making things up ālearningā.
In general, you shouldnāt āextrapolateā from invalid premises.
Now that we have sufficiently studied the origins of prostitution, of marriage, and of prostitutionās relation to property, itās time to analyze prostitution and its place in history. To do this, we must understand the objective facts about prostitution and its future development:
We certainly havenāt done that. You have recited the extremely conservative and backwards views of a a single random European white, male, overly privileged person from 120 years ago that has never been an expert on this subject matter.
And most of those guyās views were straight-up false, completely made up, and anti-progressive even during his lifetime. And you just added additional conjecture, often non sequitur, on top of those already flawed ideas.
u/MaoZeDeng - originally from r/GenZhou
Now, for your conclusions:Prostitution arose as a social form to appease menās desires
No. Prostitution has always been a part of human social interaction. As discussed above, itās a part of lots of animalsā social behaviour.
Prostitution has existed throughout all of human history and has nothing to do with marriage or capitalism or even the concept of property. People like sex. Other people figured out that they can benefit from other peopleās sexual desire. Itās super simple stuff.
Prostitution is the sale of a womanās chastity.
Chastity is a meaningless modern social construct. Chastity is a concept resulting from marriage. Prostitution is exchanging sex for something else.
It is the surrender of a womanās right to self
Absurd statements like this donāt follow from anything that was said. Itās the exact same as all other work. Do you say a sportsperson āsurrenders their right to selfā when they get into an F1 car?
Also, again: Chastity has nothing to do with a womanās right to self and if anything, the concept of marriage is what is the surrender of a womanās right to self.
Itās inherently exploitative: [large paragraph of conjecture]
All of that is entirely non sequitur that you made up based on morals. It doesnāt even follow from the flawed writings you presented so far.
This is completely absurd nonsense on every level. Like, holy shit. It is straight-up rambling and I donāt even know what you expect as a response to it. Itās incoherent nonsense. Seriously, what do you expect in response? You are just claiming random things without arguments.
The abolition of private property means the abolition of prostitution.
No. It doesnāt. People traded sex long before private property was a thing. People will continue trading sex until humanity ceases to exist. Humans like sex. Therefore, they will try and get sex. If a person isnāt immediately willing to have sex with someone because they arenāt physically attracted to the other person, they might be convinced otherwise, e.g. by giving them something they like in return. Even in a communist society where money is abolished. I donāt like mowing the lawn but donāt mind sucking dicks. You mow my lawn, I suck your dick. Great stuff. Nothing wrong with that. Humans also like casual sex without commitment. Prostitution is perfect for that. Itās a clear contractual transaction where everyone knows exactly what they can expect. People also like watching others have sex and having others watch them having sex. People also like to get nice stuff and will trade sex for nice stuff. Itās normal work.
Prostitution is a direct result of private property and is one of its most intensely exploitative and degrading forms, on par with using child-labor in the acquisition of minerals in mines. Prostitution was the direct commodification of womenās chastity of their right to self
No. It isnāt. All of that is false. You are also just repeating yourself.
And seriously, once again, chastity has nothing to do with right to self.
and to defend the idea of prostitution under socialism is to [assertions]
That stuff just doesnāt follow. Your premises are invalid and, as a consequence your arguments are invalid, too.
Sorry, again, I really donāt want to be harsh, but you are just making up random stuff and itās difficult to respond to someone with such strong opinions yet who clearly put very little effort in actually trying to understand things. It seems you are just arguing because you are trying to convince yourself by finding info that reinforces your beliefs.
You are also arguing as if you are taking part in a formal debate where the goal is to appeal to people verbally rather than make good arguments. That just isnāt dialectical.
Prostitution is objectively wrong, a vestige of a primal form of social organization, the Punaluan family. It is an objective step backwards into a primitive social relation
Racism aside, where are these assertions coming from? Prostitution is perfectly good and moral. There is nothing backwards about it, itās a normal part of human society. It has nothing to do with subjugating women. If anything, it is the antithesis to modern monogamous marriage (which is the true step backwards). It has nothing to do with slavery. It is a form of labour like all other forms of labour.
Prostitution is, in the final analysis, a social relation which uses the propertied status of men to coerce unpropertied women into sexual intercourse, in defiance of the monogamous system.
You are conflating capitalist transactions with human labour. You are arguing against capitalism, not prostitution.
The monogamous system itself is not something which is inherently bad ā itās developmentally an improvement from previous systems.
Citation needed. What Iām seeing here is that you are finally getting to the point - which is that your entire argument is based on the moralization and attempted control of sex.
A true monogamous system demands the actual fidelity of not just the woman, but the man.
But who wants a true monogamous system? I certainly donāt. I want sexual liberation.
Itās only through this that a truly prosperous, truly equal society, wherein women and men are equal not on an ideological ground, but on a real, material basis, can be achieved.
More random nonsense that doesnāt follow.
To conclude, from Engels:
I think we have already discussed enough that Engels isnāt a relevant authority on these topics.
The goal under socialism is to eliminate prostitution and sex-work, by changing the material conditions that causes it to appear. It should just be SEX, not SEX WORK.
This is an argument against all work. Again: Sex work isnāt different from any other type of work.
tl;dr: Sorry, but non of your arguments are convincing. Most of them are complete conjecture and non sequitur assertions that are based on already flawed premises provided by Engels, which are so clearly outdated and irrelevant itās difficult for me to understand why you would even mention them. It also doesnāt address even a single of the well-known and common arguments against your position.
u/veinss - originally from r/GenZhou
I agree with this. Mainly, on marriage (and the family structures that marriage creates) being the major problem. Iām from MĆ©xico, everyday we get about 10 women murdered. Very few of them sex workersā¦ the vast vast majority are murdered by their husbands or other men within their families. Thats the real source of violence.Iām anti-family, anti-marriage and anti-plenty of forms of bullshit work. But Iām not down at all if you want to put all of that on hold and meanwhile make prostitution specifically illegal so we can make life for impoverished sex workers hell while barely affecting petty bourgeois sex workers that will just be slightly more privacy aware.
u/Mrfish31 - originally from r/GenZhou
Copy and pasting this because I figured it should be more of a top level comment:Obviously porn and sex work is exploitative under capitalism, all jobs are, thatās the whole point. Porn and sex work just make it incredibly obvious, and the repercussions are much worse than most other jobs. I donāt disagree that sex work should be abolished under Capitalism. But I donāt think that this means sex-work, or I guess to be more accurate - āwork involving sexā - would cease to exist under communism. Prostitution certainly involves the exchange of goods or money, and is therefore exploitative and doubly so for sex workers, but work under communism receives no such exchange, and sex work wouldnāt either. If a person in the sex industry can turn down a job they donāt like, which they would be able to do under Communism while they currently canāt under Capitalism, then where is the exploitation?
āEntertainmentā is still a job in a communist society. It is still āworkā. There will be people who want to dedicate their life to being stage performers so that others may watch Shakespeare plays, or be ādefinitely-not-youtubersā to entertain people at home on ādefinitely-not-youtubeā, just as there will be people who want to dedicate their lives to studying the sciences. And as a subset of that entertainment, there will be a small number of people who want to perform on film sexually. There will be people who want to make a porn parody of āTwelfth Nightā or something to that affect. How are the people working on the production of the porn version of Twelfth Night any less workers than those working on the actual version of Twelfth Night? Does any film made under communism with a sex scene in it become inherently exploitative?
To take it even more extreme, is all performance, art etc. involving sex essentially ānot a real jobā? Why is a film with sex in it exploitative but a film without isnāt? Is drawing abstract art enough of a real profession under communism, but drawing a sex comic for people to masturbate at home to is exploitative and therefore isnāt?
Sure, the amount of people working in the sex industry under communism would be a fraction of what it is today since people - mostly women - would not have to sell their bodies to make rent, but importantly it would not be zero. There will always be people who want to perform on camera, or to be the person āWho relieves the stresses of other peopleās workā, etc. These people will still exist, so why say that what they want to do is āinherently exploitative and therefore illegalā?
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhou
I initially had a slightly longer response, but I think itās easiest to just say, I think youāre misinterpreting things. A āmovie with sex in itā is fine, thatās not really pornography, and even if it were, pornography is its own topic. Itās prostitution, the actual physical sale of sex under capitalism, which is exploitative and will disappear under socialism.I mentioned elsewhere that Iām going to eventually do a second post on this, focusing more on pornography using the DDR and PRC as examples. The DDR had a very interestingly progressive culture, and left a lot to study about human sexuality in relation to socialism. Iāll try to remember to link you that when I post it.
u/Mrfish31 - originally from r/GenZhouI initially had a slightly longer response, but I think itās easiest to just say, I think youāre misinterpreting things. A āmovie with sex in itā is fine, thatās not really pornography, and even if it were, pornography is its own topic. Itās prostitution, the actual physical sale of sex under capitalism, which is exploitative and will disappear under socialism.
I think itās more an issue of definitions, and I have more of an issue with you using āsex workā - which I think will continue under Socialism/Communism and shouldnāt really be discouraged - in the title rather than āprostitutionā, which by definition of āsale of sexā will not continue to exist.
I would define āpornographyā as āany video or image intended to provoke arousalā. Thereās no necessity for profit or exploitation there. If a couple, or even a group of couples, makes a sex video and puts it online for all to see, all consenting, thatās pornography. If a theatre troupe branch out and decide to make that porn version of twelfth night, thatās pornography.
If youāre going to claim that āA movie with sex inā doesnāt count as pornography, then where is the line drawn? Is Short Bus, a feature film that does contain on screen penetrative sex between ānon porn starsā, acceptable? Is the porn Parody of Twelfth Night acceptable? if not, then why not?
I wouldnāt disagree that prostitution is exploitative due it being the sale of sex, but as another user brought up in the thread a few days ago, how is selling your body for sex inherently more exploitative than selling it for logging or fishing, some of the most dangerous jobs? More to the point, prostitution doesnāt encompass all sex work. Pornography is still sex work, and would still exist under Communism because exhibitionists exist and want to show off having sex. People are still gonna want to make āThe Spanking of the Shrewā or āA midsummer wet dreamā. Something like that will require a full production crew: Director, camera operators, actors, etc. Is this not sex work, work involving sex?
Prostitution obviously wouldnāt exist under communism because sale itself wouldnāt exist. But people are still going to want to have sex. And some of those people are going to want to have a lot of sex to the point that it is essentially a job.
There will be people in a communist society who become masseuses to give massages to people for stress relief, and they will be considered to have a legitimate job in society. And there will be people who become āa bit more thanā masseuses and give āa bit more thanā a massage, and they too should be considered to have a legitimate job in society. Thatās not prostitution as thereās no sale going on and they can turn down anyone at any time with no threat of repercussion, but I donāt think you could possibly class it as anything other than āsex workā.
u/Frogsknecht - originally from r/GenZhouI have more of an issue with you using āsex workā, which I think will continue under Socialism/Communism and shouldnāt really be discouraged, and āprostitutionā which by definition of āsale of sexā will not.
This implies sex would still be a commodity that is traded under socialism though, and not a free relation, which I think is inconceivable.
I would define āpornographyā as āany video or image intended to provoke arousalā.
This canāt be the definition of pornography, because it is a subjective definition. Intention is relative ā someone could film a child having sex and claim itās not intended to provoke arousal, and by that definition, itās not child pornography. He could then, the next day, say āActually yes, itās for arousalā, and it would become porn. Thatās not necessarily how itās able to work.
We need an objective definition, one which appraises the physical being of pornography. And by that, the only suitable definition we can conclude on is that pornography is āmedia which depicts graphic sexual contentā; by āgraphicā is meant the actual physical processes of intercourse.
For instance, game of thrones isnāt pornographic, even though itās 10000% intended to be erotic and arousing for its audience. Despite explicit nudity, implication of sex acts, and even what comes close to graphic depictions of sex and rape, the media is not pornography because it never goes as far as depicting actual, raw sex. The closest it does come to this is depicting a womanās face as sheās having intercourse, which still is presented in an artistic way, with heavy emphasis is put on the characterās role in the intercourse as a major event in her life rather than on depicting the actual sex itself.
Whether or not itās 'artistic", etc. is subjective too. But what we can say objectively is whether or not it depicts graphic sexual content, which tends to hold up as a consistent definition.
Something like that will require a full production crew: Director, camera operators, actors, etc. Is this not sex work, work involving sex?
It depends. Is this film, for instance, a pornographic film? Then it could be argued to be sex work. Is it a film with nudity and sex, but not pornographic necessarily? Then I would argue this is only acting, art, erotica, and not sex work.
There will be people in a communist society who become masseuses to give massages to people for stress relief, and they will be considered to have a legitimate job in society. And there will be people who become āa bit more thanā masseuses and give āa bit more thanā a massage, and they too should be considered to have a legitimate job in society. Thatās not prostitution as thereās no sale going on and they can turn down anyone at any time with no threat of repercussion, but I donāt think you could possibly class it as anything other than āsex workā.
Well, if itās a communist society, there would be no masseuses since there would be no job specialization. But under socialism for example; letās say a woman is selling massages. In that case, this would make them a masseuse, not a sex worker. The contractual service they are providing is the massage, while the sex is only a secondary relation that seemingly exists outside of the work, as an optional āDo you want me to go a bit further?ā which is separate from the service being paid for. I promise you that no woman wants to have a job where sex is expected from them. So what would it look like in this case?
If we assume that the āendingā is separate from the massage being paid for, then it is not sex work. But this would imply that the man said, āHey, could you please also sexually gratify me after you do the massage?ā In which case heās basically just harassed a masseuse. If for some reason she says yes, then this isnāt a sex worker: itās just a very distracted masseuse. But if the masseuse says, āIf you pay me x, I will pleasure you, sureā then it is sex work. The only other option would be for the masseuse to have a sign that says āAsk us for a happy endingā and then you ask and 99% of the time they say no. Thatād be pretty funny but I donāt know how well itād work as a social model.
u/Mrfish31 - originally from r/GenZhouThis implies sex would still be a commodity that is traded under socialism though, and not a free relation, which I think is inconceivable.
Why would you think that sex is impossible as a commodity under socialism? As Iāve laid out, porn would still be made. I also do not think something particularly needs to be traded for it to be work, as Iāll hope to explain later.
We need an objective definition, one which appraises the physical being of pornography. And by that, the only suitable definition we can conclude on is that pornography is āmedia which depicts graphic sexual contentā; by āgraphicā is meant the actual physical processes of intercourse.
Fine, yes, make that the definition. But by that definition, a couple having consensual sex and posting it online is still porn, and could be considered sex work if they do this regularly, on schedule and donāt have another job. Other than having sex on camera, what is the difference between that and posting a Lets Play on youtube? What if the couple having sex pad it out with some minecraft gameplay either end?
It depends. Is this film, for instance, a pornographic film? Then it could be argued to be sex work. Is it a film with nudity and sex, but not pornographic necessarily? Then I would argue this is only acting, art, erotica, and not sex work.
Iāve made clear that Iām talking about a porn parody here. Explicit sex is expected. This is therefore still sex work, and could still exist under Communism.
Well, if itās a communist society, there would be no masseuses since there would be no job specialization.
What? Of course thereās still job specialisation under communism. I donāt care how liberated we are as a society, you better be a qualified surgeon before you cut someone open, or an accredited engineer before you build a bridge. Why wouldnāt there be qualified, specialised masseuses?
But under socialism for example; letās say a woman is selling massages. In that case, this would make them a masseuse, not a sex worker.
No, lets consider a woman working in a communist brothel, because thatās more inline with the point Iām trying to make. Of course, I am not saying that a masseuse is a sex worker. āMore than a masseuseā and āmore than a massageā were euphemistic. Of course a woman giving massages is a masseuse, not a sex worker. I specifically separated āmasseuseā from āmore than a masseuseā (SEX WORKER TO BE CLEAR) for that reason. And again, there is no selling going on here.
Lets consider this Brothel. Nobody has to work in it, but I guarantee there will be at least a few women who would. There will be at least a few women who get enjoyment out of having sex with strangers and would take up this job. Nothingās being traded, nothing is being sold, people just come in with the expectation that they can have sex with someone to relieve the stress of working at the factory that day. No woman is forced to have sex with the people, but given these women signed up to work in this brothel, they probably will have sex with the people who come in. If they donāt want to have sex with any more people that day, or a specific person, they can refuse. Maybe itās not their full time job and they also work as a chef in a local restaurant, but I would still consider this as āworkā rather than a āhobbyā.
Now you might say āThatās just sex, not sex workā, and thatās what I mean by a difference in our definitions because while you wouldnāt consider āconsensual sex with strangersā as work I would still consider āsitting in a brothel and having sex with (mostly) anyone who entersā as work* just as much as Iād consider āsitting in a massage parlour and giving massages to (mostly) anyone who entersā as work. I do not think that you have to be specifically renumerated for something in order for it to be considered āworkā, especially in a communist system where you simply take what you need from a centralised resources in exchange for doing your part to society. For some, thatās going to be being a doctor and saving lives. For a few, thatās going to be having sex with people.
*Simply put: Thereās a difference between casual sex with strangers and organised sex with strangers. Picking up a stranger at a club and having sex with them is not work, but sitting in the communist brothel waiting for people to appear and have sex with you is.