Why is the BBC Promoting Sex Work?

[WootMoggie]

I know the BBC tries oh-so-hard to be "progressive" but this is really taking the piss:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5e7dad06-c48d-4509-b3e4-6a7a2783ce30

The BBC state at the top of the article that selling explicit content online can be a lucrative business, and the opening quote of the article is "My biggest fear is going back into an office and being normal again"

Other choice quotes include "I like the freedom it gives me and the celebration of the female form" and also '"I used to make £20,000 a year, and now I make a lot more than that every single month" Lauren says coyly'

"Lauren says coyly"?? WTAF?

I see no problem in writing articles about this subject, but the tone and position of this article is dubious in the extreme IMO.

[WootMoggie]

• on the other hand maybe it's just what their audience want:

[WinterIsGone]

I complained to the bbc about this one here from a few weeks ago:
//www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/2b3f3f67-2338-4253-b7f5-a36192885492
Not a feminist issue, but nonetheless another example of dreadful standards. It's glorifying forex trading and quite possibly is untrue as well.
I guess because it's online and aimed at young people, it's all flown under the radar.

[WootMoggie]

Yes, similar "get rich quick" vibes to it.

This kind of stuff is rarely sustainable - there is usually a heavy price to be paid later one way or another.

YouTubers also used to be glamourised as a career choice. That now seems to be passing though as more and more of them go off the rails, and the rest of them can be found begging for donations on Patreon in order to survive.

[OneEpisode]

Some of the content of that article isn’t awful, the bit about the underage child show left education in her early teens could have led somewhere. (But didn’t lead any where.)
Is it the editor that chooses the awful click bait title? Reminds me of that prison thread... I complained about that to the BBC especially the title, and have a non-response from them now...

[PaleBlueMoonlight]

There was one a day or so ago (can't find it now), about the difficulties prostitutes are having trying to break the online market in the light of coronavirus, then seguing into an argument for decriminalization of sex work. The whole article was based on the premise that sex work is just work like any other, no critical analysis of countering views at all.

[PaleBlueMoonlight]

*or

[GCGayDad]

Anyone remember the lovely "Queer Britain" series on BBC3, with this episode glorifying and filming the young transwoman making porn and filming themself masturbating for money from their own bedroom? Again no critical analysis or countering views - quite the opposite www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p052q4hd

[Balhammom]

@gcgaydad

Whenever the bbc feature any employment does it need to show opposing views? Whenever they feature an article about (eg) banks should they feature those who hate bankers?

The whole argument is very bizarre. I see no reason why the bbc shouldn’t report on these, entirely acceptable, views.

You might not like them or agree but the bbc isn’t there to appease everyone. That’s really just not how society works.

[OneEpisode]

The article did read as an advertorial for taking up this work under 18. That is illegal. Banking is not illegal.

[PaleBlueMoonlight]

It was this one, under technology.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52183773ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52183773

Balhammon I assume therefore that you are of the view that sex work is just work, like any other? Many people do not hold that view. The BBC publishing article after article like this means that they are normalising (or seeking to normalise) the idea that sex work is just work. Many of us object to that normalisation and are concerned about the BBC's complicity. Besides, there is tonnes of criticism about the work of banks and bankers.

[PaleBlueMoonlight]

No-one disputes that working in/for a bank is just work.

[Balhammom]

Outside the echo chambers of Mumsnet feminism, I don’t think many people dispute that selling sex, as a free choice, is work.

[PaleBlueMoonlight]

URL fail

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52183773

[PaleBlueMoonlight]

Just like any other?

[DidoLamenting]

Whenever the bbc feature any employment does it need to show opposing views? Whenever they feature an article about (eg) banks should they feature those who hate bankers?

Working in banking, even if only aged 16 is not illegal. The banking system is necessary to the structure of worldwide society. There is no need to give opposing views unless the point of the article is from an anarchist/Marxist slant.

The whole argument is very bizarre. I see no reason why the bbc shouldn’t report on these, entirely acceptable, views

The legitimacy of the so- called "sex trade" is by no means "entirely acceptable"

You might not like them or agree but the bbc isn’t there to appease everyone. That’s really just not how society works

The article sails dangerously close to promoting an illegal activity with the suggestions of big money to be made.

[PaleBlueMoonlight]

Oh, come on Dido, of course sex work/the sex trade is necessary to the structure of worldwide society. Without it how can we be sure to get our sexual kicks?!

[DidoLamenting]

Balhammom

Outside the echo chambers of Mumsnet feminism, I don’t think many people dispute that selling sex, as a free choice, is work

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether that is true. My own political views are generally near the right of centre, towards moderate and moderated capitalism. I dislike a lot of feminist theory as I think it can be infantilising and disempowering. I don't think prostitution is work like any other.

I could be a much nearer the centre version of Ben Shapiro - who incidentally also does not consider prostitution and sex "work" is valid work. I mention him to give an indication of the range of persons who share this view.

[HorseRadishFemish]

Lord Reith must be spinning in his grave. PimpTV...

[Binterested]

I don’t know anyone who thinks that sex work is the same as work. Only pimps and the porn addled peddle this line.

There’s a reason the govt is not suggesting everyone at risk of financial hardship become an online sex worker to make ends meet. Because it is not the same as work.

If it’s not good enough for my daughter, it shouldn’t be good enough for anyone’s daughter.

[TheMarzipanDildo]

People who think sex work is ‘just work’ have shit critical analysis skills I reckon. It’s a highly risky job that the BBC of all organisations should not be promoting. But then I don’t think any type of work that can easily descend into the demeaning, dangerous or overtly exploitative is ‘just work’.

[BovaryX]

I wonder why there is significant overlap between the TWAW mantra and 'sex work is work?' These vacuous slogans are chanted by the same 'activists.' As for the BBC? It is at basement level.

[DuchessDumbarton]

Shocked to see this type of content on the supposedly august BBC.

Lets see...photos of the workers feature only young white, fresh faced women. Tick.
Photographers are male. Tick
Sex work is a legitimate choice. Tick
Trying to push the boundary below 18. Tick.
Target market....probably male?

[WootMoggie]

I don’t think many people dispute that selling sex, as a free choice, is work.

I think most people would dispute it.

The moment you accept that, you must accept the withdrawal of unemployment benefits for those who refuse to do it.

You also need to be living in complete denial of how difficult it is for those within it to change track to something else once they decide not to do it anymore.

[DuchessDumbarton]

Let me see if I can articulate exactly why this is not ok.

There is an ongoing faux-naif claim that sex work is "just work" .

Which either does not consider, or, deliberately ignores, that sex--work is never a "free choice".
The function of sex is intimately tied up with our own sense of self-value, our own attachment styles and figures.

I am not a prude who thinks that sex is innately shameful and that sexual desire or enjoyment should be shut away.
But, the fact is, that sex is a powerful behaviour, primarily focused on species reproduction.
And, as a powerful behaviour, it needs self-regulation to modify appropriate boundaries around where and when it is used.

In the same way that human aggression has a species survival function, but is regulated and boundaried for all our safety.

I won't watch cage fighting. And I wont watch porn.
For the same reasons.
Someone is being exploited for my titillation or sadistic impulses.

[PaleBlueMoonlight]

It baffles me that some people cannot see the huge negative effects of the commoditisation of sex and that is before we even get to exploitation.