What is the moral difference between sex work and other forms of work?

[MooFeatures]

Hear me out. I know the two are different, and that and that a person selling their body (indeed, their consent) for sex is morally different to other types of work which they wouldn’t engage in if that financial incentive (coercion?) wasn’t present. I’m not questioning this position... I’d just like to be able to fully articulate why the two are different. All explanations gratefully received

Now lets take this slowly-go to my post above-read aloud the titles of the links, especially the link

So you think that because you found a link that talks about self employment, all prostitution is done on a self employed basis?

she will terminate the service and ask him to leave.

And let's not worry about the times when that doesn't happen - presumably rape and abuse are just collateral damage.

Well I will admit to being slightly nerdish and obsessive on certain topics

Oh I wouldn't say that. 'Nerd' implies you know what you are talking about.

If it’s done willingly , nothing

She can withdraw from that contract if the client is smelly, abusive, a twat or other reasons. That is the “contract”

And what if the client doesn't agree?

Can she withdraw from the "contract" if the client is black or white or Jewish or Chinese or any other ethnic group the prostitute doesn't like or disabled?

Under the rules applying to all other service providers no one has to provide a service to a smelly or abusive client but refusing to provide a service only because of a protected characteristic isn't permitted. Yet obviously any one is entitled to be as prejudiced or biased as they like about who they have non - commercial sex with.

Pertella So why cant sex workers be employed by a company as PAYE? What makes sex work different to all other types of work in that respect?
Well if they had an employer in theory they could be. There have been attempts in the past to unionize sex workers which have usually foundered because of the traditional problems of unionising women, but mostly the unwillingness for sexworkers to go on any list with the fear of being outed.
In a decriminalised environment such as New Zealand sex workers have the same labour rights as anyone else and they have successfully taken action against abusive brothel owners

Well I will admit to being slightly nerdish and obsessive on certain topics

Promoting prostitution is an odd subject to be obsessive about.

And I never said “"prostitution is a joblike any other(actually if you have a reference for the first occurrence of the thelike any otherbit of the phrase I would be interested-see I am nerdy)

You have posted page after page trying to convince us there is no difference between being a plumber or a prostitute.

Your explanation of why the only topic on MN you think is worth posting about is to promote the idea that there is no difference between being a plumber or a prostitute is deeply unconvincing.

I was paraphrasing your position- perhaps you don't understand that concept? Well clearly you don't. Or perhaps that is deliberate "misunderstanding" ?

As far as you are concerned you are trying to convince us that a plumber provides a service and a prostitute provides a service; that there is no need to look beyond that ; that there is no need to consider the effects on the individual service provider or on society as a whole.

merrymouse So you think that because you found a link that talks about self employment, all prostitution is done on a self-employed basis? So you read the linked to paper? Thought not.

In the UK some prostitution (the minority) takes place in the so-called managed sector-that is places like brothels, saunas or massage parlours (see Direct sex work in Great Britain: reflecting diversity here I suggest you read the paper as well you will learn something-although on your present form I doubt it
In the managed sector theoretically the workers could be employed by with PAYE-but being a cash business I rather suspect both sides-the managers and the workers find it convenient not to do this.

I really wish , for once, there was an ignore poster function. I'm actually starting to feel a bit grubby engaging in even a virtual conversation with someone so vehemently pro- punter.

Exponential I am hiding this thread now- not because your brilliant arguments have won the day but because I do not wish to engage further with you.

You answered your own question-it hinges on “reasonable”. If your boss asked you to jump out of the window-which I assume is within your competence-would you do it? If not why not? It is not reasonable and not explicit in your contract.

This false analogy is laughable.

It's never reasonable to ask someone to jump from a window because the fall will cause death or injury:

• If a boyfriend/DH asked me to jump from a window, it would not be reasonable to jump, regardless of whether I was willing to (e.g. being suicidal) and it would not be reasonable for him to even ask.
• If my boss or customer asked me to jump out of a window, it would not be reasonable to comply and the request would be unreasonable.

Asking someone you know for help cleaning up is almost always reasonable ("almost" because the person might not be physically able to help):

• If a boyfriend/DH asked me to take the bin out, it would be reasonable for me to comply and reasonable for him to ask. If my boss or a customer asked me to take the bin out, it's reasonable for me to comply (and arguably I must* comply with my boss's requests) and reasonable for them to ask.

Asking someone you know for a blowjob is sometimes reasonable:

• If a boyfriend/DH asked for a blowjob, it would be reasonable to comply if I was willing to do it and reasonable for him to ask.
• If my boss or a customer asked me for a blowjob, the request would be actionable sexual harassment and I would be very reasonable in refusing to comply.

Running the vacuum, sweeping the floor, and taking out the rubbish are not in explicit in my contract. How come they are reasonable requests and a blowjob isn't, when a boyfriend/DH could reasonably ask for a blowjob? Of course we all know that the answer is that:

• Sex should not be transactional.
• Paying someone for sex degrades them and this is incompatible with a respectful boss-workers or contractor-client relationship.
• Inherent abuse of power by the boss or client.
• Undue risk of STIs for the worker or contractor.

But, for prostitution to be work, we have to pretend that those reasons why sex-as-work is unreasonable don't exist. Thing is, if they don't exist with respect to prostitution, they don't exist at all and it becomes a-ok for my boss to ask for a blowjob.

Running the vacuum, sweeping the floor, and taking out the rubbish are not in explicit in my contract. How come they are reasonable requests and a blowjob isn't, when a boyfriend/DH could reasonably ask for a blowjob?

None of these tasks require training BTW, so don't try to argue that giving head to my boss is unreasonable because it's outside my training. It's not like prostituted women attend blowjob training courses.

On Our Own Terms: The Working Conditions of Internet-Based Sex Workers in the UK

So not the women on the streets of Holbeck then? Not the women of Sheil Road in Liverpool or Soho Road in Birmingham? As I said upthread, the voices we don't hear in these woke academic studies are the women in the nastiest, most dangerous bits of prostitution.

A "sex worker" with an internet device is far more privileged than these women on the streets. She has much more ability to exit, for starters, because she can contact service providers more easily and search for a job.

Under the rules applying to all other service providers no one has to provide a service to a smelly or abusive client but refusing to provide a service only because of a protected characteristic isn't permitted. Yet obviously any one is entitled to be as prejudiced or biased as they like about who they have non - commercial sex with.

Great point, Dido. Never thought of that in quite the same way before.

refusing to provide a service only because of a protected characteristic isn't permitted. Yet obviously any one is entitled to be as prejudiced or biased as they like about who they have non - commercial sex with.

Glaring overlap of attitudes between incels, certain male-bodied "lesbians", and prostitution apologists, namely the idea that a woman shouldn't have an absolute right to say no to sexual activity and that her reasons for doing so are discriminatory.

Men's privilege activists = trans privilege activists = prostitution apologists.

Very few people involved in the sex trade would continue if they had other options open to them. It is literally that or starve/die/go cold turkey. Many sex workers are coerced into it. It really isn't a life choice. There are always exceptions and someone always mentions the 'happy hooker' who loves her job, but it is a filthy and oppressive trade.

Prostitution is not work because real jobs don't give you thrush or BV and if you routinely got cystitis at work, OH would be involved. The Belle Du Jour book lists Magnanti's regular shopping list for the chemist, including thrush treatments and cystitis powders.

Prior threads on this:

• www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3719873-A-liberal-feminist-encounters-reality
• www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3300217-Jeremy-Corbyn-now-supports-the-Nordic-model

Copying and pasting myself from that second thread:
FFS my job is pretty shit at times but I'm not expected to risk pregnancy, STIs, thrush, bacterial vaginosis, cystitis, jaw cramp, split lip, vaginal tearing, and anal tearing several times per day and that risk list assumes that the punter isn't violent.

Prostitution isn't work because real jobs don't put workers at risk of vaginal or anal tearing. Real jobs don't give workers jaw cramp or split lips.

@exponential You asked in what way is prostitution not work. Have I suppliedbenough reasons yet?

bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg So not the women on the streets of Holbeck then? …As I said upthread, the voices we don't hear in these woke academic studies are the women in the nastiest, most dangerous bits of prostitution

There are academic articles (woke or not) on Holbeck street workers here and here and there is an ongoing evaluation by academics of the managed zone here

Similarly there are academic articles on Liverpool street prostitution here and also Birmingham here

There are in fact a ton of academic studies on streetworkers, the reason being is that they are more visible and easier to find than those working indoors. While street walking used to be a major way for prostitutes to advertise nowadays with mobile phones and the internet those left working the streets are the most vulnerable and drug addicted and have absolutely shit lives.

What abolitionists do is to take the terrible experiences of street workers and generallise those experiences to be representative of all prostitutes-which is dishonest-and they know that.

So for instance in the extract you copy and pasted FFS my job is pretty shit at times …. is not a quote from a real prostitute but from an abolitionist like yourself.

On the same thread a real prostitute (1st post at Sun 08-Jul-18 09:16:34) sets the record straight and takes on abolitionist arguments. Wonder why you did not cite her?

There is a whole spectrum of experiences in prostitution Vol 11-2 Pitcher.pdf here you should recognise that.

The Pitcher reference should be Direct sex work in Great Britain: reflecting diversity
here

What kind of person champions prostitution for several hundred still lucky, still hanging on fine prostitutes when there are millions of poverty-stricken women and children suffering literal enslavement and repeated daily rapes in the name of prostitution?

This thing where you say, "some prostitutes get raped every day, some don't get raped every, it evens out in the end." makes me really wonder about your motivations because that's selfish, dismissive, and callously cruel to a sociopathic level. It's a particularly evil version of "Not ALL men bash their whores!"

I've read Pitcher's garbage article before, it's nonsense and the whole premise is that violent crimes up to and including rape should be reconsidered as mere labor violations:

"Treating commercial sex as work would in principle enable the infringement of sex workers’ rights to be addressed through labour laws"

Violent crimes are not addressed through labor laws, they're police matters. A professor beaten to broken bones by a student doesn't file a labor grievance with their union, they file a police report.

What kind of person champions prostitution for several hundred still lucky, still hanging on fine prostitutes when there are millions of poverty-stricken women and children suffering literal enslavement and repeated daily rapes in the name of prostitution?

This, and the adverse impact that prostitution has on all women and girls through increased male entitlement and objectification. It is unethical to sacrifice the safety and dignity of women and girls as a class for the sake of a tiny proportion of women who could do something else for a living, and who would be minimally inconvenienced at worst by, or even benefit from, buyer criminalisation laws.

So for instance in the extract you copy and pasted FFS my job is pretty shit at times …. is not a quote from a real prostitute but from an abolitionist like yourself.

Irrelevant: the risks I listed are no less real. Prostituted women do risk thrush, BV, cystitis, anal and vaginal tearing, split lips, and jaw cramp. Pages 155-6 of the Belle du Jour book (so one of the more privileged "workers" in the "industry") says:
"A witness to my usual haul of cosmetic goods might suspect I'm buying for a minimum of six post-operative transexuals. So there is one chemist I go to for normal things and another for everything else." [Women who are not prostituted do not have to do this.] Magnanti then goes on to list "vaginal pessary (for irritation)" and "potassium citrate granules (for cystitis)" on her shopping list for the second chemist.

Real jobs don't cause these illnesses of the female reproductive and urinary tract.

I have an enormous distrust of university-based research about prostitution because university social sciences departments have been captured by queer theorists, the kinds of people who advocate for "Full Surrogacy Now" (the name of a recentish book) despite the reality that surrogacy means women doing reproductive work for more privileged men and women and pretend that sex has nothing to do with women's oppression (Sally Hines, I'm looking at you). I will continue to rely on stats from UN Women, the police, etc, and on testimony from women who have exited. Even those like Brooke Magnanti who claim to be OK with the work let very telling details slip out, like the shopping list I mentioned in this post, and the punter who pissed on her in a bathtub. (not envy)

Real jobs don't involve the client intentionally urinating on the service provider.