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

@bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg

I'm so sorry that happened to you. It's exactly what I mean when I say that submission to avoid consequences is wrong. Look at the amount of women on here who are confused and hurt by the silent treatment they get when they're too tired for sex or even just unwilling.
How anyone could deny that is emotional abuse is absolutely beyond me.

And this is another thread where I sorely miss LangCleg.

bd67th
There are some posters on here where I actually worry about their home life, because they think certain things are ok that really aren't.

I try not to engage because it can become upsetting to have my experiences denied and minimised.

Enthusiastic consent should be a goal for everyone, any relationship where one partner (usually the man) feels entitled to sex in a way that they disregard their partners needs is abusive I think.

Prostitution is an extreme version of that. Men who use prostitutes are demonstrating an extremely entitled mindset that is likely to be dangerous for any women in their lives.

Agreed, Quentin. Sometimes I'm right on the verge of engaging but then realize that doing so would achieve nothing other than making me frustrated.

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

I totally agree, unfortunately that realisation came about a bit too late regarding some posters here.
Found myself frustrated but also absolutely shocked that it's seen as acceptable to unwillingly submit to sex and women who feel violated after this dont matter because its not as bad as some other mundane things (like watching a film you dont want to!!?). Apparently that's all ok though because a woman can quit her job and go travelling whenever she likes.

Thankfully we can all live life by our own standards and I'll support any woman who feels she's been coerced or taken advantage of.

Personally think Goosefoot is perhaps the most subtle and superior intellect on this board, and her points are nuanced in ways that some don't appreciate. She points to the fact that not every action or choice in life is black and white, nor really are our choices as free as many of us believe they can or should be.

Most people do like certain types of moral certainty, and shun engagement with any suggestion that ambiguity may sometimes be a factor in human behaviour.

You've misunderstood enthusiastic consent. There's a big difference between enthusiastically wanting to please someone without getting anything in return (I believe the term in lesbian circles is "stone butch") and yielding to someone because you feel guilty about something

It is also possible to be unenthusiastic about doing something yet still doing it because it will please the other person and it's not really a big deal.

E.g my husband accompanying me to any 20th or 21st century opera. It lasts a lot longer than a bit of sex I wasn't that enthusiastic about. There's no comeback or consequences for either of us if we don't agree but it makes the other person happy. We've been together over 35 years yet according to posters on here not being hugely enthusiastic about occasionally having sex means I'm being coerced and bullied (and too dim to even know it)

I don't feel "violated" and I don't think it's for posters on here to tell me how I should feel.

Thankfully we can all live life by our own standards and I'll support any woman who feels she's been coerced or taken advantage of

And does that extend to even beginning to have a teeny, smidgen of understanding of what I've just posted?

You know the (no doubt) shocking concept that in a happy, very long term relationship, long past the ripping clothes off stage, that one person might agree to have sex just because they know it will make the other party happy- even if they themselves aren't particularly keen.

We've been together over 35 years yet according to posters on here not being hugely enthusiastic about occasionally having sex means I'm being coerced and bullied (and too dim to even know it)

I think your example does illustrate what I mean about people insisting on black and white moral certainties......of course you are not suggesting your willingness to go along with unenthusiastic sex for the sake of your partner...is the same as the other rather horrible example of a woman having her armed burned with cigarettes for refusing sex with an abusive boyfriend.

Having sex primarily for the enjoyment of your partner, sometimes, need not mean that you don't support the rights of women in abusive and controlling relationships, or that you think prostitution can be a healthy occupation for a woman.

Prostitution is about sad men and impoverished women/boys to a lesser degree. It highlights the massive disadvantage our sex bestows upon us.

Sad men? No it isn't. It's men who have no respect for women or human dignity.

a woman having her armed burned with cigarettes for refusing sex with an abusive boyfriend.

No, he would burn himself and blame me. This made it much harder to recognise as abuse at the time.

E.g my husband accompanying me to any 20th or 21st century opera.

I cannot understand dragging someone to something they aren't keen on like that. I'd rather go alone. I once in my teens dragged my sister to something she hated and she was miserable and bored and I felt awful, hence why I'd never do it again.

I think of sex the same way. The idea of having sex with someone who is "going through the motions" to please me and doesn't actually want it makes me feel sick and is a massive turn-off. I think you need to ask yourselves what kind of person knows that their partner doesn't really want sex and remains aroused and takes the sex anyway, and whether that kind of entitled attitude is OK. It's not about grown women's agency, that's a misdirection: it's about grown men's entitlement.

Not to mention that lack of desire in women leads to underlubrication, in turn causing pain and physical injury.

Again, I clarify, there's nothing wrong with the sex being one-sided, but both parties should be sincerely willing and not just going along with it for a quiet life.

I cannot understand dragging someone to something they aren't keen on like that. I'd rather go alone

I mostly do now. He still offers to accompany me if I want him to but mainly I go on my own. I gave this as an example of doing something one is not particularly keen on but to be nice to the other person because that person is the main person in one's life.

As Justhadathought says not everything is the black and white certainty that some posters think it is.

It's not about grown women's agency, that's a misdirection: it's about grown men's entitlement

In your opinion. You have expressed your view. I don't agree and I think your view misses out any nuance, any give and take which exists in a happy 35 year old relationship.

Again, I clarify, there's nothing wrong with the sex being one-sided, but both parties should be sincerely willing and not just going along with it for a quiet life

Oh gee thanks. I'm so glad I've got your permission.

Sad as in pathetic not sad as in unhappy

No, not sad in that sense either. They are contemptible.

Oh gee thanks. I'm so glad I've got your permission.

I think you've misunderstood what is meant by "enthusiastic" in "enthusiastic consent".

"I've got a bout of thrush and cannot be penetrated nor my vulva touched but I'd love to get you to orgasm" is enthusiastic consent.

"I can't get it up but I still want to please you" is enthusiastic consent.

"I'm tired but I want to give you a birthday treat" is enthusiastic consent.

"Go on if it will stop you nagging" [lies back and thinks of England] is not enthusiastic consent, it's done to prevent a bad thing (nagging) from happening.

Enthusiasm about the consent doesn't have to mean arousal. It means a desire to participate in the sex act, free from coercion and fear. It means actively wanting to participate in sex, not just laying back and thinking of England or planning next week's meals in your head whilst you suck him off.

It's not intimacy if one of you isn't mentally present. I could not be turned on if my partner was not mentally-present.

Thanks for the lecture.

I think you have misunderstood what I said and are making quite a lot of assumptions- possibly based on your life experiences.

You've misunderstood enthusiastic consent. There's a big difference between enthusiastically wanting to please someone without getting anything in return (I believe the term in lesbian circles is "stone butch") and yielding to someone because you feel guilty about something. Enthusiasm doesn't have to be motivated by a desire to orgasm or receive pleasure, it can be motivated by a desire to give pleasure.

I've submitted to sex because the alternative was him putting cigarettes out on his arms and telling me it was my fault because I wouldn't have sex with him. This was abusive. It escalated to me waking up to find him penetrating me, which is rape because sleeping people can't consent. I take an extremely dim view of people who try to pretend that guilt-motivated sex isn't abusive, because it is. If I want to apologise, I use my mouth to say "I'm sorry", not to suck his dick.

No, I don't think I have. Using the term "enthusiastic consent" in the way you are suggesting would be meaningless, or confusing.

The kinds of things you are talking about range from emotional manipulation to abuse, sometimes similar behaviours come out of personality disorders. It's not emotionally healthy, at the least, for people to give in to having sex for any of those reasons and in some cases it is coercion.
It's absolutely a good thing for people to understand that those are not healthy or honest behaviours and will not only likely have negative personal consequences but they will often lead to even worse relationship dynamics.

But the word "enthusiastic" really is not a particularly accurate description of a decision that doesn't include that kind of dynamic. "Don't have sex just to keep someone from self-harming" is not the opposite f "your consent must be enthusiastic" and it would be confusing and a strange use of language to read it that way.
I'd also point out that the idea of enthusiastic consent is used to advise people, particularly men, what they need to see in a partner. It's not enough for the partner to agree, or to avoid acting like an ass, to be sure the consent is valid, it has to be enthusiastic.
How is that supposed to be a workable standard? How do you know if someone is enthusiastic, or they don't have mixed motives for agreeing to have sex with you? How are you supposed to be responsible for what is in another person's head or how they express themselves?

There are all kinds of useful things that can be said about what people should think about when deciding to have sex, but saying consent has to be enthusiastic is not one of them.

The idea that not feeling like sex but doing it to please a partner is "enthusiastic" is a change of tune from a few pages back. And again seems to be a strange interpretation of the word "enthusiastic." In fact it sounds a lot like making a choice to do something that you might not be so keen on.

Nagging is not usually positive in a relationship, whether it's about sex or housework or leaving the bills spread out on top of the piano.

On the other hand, it happens from time to time in most, and it's not always clear where the fault lies, if it lies with anyone at all. People sometimes get annoyed with others when they are themselves not being very sensitive. Sometimes we are all a little lazy, and people can get a little lazy about sex too.

I don't know anyone who has been in a long, happy (overall,) monogamous relationship that hasn't had give and take around sex and where sometimes it wasn't enthusiastic. Some other times it may not happen at all though that is hard for one of the partners. And sometimes in these situations someone is insensitive and there are always times where people have to live with each other's limitations. We'r all assholes sometimes.

In an abusive relationship these behaviours can be taken advantage of, but they are actually necessary for a healthy relationship to endure. Which means saying "I see this dynamic in abusive relationships, so we need to remove it from the lexicon of relationships" isn't workable.

Thankfully we can all live life by our own standards and I'll support any woman who feels she's been coerced or taken advantage of.

And does that extend to even beginning to have a teeny, smidgen of understanding of what I've just posted?

From what you've shared, you're adamant that in your current relationship, you don't feel that it's wrong from someone to go along with something they don't like and so we fundamentally disagree. But should you ever see it differently or, experience what you feel is coercion, then of course.

Of course my viewpoint is from the perspective of the original question but I do genuinely believe what I've said in the context of other relationships.

This picture is what we're fighting.

Are you talking about faking enthusiasm? Or do you just lie there waiting for it to be over and your partner is fine with that?
I can't imagine having sexual intercourse with a person who was not enthusiastic. I know people do it. They have sex with sleeping partners and with people who are passed out and clearly not consenting.

E.g my husband accompanying me to any 20th or 21st century opera

I cannot understand dragging someone to something they aren't keen on like that

I get what the pp was saying, that sometimes you feel obliged to do things your partner wants to, but you're sometimes really not bothered.
But you do anyway. Not "bad" when you do though.

a woman having her armed burned with cigarettes for refusing sex with an abusive boyfriend

No, he would burn himself and blame me. This made it much harder to recognise as abuse at the time

I can't even compehend either of these scenarios. In my 40s, just WTF. I know I''m lucky.

They have sex with sleeping partners and with people who are passed out and clearly not consenting
See, that's different, if you're not awake or passed out back the fuck off.
Some people sound seriously damaged in their experiences in here and I think that's where the differences lie

From what you've shared, you're adamant that in your current relationship, you don't feel that it's wrong from someone to go along with something they don't like and so we fundamentally disagree

It's so black and white isn't it? No concept of give and take or the idea that there might be any number of activities which one partner isn't that keen on/ not bothered about but it's a nice thing to do.

Are you in a long term relationship? Are you seriously telling me you have never gone to a cinema/ theatre/ concert/ day out/ visit friends/visit family/ sports event that you weren't keen on but your partner was?

I have no idea what your point is in linking that screenshot to what I said or is that just a nice bit of feministplaining to undermine or belittle an opinion you don't agree with?

Are you in a long term relationship? Are you seriously telling me you have never gone to a cinema/ theatre/ concert/ day out/ visit friends/visit family/ sports event that you weren't keen on but your partner was?

Or indeed that a partner hasn't done that for you?