So, the sex "work" "debate"

[FizzyDizzy121]

Having looked through a lot of older threads here, I'm asking for some help.

Do you have a DP or family member that you fundamentally disagree with on a topic as black and white (to me) as sex "work"?

In my younger years, I was very much in favour of choice feminism, including in areas such as prostitution. I believed that the pushback was motivated by our issues around sex and that if a woman (usually) wants to run a business that way, supply and demand right? I did argue for better protections, H&S involvement etc.

Now, my whole approach changed a few years back. Buying consent makes me very, very uneasy and I would argue is a form of coercion/distress rather than freely given. Men (usually) who "visit" prostitutes are having sex with someone they KNOW wouldn't have sex with them if there wasnt money involved which is dodgy on so many grounds.
And all that is before we get to the amount of assaults, trafficking etc involved.

My DP is pretty left leaning (as am I) and views all work as unjust. Humans shouldn't have to be coerced to do labour in order to pay for essentials like shelter or food. And he sees sex "work" as within this bracket. Its exploitation but not any different than a retail worker for example. He says he'd be happy for his relative to be involved in sex "work", he argues the money changing hands is not buying the woman but the labour of the woman (I.e. the sex) for a set amount of time.

How do you respond to such thinking? Does it impact show you think of the other person?

Any thoughts/comments gratefully received

On starting in the first place.

I was offered money for sex by random men twice when I was young. If I had needed or wanted the cash. Was struggling in parts of my life. You know, fucked up as many teens are. I might have said ok then.

My friend had sex with two men when she was 15 in exchange for some drugs. It was them who suggested it.

So IME which is very limited indeed. The first step is instigated by men.

That also holds true with what I have read for women and girls. The line between grooming and free choice can be hard to discern. The reasons some girls say yes ok and keep going... There's a certain bravado thing. The idea that women/ girls are the ones 'really' in control that men like to promote, is also useful to have in your own head. Etc etc

I was there when my friend did that, with another girl as well. They were a couple of random men we had met... No idea where tbh.

The focus needs to be on male behaviour.

The behaviour around no harm in asking, a lack of respect for women and girls, and of course objectification etc. The men who view women and girls like this have zero respect for them, they barely even see them as human. Or maybe, as having any worth.

This story is replicated across history, globally, and as long as there are girls/ women who are vulnerable for whatever reason, there will be men happy to exploit them sexually.

Same applies to boys/ men as well if course. The dynamics are different though. It's not socially acceptable to ask for sex from random males if you're a man, it's seen as a bit undesirable but normal for girls and women to get this stuff. Adding an offer of cash (drugs/ a place to stay/ whatever) is a small step from there.

The point is, and again I say IME and from what I have read.

The idea to become a prostitute doesn't come from nowhere. It's often men who put women and girls on this path. Through CSA. Asking the question. Suggesting it to a girlfriend. Etc.

When things get desperate it seems that men and boys seem to turn more to crime (mugging, burglary, drug dealing) while girls and women turn more towards doing shitter and shitter jobs for less and less money until they end up in arguably the shittest (non) job of all. Or of course are talked into it by a man in their life.

That's my view anyway FWIW.

Labour without consent is slavery.
Labour without consent is surely forced labour not slavery.

Consent for labour isn't unrestricted, issues of pay, conditions, disability and age all come into consideration regardless of an individual's consent.

There are also lots of special conditions around consent for sex, leaving the whole issue of prostitution to one side.
There are issues around age, issues around positions of care and issues around professional roles.
Issues around disability and informed consent are also complex and often appear.

None of our laws work on the one size fits all approach you seem to be promoting. The laws around sexual consent are different to the laws around employment. Which suggests that sexual consent does rightly have a special case made for it.

And @StamfordHill has exactly hit my DP's point on the head regarding consent -much better phrased than I managed!

Oh that's so spurious.

Why is it OK for strangers to shake your hand, but not grab your arse or stroke your breath?

Breast.

Stop acting like privacy isnt applicable to women's bodies.

People work because society is a collective. Jobs need doing, we do our part to contribute to society, we receive renumeration.

Nobody has a right to sex or to touch someone's body if they don't actively consent without coercion, such as poverty and cash

If sexual organs are just atypical, I guess it is fine for adults to touch children's genitals for example

It is absolutely deliberately obtuse to pretend that there is no unique right to decide who touches our genitals and that such consent isn't entirely different.

Having been abused, raped and assaulted throughout my life, including in circumstances where I could be considered to have consented by some (obviously not active consent) i really find this argument triggering and will hide this thread.

Good luck to all x

@chickenyhead

Breast.

Stop acting like privacy isnt applicable to women's bodies.

People work because society is a collective. Jobs need doing, we do our part to contribute to society, we receive renumeration.

Nobody has a right to sex or to touch someone's body if they don't actively consent without coercion, such as poverty and cash

That's a good way of distinguishing work and " sex work"

There is a moral aspect to the concept of work. I mean that in a much wider sense than sexual morality. Most people accept that working is a good thing- good for society and good for individuals. We often hear benefits claimants say they would far rather work than claim benefits.

Prostitution should never be allowed to slip into the category of work.

I dint think that argument stands @StamfordHill.

Whether we are working or not, we all need to do things we don’t like at some point. Maybe for survival. Maybe because it’s the right thing to do. Doing something we don’t like isnt the end of the world really.
Assuming that we should all be able to do something we enjoy (should we even say we enjoy all the time?) isn’t realistic.
In the same way, a society wo any work isn’t realistic either because we are dependant in each other. And the reality is that we have well passed the time when we could live in complete autarcie.

So work is needed. And sometimes we won’t enjoy it. That much is a given.
Then when you talk about consent, I would say that consent is given to work and THEN payment is brought for the work done. There are clear boundaries in what the work is and safeguarding in place.

In the case of prostitution, consent is bought and THEN the work is done, regardless of the payment or the consent (remembering the numerous times, men ignore women’s boundaries and do what they like, Aka some ting they haven’t bought or got consent for - eg removing a condom, making the woman come etc....). There are no clear boundaries.

Imo it’s a totally different situation"

Also I want to point out that doing something you dint like (Like work) isn’t the same thing as doing something that is actively hurting you either physically or emotionally (like rape)
Again it’s disingenuous to say they are in any way comparable.

I'm on the far left and would argue that all waged work is exploitation. Having sex is not a form of labour, not for a woman. It may be a service, like any other sort of service you can charge for, but its not like any other service. Its not work, and its not labour, selling your body to be used by another as a service or as a commodity is more like selling your kidneys than selling your labour.

If cash changes hands its coersion, no consent means rape.

If cash changes hands, its coercion, its paid employment.

Is there a difference between work and rape?

I think there is.

Then when you talk about consent, I would say that consent is given to work and THEN payment is brought for the work done. There are clear boundaries in what the work is and safeguarding in place

In the case of prostitution, consent is bought and THEN the work is done

That's a good point.

The fact they would not consent without payment does not make it coercion. I wouldn't have sex with someone with poor personal hygiene. Does that mean men can shower my consent?

Whether or not she would consent in other circumstances is irrelevant. If she can say no to a punter without fear of violence and chooses not to, that is consent.

Of course you can argue about the we extent of free will like you can ask whether an alcoholic chooses to drink but that is different to being forced into it by violence.

If you think that's immoral, why then is it moral to employ the services of most workers

Because most workers don't have to open up an orifice for their clients to enter that leaves them physically raped.

I can't believe you are comparing nursing to prostitution and can't see the difference.

It has already been explained on this thread, including a couple of my own posts but I doubt if explaining it again will be anything other than a waste of my time.

Before wokedom took over researchgate wasn't scared to say that prostitution & poverty go hand in hand:

Street prostitution is intrinsically related to poverty

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232934362WomenninStreettProstitutionTheeResultoffPovertyanddtheBrunttof_Inequity

[quote StamfordHill]@Meuniere

I don't really get the work done first vs. consent bought first. And I don't deny that in some cases there's coercion despite money being paid (ie men not respecting boundaries etc). But that's just an argument for better regulation and safeguards to be put in place.

Let's take a job with an ick factor - nursing. Without money, very few people indeed would ever want to wipe a stranger's behind, or mop up their blood, piss and vomit. Yet when nurse's are paid, we don't consider it forced labour. Not even when they work long hours for a fairly low wage, because they need the money for rent and food.

So what is fundamentally different to doing sexual services for money? Yes it's something deeply private and personal, and without the money you wouldn't do it, and you might even feel disgusted when you do it, but it's still a consensual transaction.

And just by the way, saying one should never pay for sex, doesn't necessarily help anyone. Case in point, a few nights ago I was cycling in Central London when I stopped to say hello to some homeless people (I often do that, just to give them the feeling of being recognised as human beings).

Anyway, it started as a mixed gender group of 4, but one of the women sent away the two men. She then literally begged me to engage her services - well both of theirs actually - so she could have money for a hostel.

Now she was after £10 each, and I wasn't in a position to hand out £20 for charity. As it happened, I also wasn't interested in their sexual services either, but what if I had been? Wouldn't it have been better for them to service me but get the £20 they so desperately needed, rather then me taking the high ground and refusing because it's immoral?

Who is actually getting helped by banning or decrying prostitution?[/quote]
If you had been in the mood, would you have done it?
Would you have taken advantage of a woman in so desperate a situation that she was only charging you £10 for sex?
If you were in a position to give £20 away (and I completely understand that you cannot give money to every homeless person you walk past, around here you'd be bankrupt pretty fast) and you were willing to give that money to have a sexual act performed on you by a stranger, why not just give her the money?

Oh hello StamfordHill I remember conversations about this before.

Iirc your religious views regard any sex outside certain circs as immoral? It was a while ago but I remember because I live not far from Stamford hill!

So say I did fancy what they were offering, the choice is now do I pay £20 for something I enjoy, and we're both better off. Or do I take the moral high ground and two poor crackheads spend the night on the freezing cold street

I'm trying and failing to understand how sex with someone who doesn't actually want to have sex with you, and who looks like a crackhead, outdoors in winter can be enjoyable.

The moral highground if you can afford £20, would have been to give them £20. They would be better off by £20 without having to allow a complete stranger to wank off inside them.