The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Sex work as just another business
Tastyfish
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
This is a spin off from the Dem Primary thread, and a terrible OP because I don't know very much about this topic - it's honestly never rated that highly as something I've been particularly invested in either way, other than something I've been aware of in the periphery as being something that isn't handled well at all by the laws at the moment, and something that easily gets tangled up with unintended consequences of other workplace legislation.
But I think a lot of issues that will come up are going to tie into the way we see and do work, both now and in the future, which is something I do think about a lot and it's probably time to pay more attention to this thing that I've overlooked til now.
And what better way to learn (or at least get schooled) than by making a thread in which I cluelessly spend the first post being wrong?
Here are the initial posts that kicked this off.
But I think a lot of issues that will come up are going to tie into the way we see and do work, both now and in the future, which is something I do think about a lot and it's probably time to pay more attention to this thing that I've overlooked til now.
And what better way to learn (or at least get schooled) than by making a thread in which I cluelessly spend the first post being wrong?
Here are the initial posts that kicked this off.
basically, prostitution should be legal like how me selling you my bike is legal, not like how performing surgery is legal.
Ehh, I'm not sure that's the right way around unless you have some very charitable labour laws and programs to actively find alternative work for manual workers.
If prostitution is legal and just any other job, you have to accept that this is work you could do if you don't want to lose benefits. Or accept that loss of benefits can't be tied to work (hello UBI).
I also feel that politically active sex workers are not the majority here, and whilst wildly not an expert - I can see the logic in it being the ultimate dead end job. It's generally not skill based, the traits that make you valuable depreciate over time and at least at the moment it's difficult to transfer out of the industry based on the skills you learn. Not to mention that the bulk of this work is not done by choice, even though some do.
I think sex work is something special, sex is a more fundamental facet of human relationships than even the bringing of food, and no one should be forced into sex work for financial reasons. As a hobby, or even something that ends up bringing in the bulk of your income - yeah, fine. But expect additional scrutiny and a few hoops, because your mild inconvenience is another woman's slavery.
It's a tangent that probably deserves it's own thread, but sex work really needs it's own category. It's not just any old job and shouldn't be treated as such - it's profoundly tied into how humans experience relationships and open to incredible exploitation which has been carried out for millennia.
A thread for this might indeed be a good idea, but just a couple of points:
a) It is gross to dismiss the advocacy of sex worker organizations as irrelevant and justifying it with your feeling. It suggests a pretty low opinion of sex workers.
b) When proclaiming your lack of expertise on a topic, don't follow it up with sweeping generalizations about it.
c) Also, don't use phrasing like "valuable traits depreciating over time" when talking about sex workers, or just human beings in general. Dehumanizing language isn't great.
also, am a bit curious here, what kind of work do you think is acceptable to be forced into for financial reasons?
+1
Posts
Because the problem with sex for money has nothing to do with the sex, really, and everything to do with the money.
There’s this (good) argument that sex someone wouldn’t have had if they were not paid to do it is coercive sex, and therefore rape.
So what does that make manual labor that someone is paid to do in a society where not having money means you will starve?
The little sex worker advocacy work I've seen tends to lean more towards splitting into destigmatising the more publicly acceptable forms of sex work and fairly obviously is done in such a way to make it seem more publicly acceptable (generally emphasising how it's work that can fit well around a pretty middle class lifestyle, flexible hours that can work around the school run compared to a lower paying 9-5 etc), or alternatively being more single issue focused on fixing things when a particular law is going to cause a breakdown in one of the systems that sex workers use to keep themselves safe (banning online solicitation also taking out moderated forums where there is some element of accountability on the part of the John and forcing things back towards it being a meeting between two strangers on the street). I don't see the former being the typical prostitute right now, even if in the future it could be, but maybe a lot closer if were talking about sex workers who aren't prostitutes? I'm almost certainly showing my biases here, but "sex worker" seems an incredibly broad category that is going to cover a lot of very different people and situations and due to the criminal nature of many parts of it - a lot of how it could be is very different from what it is now.
As for acceptable jobs that you would be forced into for financial reasons, this is a bit tricky because ideally I don't think you should really be forced into any job to avoid starving or homelessness and we're definitely at a stage where we should be thinking differently about how we allocate resources and time, and will have to as AI and automation continues to progress. However, not everyone agrees with me and we don't have that system right now - so I think it's important to bare in mind that most countries that have some kind of unemployment benefits that supports people when they look for work, will take benefits away from jobseekers that refuse jobs they are qualified for.
Nothing good, but the unpleasantness of having to sling burgers (or whatever) to pay rent isn't really comparable to that of having to perform sex acts on strangers, so nothing that bad either.
Mainly because there are going to be aspects of sex work that can never be legalized (see also: Epstein, Jeffrey.) But decriminalization does a lot to weaken the system of human trafficking by providing escape points, as well as drying up the environment for predators (for example, when sex workers can vet clients online, it erodes the environmental niche of the pimp.) But it's not a panacea, even if it would do a lot to reduce harms in sex work overall.
Keep in mind that it is already legal to have sex with someone for money as long as there is a camera.
Pretty sure that's a value judgement that's going to vary from person to person depending on a wide variety of factors.
There are honestly a lot of legal jobs I would put even below having sex with strangers I'm not attracted to on the ranking of things I wouldn't want to be forced to do in order to make ends meet, at least specifically for myself. For instance, cleaning the insides of septic tanks, or working in a factory slaughterhouse, or any of the numerous jobs that are incredibly dangerous and will expose me to lasting physical damage I will live with for the rest of my life. I don't think that any of these things are pleasant ways to live and no one should have to do these things because they have no alternatives.
That’s our puritanism showing.
I've heard of a few behavioural studies and examination of changes in brain chemistry/hormone release that seems to show that sex isn't just another act (I'm looking for them now). It's not something that produces 10 pleasure units rather than a good meal's 5 or something like that, there's a lot of innate/instinctive behaviour that is triggered by it which shouldn't be that surprising.
Of course this isn't a reason to outlaw sex work, and that there's layers and layers of cultural and personal baggage to layer on top of this. But to say that if you stripped away all the value judgements the physical act is just the same as any other physical act isn't true or probably that helpful here (if you would even want to do that).
I'm not trying to put it on a pedestal as something that must be protected at all costs - I just think it's only reasonable to talk about this with the assumption that human sexual behaviour is a poorly understood, strange and complicated thing that is worthy of being recognised as being not like other things, just as we carve out other special areas for things like parenthood. Hence why it gets its own class of related crimes.
I don't think it's identical to any other action. I only took issue with characterizing any other work as "nothing that bad". There's a great deal of things many people would consider worse than sex work if everything else were equal.
But this topic is pretty difficult to get right.
The Netherlands has had legalized prostitution for a long time now. De facto, nearly 40 years.
Its been an endless political hot potato.
The problem, at least from my point of view, is one of supply and demand. The demand is much higher than the supply.
And this creates an opening for organised crime, even with a regulatory system in place.
Most people do not want to work in this industry, but it is very profitable. So coercing people into it, through drug addiction, moving them in from other countries then taking away their passports, some other sort of blackmail, or the threat of violence, can make you a lot of money.
And there is a regulatory paradox. The more you try to regulate the legal prostitution, the more profitable it becomes to set it up illegally instead. The internet makes that pretty easy.
This puts lawmakers into an awkward position. With strict regulation, you create a small legal area and a large criminal area. With lax regulation, you create a larger legal area but with higher amounts of misconduct. The only way to solve that is to devote massive resources into dismantling international crime rings, but that would, at least for the NL, have to be a pan-EU effort (As a lot of this is heavily linked to the poorest countries in the EU, such as Romania)
The question is if our status quo is better than that of most places where it is illegal. The answer is "probably, but not by a lot."
Currently the NL is moving towards stricter regulation.....
I think it's important to recognize that how a guy would view getting paid for sex doesn't necessarily line up with how a gal would view it.
I'm still a bit hung up on defining sex work as rape and then saying that yes, for some people, doing certain menial jobs would be equally as distressing as being raped on a near-daily basis.
Yes, this is exactly what I am saying.
I definitely didn't agree to that definition. I think you and Winky are the only ones here saying that. The rest of us are talking about something else entirely than you are, apparently.
While I don't know any personally, I have heard a lot of stories from escort-type workers that indicate they actually do enjoy the work (not to mention the large sums it brings in). Certainly that setup is probably better off than street-walkers, or low-quality/underground brothels, but I've seen enough anecdotes to convince me that it can be better than flipping burgers, let alone cleaning septic tanks or whatnot, if it's something the person is doing by their own choice.
Philosophy Tube (leftist Youtuber) makes a good point in his video on this topic that when in a play (or the like), you can do things that, outside that context, would definitely be sexual assault.
If someone is paid to be in a play which features a makeout session with someone they wouldn't otherwise make out with, is that sexual assault?
If someone is paid to have sex with someone they wouldn't otherwise have sex with, is that rape?
What's the difference?
Most of the situations involved in illegal sex work are perfectly legal to do now, if someone is taping it for distribution.
It certainly lends itself towards an exploitative work environment, but so do most jobs that overlap with hobbies or other private behavior, like most of the games industry.
Right now the line mostly seems to involve bumping slippery bits without recording it for others to watch. Keeping the base level behavior illegal mostly seems to protect the pimps and other middle management.
Wondering if imposing a high tax on the industry and then reinvesting that into making it safe and cracking down on illegal startups would work.
But then you get something like Uber coming in and bypassing the regulations, and we seem completely unable to deal with those gig economy 'disruptors'
Plenty of sex workers love their job. I've listened to some speak before and mostly they just had a wizened sass to them like any with confidence and a brand to sell. I've also known people who have just done one-offs and it was no big deal.
There are all sorts of lifestyles and viewpoints in the world that aren't even all that hard to find if you just look. They just don't get represented well by major media outlets.
General points:
Legalization is distinguished from decriminalization in that legalization results in a LOT of regulations attached, while decriminalized actions are not really regulated. (In general, legalized actions can be phrased as "this is illegal except if you..." (get a license, follow these regulations, allow police inspections), while decriminalized actions can be phrased as "this is legal unless you..." (are underage).) Sex workers generally want decriminalization, not legalization. When talking about sex work specifically, legalization is problematic because:
* Most sex workers are not doing this as part of a company, and REALLY don't want to be forced to be part of a company. Therefore any regulations need to be feasible for a single person on their own to follow.
* Most regulations around sex work can be twisted to make sex work illegal again. For example, anti-pimping laws can and have been used to criminalize renting an apartment to a sex worker, resulting in sex workers losing their apartment because of a completely legal action.
So, what do I want from sex work laws?
* Sex workers need to be able to seek help without fear of reprisal. They need to be able to contact the police and use the court system without getting arrested in turn, even if they aren't documented.
* Sex workers need to be able to hire bodyguards and rent apartments without anti-pimping laws creating trouble.
* Sex workers need the ability to carry condoms without that being used as evidence.
* Sex workers need the ability to talk between themselves online in order to screen clients and blacklist people.
* Sex workers need a low enough regulatory workload that they don't need people to manage the regulations.
And what I would argue is that the first premise is flawed.
All labor in a society with an insufficient social safety net or without a guarantee that the basic needs of every citizen will be fulfilled. I would argue that if we had these things, most of the issues we might have with legal sex work would disappear.
The problem is not that people do jobs to get money, the problem is that if they don’t do these jobs they starve, meanwhile the terms of the labor are dictated to them by people who are richer than them and they aren’t guaranteed to any part of the fruit of their labor.
There definitely exist men and women for whom sex work is enjoyable and lucrative. That's cool, more power to them.
But - and I don't think anyone in this thread has presented this idea - there are some people who bristle at the idea that sex work can be exploitative, and will assert that treating a large subset of sex workers as victims is problematic in that it denies them agency. (Actually, to be fair, I don't know if I've ever heard this opinion from an actual sex worker, just people speaking on their behalf.) When, in actuality, a significant subset of sex workers either get into the business voluntarily and are unable to leave, or else are manipulated into doing it to begin with.
A not-uncommon scenario is a young or underage girl having a "boyfriend" who will suggest that they need some money, and if she just sells her body once or twice, they'll be on easy street, when in actuality the guy is just a pimp grooming her for prostitution, and once she begins she doesn't get to quit.
It's absolutely vital that any decriminalization or legalization plan account for this kind of thing, because it's a big deal.
What I would say is that's an important reason for sex workers (and their customers) to be able to safely talk to the police if needed.
It's also a reason to allow online sex worker communication:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjpqvz/fosta-sesta-sex-work-and-trafficking
What does the corporate/wallstreet style of this business look like?
I'm talking a giant profit-is-everything, DC-lobbyist-owning monster. With a million-dollar-plus marketing budget per year.
How might that affect the individuals they employ? How might that company and ad campaign affect society? De Beers re-wrote the engagement ring industry and society around it, how could a similar company re-write society around prostitution?
And is a company like prevented from existing now purely because prostitution is illegal?
I think a cottage industry of self-employed folks is wildly different thing than a behemoth with a building full of lawyers and absolutely no morals.
I don't have any answers here. I think people should be allowed to make the rules for their body. But predatory companies are also a thing.
Yes if reality was different things would be different.
I'm not sure that's a particularly profound or relevant point when it comes to discussing sex workers specifically though and "I think the entire basis of our society should change" seems like it might be a bit of a tangent.
Probably American Idol the girls in to 'top tier' contracts, and then pimp them out to rich payers.
Which actually sounds a lot like what was happening with the cheerleaders in that other thread here.
If you design missle guidance systems or fancy tactical backpacks I'm still comfortable calling you a defense contractor.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I'd find the behavior odd in a thread that is only talking about missile guidance system design, and has little to no interest in PMCs, base security, food services, transportation services, janitorial or medical services.
The thread seems... wary of using the term to describe paying someone for sex for your own enjoyment, when that is the thing essentially every post has been about.
And when making statements like:
or
And, you're not talking about dominatrixes, or escorts who aren't having sex for money, or go-go dancers and probably not in most cases erotic models and porn actors or strippers.
The thread's about prostitution, and I wonder about the reason why we aren't just calling it that. If it is a social wokeness/solidarity thing, or if folks are uncomfortable using the term for personal reasons, or it's viewed as degrogitory.
I just kinda find it weird. Cause looking through the sex work wiki, I have actually spoken kinda openly with friends who have done something close to all the forms of sex work that aren't prostitution and pimping. And by and large they didn't see it as horrible or exploitive. And, thinking back I'd be surprised if I didn't know anyone what worked as a prostitute at one point or another, but it's not something they've talked about.
Probably because it's the most difficult 'solve for X' aspect of sex work. When talking about any kind of legaliztion/decriminalization where the legality is based on social norms, it pays to start with the most difficult demographics and work backwards, lest you solve for everything else, and that group gets left behind.
Like, the legal and social status quo for where most folks here are posting from?