3 ms·

Well, forced-coffee-serving and forced-car-fixing also has a name: slavery. That's pretty traumatic, too.

• lawless123 10y ago
  Did something like it happen in Japan? compensated dating?
• ebbv 10y ago
  That's a bit of a stretch. If you're forced to serve someone coffee one time most people would agree that's messed up but not that big of a deal. If you're forced to have sex once, you've been raped and that's a life shattering event.
  • djschnei 10y ago
    You're completely missing the point. The point isn't which is more life shattering (no one is arguing that), the point is that our laws should protect against coercion against one's body. Forced labor and rape are differing levels of infringement on ones body. However, sex and labor are still products of one's body and the individual has the right to do with their body as they wish.
    • ebbv 10y ago
      Sorry but it's you who is missing the point here. Nobody's arguing about whether we should be able to be forced to do anything. Everybody agrees that we should not. The point is that there's a difference between regular labor and sex.
      • djschnei 10y ago
        That difference is (should be) determined by the individual (owner of the body). That is the point, and you are missing it.
        • ebbv 10y ago
          I'm not missing that point. I didn't address that point of individual choice at all. I was highlighting the cultural difference. If you would take two seconds to stop being so dismissive and pedantic maybe you could actually understand what other people are saying.
          • djschnei 10y ago
            What are you even arguing then? What's the importance of highlighting that difference? My point was that ANY coercive act against someone else's body should be prohibited and punishable under the law. The law should NOT allow the majority (in this case society) to dictate what I can do with MY body. I'm not being pedantic. It sounds like you are arguing "rape is bad, therefore we need to remove partial ownership of your own body and decide what you can and cannot do with it." That "logic" is offensive to me. If that's not what you're saying, I apologize. Maybe I am reading you wrong.
      • imgabe 10y ago
        We may consider coerced sex to be more traumatic than coerced labor, but it's a difference in degree, not in kind. The author is arguing "If sex is just labor then it's ok to coerce people to do it" which is absurd. It's not ok to coerce people to do labor or have sex.
        • djschnei 10y ago
          Bingo. Much clearer than how I said it haha
        • bench_soup 10y ago
          It's not about saying if it's ok or not, of course it's not. It's about stating a difference because sex work being seen a mainstream practice is arguably not a good thing. (be it legal or not, that's not related here)
        • ebbv 10y ago
          That's not really the point. That statement is being used to illustrate the fact that sex is not "just labor." If it were "just labor" it wouldn't be any more traumatic than being forced to make coffee or being forced to answer phones. Which would also be traumatic, but not as traumatic as rape. But whatever, clearly there's a group of people here on HN who are taking the hard line "sex work is just labor" position and there's not going to be a rational discussion here.
          • imgabe 10y ago
            Like I said, the difference is in degree, not kind. There's no reason two things have to be exactly the same amount of traumatic in order to be considered the same kind of trauma. Losing 10% of your net worth and losing 90% of your net worth are both traumatic. One is more so because it's to a larger degree, but it's not an entirely different thing, it's just a different amount. That's why we have different punishments for petty theft and grand larceny. Not because they're completely different crimes, but because they're different degrees of the same crime.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]