5 ms·
Sure, it's shameful to force someone to do something without their consent. Your interpretation of consent seems very bizarre however. Inherently anyone paying
by tuxracer 10y ago
Sure, it's shameful to force someone to do something without their consent. Your interpretation of consent seems very bizarre however. Inherently anyone paying anyone else to do anything means they wouldn't have done it without getting paid. Does that mean they didn't consent?
- empthought 10y agoNo, it's shameful to coerce someone into having sex without their consent, not merely to coerce someone to "do something." The rest of your question is not relevant.
- Dylan16807 10y agoSo it's not shameful to force someone to perform manual labor without their consent? Why not?
- empthought 10y agoSometimes it is, sometimes it is not. (Community service is an alternative to jail, for example.) Coerced sex is rape, however. It is qualitatively different from coerced labor. As Dworkin wrote a long time ago, "in prostitution, no woman stays whole. It is impossible to use a human body in the way women's bodies are used in prostitution and to have a whole human being at the end of it, or in the middle of it, or close to the beginning of it. It's impossible. And no woman gets whole again later, after."
- barrkel 10y agoIt's condescending to women to tell them that what they choose to do with their bodies is not their free choice. It's deeply patronising and actually an anti female argument. I think the actual moral problem with commercial sex is that it commodifies something that some people see as sacred. I think it turns on one's view of government as moral guardian vs individual liberty. Governments aren't usually very good moral actors, which is why we usually limit their moral policing.
- empthought 10y agoIf it was their free choice, they wouldn't need to be paid for it, and they could be as selective or as indiscriminate as they like with partner selection and frequency. It's not about anything sacred (unless you consider basic human rights sacred, I guess). But don't take my word for it, take former sex workers' word for it: http://www.educating-voices.com http://www.educating-voices.com This is feminism 101 stuff; even if you want to take the "choice feminism" side of the debate, you need to learn the basics of radical feminist critiques and positions on the issue.
- barrkel 10y agoYour argument hinges on the idea that exchange is inherently coercive. I don't buy it.
- empthought 10y agoNo, my argument hinges on the idea that exchanges of money for sex are inherently coercive -- or at least almost always coercive in practice -- because they are. Other exchanges are not relevant.
- barrkel 10y agoTo remind you, this is what you said: "If it was their free choice, they wouldn't need to be paid for it". This means that monetary exchange precludes free choice. This is independent of what is being exchanged, as you say it.
- empthought 10y agoNo, it means that if sex were their free choice, they would not need to be paid for sex (they could have it as much or as little as they like). Instead of trying to wordplay this in HN comments, why don't you take a look at https://www.demandabolition.org/resources/evidence-against-legalizing-prostitution/ https://www.demandabolition.org/resources/evidence-against-l... -- they've done a far better job than I ever could on lining up the different arguments -- and there are many! -- against blithely skipping into legalized or even decriminalized prostitution. If none stick, then certainly nothing I say in this discussion will have any effect.
- Singletoned 10y agoOut of interest, what about male prostitution? Is it possible for a man to be paid for sex "and to have a whole human being at the end of it"?
- empthought 10y agoI don't know. Probably not. I suppose in a society where women were free of patriarchy and rape culture, and had full reproductive and sexual autonomy, then Dworkin's statement wouldn't even apply to women. But that society is a fantasy, and I doubt any capitalist society could ever free women from economic exploitation of their bodies by others.
- tuxracer 10y agoSo if I coerce someone into cleaning my house without their consent that isn't shameful? Seems coercing someone to do anything without their consent is shameful. If someone only consents to cleaning a house if they're paid enough money to do it that isn't "without their consent" by any definition of the word I'm aware of. It's unclear to me why sex workers should be specially called out and stigmatized.
- empthought 10y agoThe sex workers should not be called out nor stigmatized. Their patrons should be.
- tuxracer 10y agoBased on what you've said so should the patrons of any service if the worker is providing a service they wouldn't otherwise be providing if they weren't being paid to do so.
- empthought 10y agoNo, because it's not a human rights violation to pay someone to clean a toilet. It is a human rights violation to pay someone for sex.
- anon12345690 10y agoYou also don't know what human rights are.