4 ms·

If 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 f

If 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 ago
Your argument hinges on the idea that exchange is inherently coercive. I don't buy it.
- empthought 10y ago
  No, 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 ago
    To 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 ago
      No, 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.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - barrkel 10y ago
        If selling fruit was the shopkeeper's free choice, they would not need to be paid for fruit. This sentence has structurally the same form. If you think it's ridiculous, it can only be because you think there is something special about sex - i.e. it is sacred in some way. And thus your position actually doesn't relate to free will. I think you're very confused. Your statements aren't logically consistent and I have to make guesses and leaps of dodgy inference to make any sense of them at all. I believe you have a prior position on the morality of prostitution and are using arguments you don't understand to defend the position. I think a different tack would be wiser.
        oarsinsync 10y ago
        > This sentence has structurally the same form. If you think it's ridiculous, it can only be because you think there is something special about sex > 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." I feel like the Dworkin quote is more the basis of their argument, that the human body itself is different to other external objects, and selling your own body is different to selling something external. In that context, comparing selling fruit to selling your own body doesn't seem like a fair comparison. That said, I know a couple of people in this industry, none of them are particularly fond of their work, but they don't seem any more unhappy than anyone else in a job they don't particularly like. shrug
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        pkinsky 10y ago
        Then replace selling fruit with backbreaking manual labor: coal mining, digging ditches, whatever. Something that causes real and permanent damage to one's body over time. Is selling your labor in such a way morally wrong?
vidarh 10y ago
> If it was their free choice, they wouldn't need to be paid for it, By this argument, paid work is slavery.

barrkel 10y ago

Your argument hinges on the idea that exchange is inherently coercive. I don't buy it.

empthought 10y ago
No, 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 ago
  To 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 ago
    No, 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.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - barrkel 10y ago
      If selling fruit was the shopkeeper's free choice, they would not need to be paid for fruit. This sentence has structurally the same form. If you think it's ridiculous, it can only be because you think there is something special about sex - i.e. it is sacred in some way. And thus your position actually doesn't relate to free will. I think you're very confused. Your statements aren't logically consistent and I have to make guesses and leaps of dodgy inference to make any sense of them at all. I believe you have a prior position on the morality of prostitution and are using arguments you don't understand to defend the position. I think a different tack would be wiser.
      - oarsinsync 10y ago
        > This sentence has structurally the same form. If you think it's ridiculous, it can only be because you think there is something special about sex > 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." I feel like the Dworkin quote is more the basis of their argument, that the human body itself is different to other external objects, and selling your own body is different to selling something external. In that context, comparing selling fruit to selling your own body doesn't seem like a fair comparison. That said, I know a couple of people in this industry, none of them are particularly fond of their work, but they don't seem any more unhappy than anyone else in a job they don't particularly like. shrug
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        pkinsky 10y ago
        Then replace selling fruit with backbreaking manual labor: coal mining, digging ditches, whatever. Something that causes real and permanent damage to one's body over time. Is selling your labor in such a way morally wrong?

vidarh 10y ago

> If it was their free choice, they wouldn't need to be paid for it, By this argument, paid work is slavery.