4 ms·

> So's all of capitalism - what is employment but the buying of somebody's body and mind? But I don't see people like you arguing towards the end of that This

> So's all of capitalism - what is employment but the buying of somebody's body and mind? But I don't see people like you arguing towards the end of that This isn't germane to the issue, which is that purchasing sex is a reprehensible act. However, there is indeed a strong strain of anti-capitalist thought in radical feminism; it surprises me that you don't know this. > Also, I assume you don't actually mean bodies, as that would imply you're similarly against non-sexual modelling, acting, etc etc, where people employ people directly for their bodies, to varying degrees. I meant literally their bodies, not images of their bodies, or actions that their bodies perform. I meant direct access to their mouths, rectums, vaginas for the purpose of sexual gratification. I suppose if purchasing that kind of access had other purposes besides sexual gratification, "sex" wouldn't seem like such a special case.

vertex-four 10y ago
> However, there is indeed a strong strain of anti-capitalist thought in radical feminism; it surprises me that you don't know this. I moderate a handful of self-titled "social justice warrior" chatrooms, which are full of everyone from libertarian socialists to anarcho-communists. I'm reasonably aware of various strands of feminism. I've been having a discussion on the morality of sex work for much of today. Sex work is immoral for the same reasons other work is immoral. It's not a special case, and shouldn't really be treated much differently. If you want to protect the sex worker from the necessity of performing their work, you should be similarly protecting the minimum wage retail clerk from the necessity of performing their work. Neither is worse than the other, and they have similar solutions.
- empthought 10y ago
  Again you are misrepresenting my position; it's not that "sex work" is somehow more immoral than other work, it's that the purchase of sex is immoral, shameful, and frankly, pathetic. It has nothing to do with capitalism vs. anarchism or anything else. Even under capitalism, purchasing e.g. food for your family that was somehow acquired under coercive circumstances is still less shameful than purchasing e.g. diamonds that were somehow acquired under coercive circumstances. What you're purchasing matters; it's not all the same.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    Assuming you own a TV - the purchase of your television was immoral, shameful, and pathetic - you bought into the incredibly poor working conditions of various mines in developing countries, coercive labour in China, and more. And yet you bought it for entertainment. If you don't own a TV, I'm reasonably sure I could pick out something else you've done that involved coerced labour that you didn't need to. The solution is to get rid of the system which is coercive. It's not to tell everybody who ever wanted to buy a television not to within the context of capitalism.
    - empthought 10y ago
      No, the purchase of a television is less immoral, shameful, and pathetic than the purchase of sex. It is qualitatively different. There is nothing inherent in my possession of a television that demeans or degrades another human being; it's simple circumstance that makes working conditions more or less morally acceptable. The purchase of sex inherently demeans and degrades another human being because it places one's own sexual gratification over another person's bodily autonomy.
      - croon 10y ago
        > The purchase of sex inherently demeans and degrades another human being because it places one's own sexual gratification over another person's bodily autonomy. I'm a contractor, and I get to choose my clients. If I don't want to work with someone, I don't. Why would it be "inherently" demeaning in sex work, if they got to choose their clients and there were better protection and regulation? Why is it an implementation issue with your TV purchase, and an inherent issue with sex work? I don't follow the logic.
        empthought 10y ago
        HN comments really don't do justice to the answer to this question, please consider http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000913/091355mb.pdf http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000913/091355mb.pdf TL;DR no prostitute can "choose" a john that isn't going to sexually exploit her (and thus violate her human rights) because that's the nature of purchasing sex. A direct quote TL;DR Does the 'right to prostitute' exist?' Clearly prostitution cannot exist as a right because it usurps and negates already established human rights of the prostitute woman to human dignity, bodily integrity, physical and mental well-being...Human rights are universal and inalienable. They cannot be reduced to the instrumentality of individual choice alone because individual choice can and does include the right to harm or propagate harm on others or inflict harm on oneself.

vertex-four 10y ago

> However, there is indeed a strong strain of anti-capitalist thought in radical feminism; it surprises me that you don't know this. I moderate a handful of self-titled "social justice warrior" chatrooms, which are full of everyone from libertarian socialists to anarcho-communists. I'm reasonably aware of various strands of feminism. I've been having a discussion on the morality of sex work for much of today. Sex work is immoral for the same reasons other work is immoral. It's not a special case, and shouldn't really be treated much differently. If you want to protect the sex worker from the necessity of performing their work, you should be similarly protecting the minimum wage retail clerk from the necessity of performing their work. Neither is worse than the other, and they have similar solutions.

empthought 10y ago
Again you are misrepresenting my position; it's not that "sex work" is somehow more immoral than other work, it's that the purchase of sex is immoral, shameful, and frankly, pathetic. It has nothing to do with capitalism vs. anarchism or anything else. Even under capitalism, purchasing e.g. food for your family that was somehow acquired under coercive circumstances is still less shameful than purchasing e.g. diamonds that were somehow acquired under coercive circumstances. What you're purchasing matters; it's not all the same.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  Assuming you own a TV - the purchase of your television was immoral, shameful, and pathetic - you bought into the incredibly poor working conditions of various mines in developing countries, coercive labour in China, and more. And yet you bought it for entertainment. If you don't own a TV, I'm reasonably sure I could pick out something else you've done that involved coerced labour that you didn't need to. The solution is to get rid of the system which is coercive. It's not to tell everybody who ever wanted to buy a television not to within the context of capitalism.
  - empthought 10y ago
    No, the purchase of a television is less immoral, shameful, and pathetic than the purchase of sex. It is qualitatively different. There is nothing inherent in my possession of a television that demeans or degrades another human being; it's simple circumstance that makes working conditions more or less morally acceptable. The purchase of sex inherently demeans and degrades another human being because it places one's own sexual gratification over another person's bodily autonomy.
    - croon 10y ago
      > The purchase of sex inherently demeans and degrades another human being because it places one's own sexual gratification over another person's bodily autonomy. I'm a contractor, and I get to choose my clients. If I don't want to work with someone, I don't. Why would it be "inherently" demeaning in sex work, if they got to choose their clients and there were better protection and regulation? Why is it an implementation issue with your TV purchase, and an inherent issue with sex work? I don't follow the logic.
      - empthought 10y ago
        HN comments really don't do justice to the answer to this question, please consider http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000913/091355mb.pdf http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000913/091355mb.pdf TL;DR no prostitute can "choose" a john that isn't going to sexually exploit her (and thus violate her human rights) because that's the nature of purchasing sex. A direct quote TL;DR Does the 'right to prostitute' exist?' Clearly prostitution cannot exist as a right because it usurps and negates already established human rights of the prostitute woman to human dignity, bodily integrity, physical and mental well-being...Human rights are universal and inalienable. They cannot be reduced to the instrumentality of individual choice alone because individual choice can and does include the right to harm or propagate harm on others or inflict harm on oneself.