5 ms·
Either as a society we accept that some people will trade sexual favors for money or we refuse it. I can see arguments both ways. In the end, that is a stance o
by Iv 9y ago
Either as a society we accept that some people will trade sexual favors for money or we refuse it. I can see arguments both ways. In the end, that is a stance on how you weight two values:
1. The morality to add financial consideration in the decision to provide consent to a sex act.
2. The amount of freewill that a person has within the job market.
What is interesting is that you can have different liberal or conservative position on both of these considerations and still be unsure about the side the scale weights in:
As a conservative:
1. Social conservatives tend to consider sex like a serious matter, set apart from the rest, so they will say that consent is not to be sold.
2. Fiscal conservatives tend to consider freewill in the job market is close to absolute: you are always free to refuse a job, so people deciding to go into prostitution really chose it without constraints.
Depending on how you weight sex-is-special vs job-market-is-free, you can be against or for prostitution as a conservative.
As a liberal:
1. Social liberals will tend to consider that consent is important in every part of life but that sex is (or can be chosen to be) an activity like any other. If someone is really willing to sell sexual favors, under what principle forbidding it? (and it turns to be a fetish too)
2. "Fiscal liberals" (is that an expression? Not sure, non-native here, I mean the opposite of "fiscal conservative) tend to consider wages and employment to be a tool of oppression and control. In that respect, they will be less likely to consider that someone who works for money chooses to do so freely.
Depending on how you weight you-are-free-to-sex-as-you-want vs wage-is-a-way-to-control you can be a liberal and be for or against prostitution.
- didibus 9y agoYour "fiscal liberal" doesn't make that much sense. I suspect their claim would be towards regulating the business, making sure the workers have rights, can negotiate better conditions and ultimately resign if they wanted. Probably education would be pushed to be cheaper or free, programs to transition people out of it put in place, etc.
- Iv 9y agoMaybe that's a French bias, but here we tend to consider that poor people usually have less job opportunities to choose between and that some prostitutes do this because they are out of option to make additional money. "Have sex or starve" can be seen as a breach of consent. Most prostitutes do not work out of a vocation or because they enjoy having sex with random people (though I guess on can find a few who do) but they do that for money. Some will think "that's so much easier and enjoyable than flipping burgers at the fastfood" and that's fine by me, but some others will think "that's the only way I can make enough money to feed my kids and pay our debts" and that's less ok.
- kofejnik 9y ago> "Have sex or starve" can be seen as a breach of consent. By extension, "flip the burgers or starve" is a breach of consent as well, so forced labour/slavery.
- Iv 9y agoExactly. The further to the left you go, the more people consider that employment is a tool of oppression. Of course not literal slavery but as a toned down version of the same logic. In that case, whether you find prostitution as acceptable as regular job depend on whether you find (toned down) forced labor more acceptable than (toned down) rape.
- didibus 9y agoLike I said, to solve the consent issue of work, I feel like the "fiscal liberal" would suggest something more in line with free education, universal health care, universal basic income, etc. I don't see why they'd propose to make it illegal.
- ptero 9y ago> "Have sex or starve" can be seen as a breach of consent. Most people in the developed world feel that "do X or starve" is not the right model and want their government to take care of that. This, however, is done via public assistance, not by tweaking rules for X1, X2, ..., Xn, ... ("have sex or starve" is wrong, but "clean toilets or starve" is OK, etc.).
- vertex-four 9y ago"Clean toilets or starve" is, in fact, the model that one of the main sources of aid for the unemployed is built on. If you turn down a job without a damn good reason, you lose your unemployment aid. Very few people with any political power want to change that.
- BearGoesChirp 9y agoWhile the name 'fiscal liberal' may be a poor name in an attempt to make it fit into a grid with the other 3 names, I have to say the concept of payment of wages being inherently coercive is one I've seen numerous times. Personally I have a hard time understanding it because it seems to be a double standard that isn't applied to any other type of work, but regardless of how I view the logical consistency I have to say it is a serious view that is held by a significant percentage of people I've encountered while discussing this matter.
- kofejnik 9y agoFrom what I gather, liberals in general tend to say that sex isn't special (anyone can freely have sex with whomever they want and slut shaming is wrong), but, at the same time, that sex for compensation is literally rape (because it's a form of coercion). How this makes any sense, I can't comprehend.
- Maskawanian 9y agoWhat? No we don't. Most liberals think that sex isn't special and that human trafficking is wrong.
- BearGoesChirp 9y agoI can't speak for what most think, but I've chatted with a number who view that any money being used to purchase sex is inherently coercing someone to have sex, even if we assume that everyone involved in the transaction is fully consenting. Another view I've commonly heard is that possibly engaging in sex trafficking is wrong (so that all paying of prostitutes is wrong because you can't be sure if they really want to or if they are forced), but that possibly engaging in other forms of human trafficking aren't wrong (basically think of anything you buy at the store which may have been produced by slaves, for a concrete example look at shrimp and the slavery involved with it). I'm not saying most hold this true, but a sufficient number of my anecdotal experiences lead me to estimate this is a popular view.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoI would refer to what you are calling "fiscal conservatives" as "economically liberal" and what you are calling "fiscal liberals" as "leftists". Fiscal conservatism really only deals with government budgetary policy which is not at issue here.
- corpMaverick 9y agoWhat is the feminist position on this? It is my body vs Objectification of women ?
- Steuard 9y agoFrom what I've seen, there are strong feminist advocates on both sides of the issue. The article gives examples of both. One side insists that prostitution is inherently coercive and especially focuses on how often women in prostitution are exploited by pimps or others. The other side focuses on every person's right to do what they please with their body within the bounds of consent and on making sure women in prostitution can comfortably get healthcare and police protection. I don't think there's an easy answer to this question from a purely feminist perspective.