4 ms·

>paying one of those people for sex seems just ya know...like a bit of a shitty thing to do. Why? There's nothing wrong with sex work, it's just a job. Would i

by meruru 8y ago

>paying one of those people for sex seems just ya know...like a bit of a shitty thing to do. Why? There's nothing wrong with sex work, it's just a job. Would it be shitty to pay them to wash your car or whatever?

mLuby 8y ago
The "it's just a job" rationale falls apart when there's no alternative to having that job. When you have no other option, you'll say yes no matter what, so you have no agency and can easily be exploited. It's likely the case that these women had no real option for survival, which is why the third world recent disaster part is an important detail, and why the comparison to Vegas/Amsterdam isn't super accurate. It would be shitty to drive from your city (where a car wash is $10) to the neighboring tent city and give them only $1 to wash your car, because you know they won't have another option.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Sticking to the car washing analog: If you decide to stay local and pay $10 for a car wash so you can feel better about yourself, realize that you haven't improved the lot of the person in the tent city at all. They would probably be better off if you'd "exploited" them...
- meruru 8y ago
  None of that makes sense to me. Sure it sucks to be in such a shitty place that you just have to take whatever pays, but that's the reality for a lot of people and I don't see anyone being all morally outraged at people who hire construction workers or whatever. It's like you're saying that having sex is so terribly bad that it's better to let people starve instead, but that's a bizarre idea considering the fact that sex actually feels really good. What would you do in the car washing example? Drive back to your city and pay $10 because paying someone who's willing to do it for $1 is exploitative? Surely the people doing it for $1 would rather do it for $1 than not do it for $0.
- hnzix 8y ago
  > The "it's just a job" rationale falls apart when there's no alternative to having that job. If there's no alternative, doesn't that mean they'd starve? Are you saying death by starvation is preferable to sex work?
  - HappyDreamer 8y ago
    I'm wondering if you and the others who replied just below are serious or if you're trolling? The charities should instead hire people who aren't predators. People who don't take advantage of the vulnerable people at the catastrophe site. What if you had a child or sister, who got kidnapped. Then the police came, and said to your child or sister: "Ok, we'll rescue you, if we can have sex with you." Based on your reasoning, this would be fine to do, to your child or sister. Because if it wasn't for those hero policemen, she'd remain kidnapped, right. However, the make-sense approach, is to fire those policemen and instead hire others, who took the job because they want to help victims and society, rather than wanting power so they could abuse vulnerable people.
    - meruru 8y ago
      >What if you had a child or sister, who got kidnapped. Then the police came, and said to your child or sister: "Ok, we'll rescue you, if we can have sex with you." What? That's a completely different situation. The person in the story was doing his job just fine, no blackmail involved. He just decided to spend his free time paying for a sex service. Hiring a prostitute in your free time is not abusing people.
      - HappyDreamer 8y ago
        Ok it's not a totally accurate comparison. However it's also not a completely different situation. I get the impression that you have in mind hiring a prostitute, in a well functioning society with no poverty, and with a well fare system that people can fall back on. Actually I read about someone in the country where I live -- he was working as an artist, made okay with money, and decided to quit his job and work as a prostitute instead. After doing that, he made about as much money as before, and he liked being a prostitute, better than his previous job as an artist. I think he and his customers -- it's fine, I see no problem with that. He also did not have a traumatic childhood or anything like that. However that's different, from an earth quake disaster site. There, people are struggling for survival and food and shelter, and some of them will do things they don't really want, to stay alive. I want the aid workers who did not become aid workers to help anyone, but instead to take advantage of vulnerable people, to be fired. And replaced with others who are genuinely interested in helping people -- I think the latter will do a better job. And b.t.w. I think these two groups of people: men looking for cheap sex with vulnerable women and children, versus genuine helpers, are non-overlapping.

by meruru 8y ago

mLuby 8y ago

The "it's just a job" rationale falls apart when there's no alternative to having that job. When you have no other option, you'll say yes no matter what, so you have no agency and can easily be exploited. It's likely the case that these women had no real option for survival, which is why the third world recent disaster part is an important detail, and why the comparison to Vegas/Amsterdam isn't super accurate. It would be shitty to drive from your city (where a car wash is $10) to the neighboring tent city and give them only $1 to wash your car, because you know they won't have another option.

sokoloff 8y ago
Sticking to the car washing analog: If you decide to stay local and pay $10 for a car wash so you can feel better about yourself, realize that you haven't improved the lot of the person in the tent city at all. They would probably be better off if you'd "exploited" them...
meruru 8y ago
None of that makes sense to me. Sure it sucks to be in such a shitty place that you just have to take whatever pays, but that's the reality for a lot of people and I don't see anyone being all morally outraged at people who hire construction workers or whatever. It's like you're saying that having sex is so terribly bad that it's better to let people starve instead, but that's a bizarre idea considering the fact that sex actually feels really good. What would you do in the car washing example? Drive back to your city and pay $10 because paying someone who's willing to do it for $1 is exploitative? Surely the people doing it for $1 would rather do it for $1 than not do it for $0.
hnzix 8y ago
> The "it's just a job" rationale falls apart when there's no alternative to having that job. If there's no alternative, doesn't that mean they'd starve? Are you saying death by starvation is preferable to sex work?
- HappyDreamer 8y ago
  I'm wondering if you and the others who replied just below are serious or if you're trolling? The charities should instead hire people who aren't predators. People who don't take advantage of the vulnerable people at the catastrophe site. What if you had a child or sister, who got kidnapped. Then the police came, and said to your child or sister: "Ok, we'll rescue you, if we can have sex with you." Based on your reasoning, this would be fine to do, to your child or sister. Because if it wasn't for those hero policemen, she'd remain kidnapped, right. However, the make-sense approach, is to fire those policemen and instead hire others, who took the job because they want to help victims and society, rather than wanting power so they could abuse vulnerable people.
  - meruru 8y ago
    >What if you had a child or sister, who got kidnapped. Then the police came, and said to your child or sister: "Ok, we'll rescue you, if we can have sex with you." What? That's a completely different situation. The person in the story was doing his job just fine, no blackmail involved. He just decided to spend his free time paying for a sex service. Hiring a prostitute in your free time is not abusing people.
    - HappyDreamer 8y ago
      Ok it's not a totally accurate comparison. However it's also not a completely different situation. I get the impression that you have in mind hiring a prostitute, in a well functioning society with no poverty, and with a well fare system that people can fall back on. Actually I read about someone in the country where I live -- he was working as an artist, made okay with money, and decided to quit his job and work as a prostitute instead. After doing that, he made about as much money as before, and he liked being a prostitute, better than his previous job as an artist. I think he and his customers -- it's fine, I see no problem with that. He also did not have a traumatic childhood or anything like that. However that's different, from an earth quake disaster site. There, people are struggling for survival and food and shelter, and some of them will do things they don't really want, to stay alive. I want the aid workers who did not become aid workers to help anyone, but instead to take advantage of vulnerable people, to be fired. And replaced with others who are genuinely interested in helping people -- I think the latter will do a better job. And b.t.w. I think these two groups of people: men looking for cheap sex with vulnerable women and children, versus genuine helpers, are non-overlapping.