4 ms·

> Prostitution is legal around here for a while so general labor laws apply (...) Like protection from unwanted and unsolicited sexual attention in the work sp

by e12e 7y ago

> Prostitution is legal around here for a while so general labor laws apply (...) Like protection from unwanted and unsolicited sexual attention in the work space? It's something that's pretty common in labour protections - but also highlights how prostitution is different from other forms of "wage slavery".

belorn 7y ago
How does it highlight how prostitution is different from other forms of "wage slavery"? The article describe this problem: > "how to avoid the director when he’s trying to get you to blow him between takes and your jaw needs a rest" It quite clear that the author consider the sex in the shooting and the unwanted sexual attention by the director to be two very different things. One of the two they agreed to before hand and is getting paid to do, the other is unwanted. It seems identical to the problem that has been on the news regarding directors in the movie industry in general.
- e12e 7y ago
  I think it's clear that in general the sex she's paid for is in general also unwanted? So, both are examples of an unpleasantly sexualized work place with an unequal power balance?
  - gjm11 7y ago
    There are laws requiring workplaces to be as safe as reasonably possible. None the less, some jobs just are dangerous and can't be made entirely safe. To take an obvious example, a soldier on active military duty faces some risks, and they're inherent in the job. I don't know exactly how employment law applies to the armed services, but I expect the upshot is something like this: the army has an obligation to do things in a way that e.g. doesn't make accidents needlessly likely, but if you are a soldier fighting a war then you might get shot and that's just part of what they pay you for. Employment laws may or may not already be drafted in a way that makes them suitable for applying to sex workers, but in principle the situation seems to me very similar to the one I just described. If you are (say) a pornographic actor or a prostitute, then you are going to be having some sex that you wouldn't otherwise have chosen to have, and that's just part of what they pay you for; but your employers are still obliged to protect you from (for instance) being sexually harrassed by your boss. So, sure, it's a special case and the laws might need to be written carefully to deal with it, but that's not unprecedented. (In particular, if your intended subtext was something like "... so sex work should be illegal because it's fundamentally abusive" then I think you need to explain why we don't have to outlaw the military, police, and other groups that are necessarily exposed to substantial physical danger in the course of their work.)
    - e12e 7y ago
      I think it's a little hyperbolic to draw military service into the equation - as that is almost universally seen as exceptional. Now for fire and police work - I would argue the difference is one of necessity - even the most fundamental libertarians would probably agree that sex work is a luxury good or service - not something fundamental for survival or law and order; it is closer to working at a restaurant: providing a convenient, but ultimately redundant service (people can and do buy food and prepare it at home). We don't expect restaurant workers to risk their life; while we accept that firefighters sometimes do (although, they try very hard not to). As for the more fundamental aspect; should we allow prostitution - or; is there a difference between other uncomfortable jobs and the sex industry - I suppose I land on the side that the idea that prostitution is OK derives from the fact that we live in a society that's not equal. It may be puritan of me to say that I'd never (unless circumstances changed significantly for worse, I suppose) consider making a living sucking cocks - and I don't think it's a reasonable expectation. But if we do say that prostitution is just work - I don't see why we'd pay social security to people who refuse sex work? I just think there's a fundamental difference between say, cleaning floors and having sex for money.
      - belorn 7y ago
        As an example, there Discovery channel has a documentary show called deadliest Catch, during with they follow fishermen during crab fishing seasons in alaska. Those crabs are a luxury product, and yet according to discovery the death rate during the main crab seasons averages out to nearly one fisherman per week, while the injury rate for crews on most crab boats is nearly 100%. Compared to fire and police work, I would guess it is much safer to spend a day in their line of work compared to go on one of those boats. If we look at the top 10 most dangerous jobs we also see a fairly common pattern where safety is a balance between costs and efficiency. Most of those jobs could be made relative safe, but then the cost would go up. While we don't expect restaurant workers to risk their life, we do expect that the roofer to not spend more money on safety that is strictly necessary, making roofers one of the most dangerous jobs.
        e12e 7y ago
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    > I think it's clear that in general the sex she's paid for is in general also unwanted? No. Unwanted implies against her will. She agreed to have sex in exchange for money, and knew before that the job she was applying to was to perform sex for money. She might not really enjoy the sex she is paid to perform, but that's not different to somebody who cleans toilets in exchange for money might not enjoy cleaning toilets.
    - e12e 7y ago
      I'm curious do you really think it's no different - or do you think it's no different for her? Would you consider cleaning toilets and prostitution for supporting yourself as "no different"?
      - rndgermandude 7y ago
        >Would you consider cleaning toilets and prostitution for supporting yourself as "no different"? If entered voluntarily, I do not see a moral difference. I do however recognize that there still is a societal stigmatization when it comes to sex work (there is also stigmatization when it comes to "menial" jobs such as cleaning toilets, but less so). This stigmatization to me doesn't appear to have a rational footing, but either comes from "traditional" and/or "religious" values (same as opposition to homosexuality), or from confusing voluntary sex work with involuntary sex work (as I often see in self-proclaimed "feminist" perspectives). All in all, a lot of societies seem to be in a state of cognitive dissonance, where voluntarily selling your body for sexual gratification of others is illegal... unless you make a movie out of it, or do not actually perform outright sexual intercourse (strippers, dominatrixes).
        e12e 7y ago
        I suppose according to the article that'd be if entered involuntary there's no difference (ref comments about not affording rent, food, wage slavery). But that wasn't really what I asked. I asked if you consider prostituting yourself to be equivalent to taking a cleaning job?

by e12e 7y ago

belorn 7y ago

How does it highlight how prostitution is different from other forms of "wage slavery"? The article describe this problem: > "how to avoid the director when he’s trying to get you to blow him between takes and your jaw needs a rest" It quite clear that the author consider the sex in the shooting and the unwanted sexual attention by the director to be two very different things. One of the two they agreed to before hand and is getting paid to do, the other is unwanted. It seems identical to the problem that has been on the news regarding directors in the movie industry in general.

e12e 7y ago
I think it's clear that in general the sex she's paid for is in general also unwanted? So, both are examples of an unpleasantly sexualized work place with an unequal power balance?
- gjm11 7y ago
  There are laws requiring workplaces to be as safe as reasonably possible. None the less, some jobs just are dangerous and can't be made entirely safe. To take an obvious example, a soldier on active military duty faces some risks, and they're inherent in the job. I don't know exactly how employment law applies to the armed services, but I expect the upshot is something like this: the army has an obligation to do things in a way that e.g. doesn't make accidents needlessly likely, but if you are a soldier fighting a war then you might get shot and that's just part of what they pay you for. Employment laws may or may not already be drafted in a way that makes them suitable for applying to sex workers, but in principle the situation seems to me very similar to the one I just described. If you are (say) a pornographic actor or a prostitute, then you are going to be having some sex that you wouldn't otherwise have chosen to have, and that's just part of what they pay you for; but your employers are still obliged to protect you from (for instance) being sexually harrassed by your boss. So, sure, it's a special case and the laws might need to be written carefully to deal with it, but that's not unprecedented. (In particular, if your intended subtext was something like "... so sex work should be illegal because it's fundamentally abusive" then I think you need to explain why we don't have to outlaw the military, police, and other groups that are necessarily exposed to substantial physical danger in the course of their work.)
  - e12e 7y ago
    I think it's a little hyperbolic to draw military service into the equation - as that is almost universally seen as exceptional. Now for fire and police work - I would argue the difference is one of necessity - even the most fundamental libertarians would probably agree that sex work is a luxury good or service - not something fundamental for survival or law and order; it is closer to working at a restaurant: providing a convenient, but ultimately redundant service (people can and do buy food and prepare it at home). We don't expect restaurant workers to risk their life; while we accept that firefighters sometimes do (although, they try very hard not to). As for the more fundamental aspect; should we allow prostitution - or; is there a difference between other uncomfortable jobs and the sex industry - I suppose I land on the side that the idea that prostitution is OK derives from the fact that we live in a society that's not equal. It may be puritan of me to say that I'd never (unless circumstances changed significantly for worse, I suppose) consider making a living sucking cocks - and I don't think it's a reasonable expectation. But if we do say that prostitution is just work - I don't see why we'd pay social security to people who refuse sex work? I just think there's a fundamental difference between say, cleaning floors and having sex for money.
    - belorn 7y ago
      As an example, there Discovery channel has a documentary show called deadliest Catch, during with they follow fishermen during crab fishing seasons in alaska. Those crabs are a luxury product, and yet according to discovery the death rate during the main crab seasons averages out to nearly one fisherman per week, while the injury rate for crews on most crab boats is nearly 100%. Compared to fire and police work, I would guess it is much safer to spend a day in their line of work compared to go on one of those boats. If we look at the top 10 most dangerous jobs we also see a fairly common pattern where safety is a balance between costs and efficiency. Most of those jobs could be made relative safe, but then the cost would go up. While we don't expect restaurant workers to risk their life, we do expect that the roofer to not spend more money on safety that is strictly necessary, making roofers one of the most dangerous jobs.
      - e12e 7y ago
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  > I think it's clear that in general the sex she's paid for is in general also unwanted? No. Unwanted implies against her will. She agreed to have sex in exchange for money, and knew before that the job she was applying to was to perform sex for money. She might not really enjoy the sex she is paid to perform, but that's not different to somebody who cleans toilets in exchange for money might not enjoy cleaning toilets.
  - e12e 7y ago
    I'm curious do you really think it's no different - or do you think it's no different for her? Would you consider cleaning toilets and prostitution for supporting yourself as "no different"?
    - rndgermandude 7y ago
      >Would you consider cleaning toilets and prostitution for supporting yourself as "no different"? If entered voluntarily, I do not see a moral difference. I do however recognize that there still is a societal stigmatization when it comes to sex work (there is also stigmatization when it comes to "menial" jobs such as cleaning toilets, but less so). This stigmatization to me doesn't appear to have a rational footing, but either comes from "traditional" and/or "religious" values (same as opposition to homosexuality), or from confusing voluntary sex work with involuntary sex work (as I often see in self-proclaimed "feminist" perspectives). All in all, a lot of societies seem to be in a state of cognitive dissonance, where voluntarily selling your body for sexual gratification of others is illegal... unless you make a movie out of it, or do not actually perform outright sexual intercourse (strippers, dominatrixes).
      - e12e 7y ago
        I suppose according to the article that'd be if entered involuntary there's no difference (ref comments about not affording rent, food, wage slavery). But that wasn't really what I asked. I asked if you consider prostituting yourself to be equivalent to taking a cleaning job?