3 ms·
The other respondent summarized me correctly, but I'll also add, why do most aspiring "actors" or "models" have to moonlight as waiters if it's a simple matter
by lr4444lr 7y ago
The other respondent summarized me correctly, but I'll also add, why do most aspiring "actors" or "models" have to moonlight as waiters if it's a simple matter of people paying for something pleasurable that people want? Because those jobs carry social prestige, and they're flooded with competition. Disgust, danger, and/or fear among the eligible applicant pool keeps enough competition out of prostitution to make it work.
- dadarepublic 7y agoYour comment "prostitution pays because we (collectively) look askance at it" Is directly equivalent to "sex work pays because 'we' look cynically/suspiciously at it" I summarized you correctly - you may not like what you said but my summarization was correct word for word. Comparing aspiring actors and models to sex work? This is a false equivalence. And your last sentence "disgust, danger, and/or fear" not only makes broad assumptions, but also reinforces what I commented earlier about corporate & labor law. And you still haven't really answered the question.
- lr4444lr 7y agoYes, but the other commenter said explicitly what I was implying the consequence would be if sex work were socially normalized. People who sell their bodies as entertainment fall on a spectrum. You may not like it, but I've already answered your question.
- dadarepublic 7y agoWhat consequence? What spectrum? I know words! Sex work as a profession would have to be legitimized, the road to any "normalization" would be a longer one. As you seem to jump from legitimizing and providing protections to "normalization" which I suspect has a bunch assumptions you've built into it... I'd like to know those assumptions. So you still didn't answer my question. P.S. Thank you for admitting that I did, in fact, summarize your statement correctly. :)