4 ms·

You act as if heroin and sexwork are in two different universes. They are in the same universe and they overlap quite a lot. You can be pro-sex without being a

You act as if heroin and sexwork are in two different universes. They are in the same universe and they overlap quite a lot. You can be pro-sex without being a Pollyanna about it across the board. Things happen in both domains that don't fit either the happy model or the doomful one. Edit: you say recovering from heroin addiction and second-order effects are all negative as if sexwork has no impact on, for example, human relationships, and while I like some of the thought that went into your post, it still reads as a bit absurd.

johnnyanmac 5y ago
>They are in the same universe and they overlap quite a lot. not really. 95+% of the population will experience some sexual activity at some point in their life. It is argued as a basic biological need in some psychologies, and a basic pscyological/social need for the rest that may not want to compare it to food/water/shelter. 95% of the population will never do heroin. I argue over half will never even see heroin tools. That's what makes the controlling of sex more contentious than a very addictive drug. It's a normal (but private) activity that the vast majority of society participates in. It's legal to do it for free, it's legal to pay for content that has people having sex in it. What makes the barrier of paying to do it yourself different?
- hume_annoyed 5y ago
  Is it even possible to move the goalposts farther than this response? Equating sexwork with all sexual activity is like equating opiate abuse with smiling. Edit: Hmm, new account comment but, flagged for what? Making a point plainly? Edit2: The topic is sexwork, the legality or illegality therein and the pros and cons, the parent wants to talk about any sex instead, I believe "moving the goalposts" is accurate, but flagging that is something else entirely. @dang? Edit3: I must have missed an unwritten HN guideline, somehow it seems wrong to me, but I'll leave it here for future reference: all drugs all bad, all sex all good. TIL.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

johnnyanmac 5y ago

>They are in the same universe and they overlap quite a lot. not really. 95+% of the population will experience some sexual activity at some point in their life. It is argued as a basic biological need in some psychologies, and a basic pscyological/social need for the rest that may not want to compare it to food/water/shelter. 95% of the population will never do heroin. I argue over half will never even see heroin tools. That's what makes the controlling of sex more contentious than a very addictive drug. It's a normal (but private) activity that the vast majority of society participates in. It's legal to do it for free, it's legal to pay for content that has people having sex in it. What makes the barrier of paying to do it yourself different?

hume_annoyed 5y ago
Is it even possible to move the goalposts farther than this response? Equating sexwork with all sexual activity is like equating opiate abuse with smiling. Edit: Hmm, new account comment but, flagged for what? Making a point plainly? Edit2: The topic is sexwork, the legality or illegality therein and the pros and cons, the parent wants to talk about any sex instead, I believe "moving the goalposts" is accurate, but flagging that is something else entirely. @dang? Edit3: I must have missed an unwritten HN guideline, somehow it seems wrong to me, but I'll leave it here for future reference: all drugs all bad, all sex all good. TIL.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]