12 ms·

So do you see all of these examples, yours (the Walmat worker, chicken factory worker, etc) and mine (the woman doing sex work out of desperation) as just a fac

So do you see all of these examples, yours (the Walmat worker, chicken factory worker, etc) and mine (the woman doing sex work out of desperation) as just a fact of life, the nature of things, everyone's gotta do what they gotta do? Or do you see them all as exploitation? As manifestations of the inherent injustices of our socioeconomic system? Or something else? How do you feel about the description "consenting adults"? What about a female employee who doesn't stop her boss's sexual advances because he controls her income and career? Is that a transaction between consenting adults? (I never commented on legality of sex work. I was commenting only on "consenting adults" and... see my other replies.)

rndgermandude 5y ago
>What about a female employee who doesn't stop her boss's sexual advances because he controls her income and career? Is that a transaction between consenting adults? You're trying to flip the script here. A boss (i.e. a concrete person yielding some form of power over another person) trying to coerce the employee is on the same line as a pimp or human traffickers using coercion (or worse). I was never talking about that, I was talking about a person who looks at the options in the job market, and figures all on own their that prostitution is the least shitty option available to them. And some prostitutes reportedly even like their job well enough. But even if they don't, they can join the large group of other people who do not like their jobs either, but do it anyway to provide for themselves and loved ones. There is no coerced consent.
- eevilspock 5y ago
  Flipping of the script? No. > A boss (i.e. a concrete person yielding some form of power over another person) trying to coerce the employee is on the same line as a pimp or human traffickers using coercion (or worse). By your logic, she can say no. She can "look at options in the job market". She can go get a job at McDonald's. By your logic, its consensual and not coercion. By your logic, the boss is morally free and clear as long a an employee can go find a job somewhere else. At will employment, right?
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    Nope. To everything what you just said, I supposedly said.
- another_why 5y ago
  > I was talking about a person who looks at the options in the job market, and figures all on own their that prostitution is the least shitty option available to them. If prostitution, which is heavily stigmatized by the society a person lives in and is illegal, starts looking attractive, then there is something wrong, don't you think? The problem is not decriminalization, the problem is that people don't have anywhere to look at if they want a decent life. > And some prostitutes reportedly even like their job well enough. Which part of it, stigma, having no rights or a fair chance to get degraded/killed/catch STD/highly reducing their chances of having a romantic relationship? >they can join the large group of other people who do not like their jobs either, but do it anyway to provide for themselves and loved ones. You can't provide for yourself and, even more so for you loved ones, by working at McDonalds. You can barely survive. > There is no coerced consent. Sure, if you have 2 choices - prostitution or dying from starvation, then it's not coerced consent. You always had a choice to die.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    >If prostitution, which is heavily stigmatized by the society a person lives in and is illegal, starts looking attractive, then there is something wrong, don't you think? I live in a country that doesn't criminalize prostitution. But even in countries where it is criminalized (most of them), it still can be an attractive enough proposition for sure, depending on the circumstances. Not all prostitutes are those "street workers". A lot of prostitutes are living rather normal lives on the outset, at least in my country. There is plenty of part time prostitutes, too, apparently. Your next door neighbor could be a prostitute, and you won't know it. Stigmatization surely is a problem, but that is directly correlated with criminalization too (but of course not entirely caused by it). Media plays a big role for sure too, usually portraying every prostitute as either a drug addict, abused, or both. There is no easy solution, but one can start by stopping to stigmatize prostitutes, starting with ourselves and then with the people we know. Just threat them as well human beings. >Which part of it, stigma, having no rights or a fair chance to get degraded/killed/catch STD/highly reducing their chances of having a romantic relationship? Not every prostitute gets regularly degraded and/or abused, or killed. Most of the prostitutes around here probably do not have a much higher chance of being killed than other groups. STDs are another matter. But sure, some jobs are riskier than others. We as a society should make it less risky. The chances of bad things happening to prostitutes skyrockets when you criminalize prostitution and thus take away their chances of reporting crimes without being harassed or arrested by law enforcement themselves. Or when the police dismiss a prostitute reporting a rape because "how can a prostitute be raped?!". Or some child protective services agency shows up to take away your kid, because you dared report you were beaten and robbed by a John. Then again, I can hardly find any justification for the laws to criminalize prostitution, other than "it leads to more crime". No shit sherlock, it's criminalized, and that brings more crime with it, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. We have plenty of examples of this happening, like when the US banned alcoholic beverages for a while, and this caused not only speak easys to spring up everywhere, it brought along murder and mayhem, lives destroyed and a vast spike in corruption. >You can't provide for yourself and, even more so for you loved ones, by working at McDonalds. You can barely survive. True, and that needs to change. >Sure, if you have 2 choices - prostitution or dying from starvation, then it's not coerced consent. Correct, that's life being shitty to you. It's not coercion because coercion requires somebody to make threats. Regardless, they are usually either more than two options, and sadly quite often only the one option of starvation. It seems to me you're advocating taking away the prostitution option, which then leaves only starvation? How is this better? In a better world, we would only have people going into prostitution who really want it for some reason, instead of outright, desperate economic need. A world were people do not have to work 14h in some shitty factory and still cannot pay their rent, and cannot even dream of owning a house. A world were nobody starves, and everybody has access to fresh, clean drinking water. We don't have such a world. Making this world we actually got worse for these desperate people by criminalizing them does not help anybody, does it?

rndgermandude 5y ago

>What about a female employee who doesn't stop her boss's sexual advances because he controls her income and career? Is that a transaction between consenting adults? You're trying to flip the script here. A boss (i.e. a concrete person yielding some form of power over another person) trying to coerce the employee is on the same line as a pimp or human traffickers using coercion (or worse). I was never talking about that, I was talking about a person who looks at the options in the job market, and figures all on own their that prostitution is the least shitty option available to them. And some prostitutes reportedly even like their job well enough. But even if they don't, they can join the large group of other people who do not like their jobs either, but do it anyway to provide for themselves and loved ones. There is no coerced consent.

eevilspock 5y ago
Flipping of the script? No. > A boss (i.e. a concrete person yielding some form of power over another person) trying to coerce the employee is on the same line as a pimp or human traffickers using coercion (or worse). By your logic, she can say no. She can "look at options in the job market". She can go get a job at McDonald's. By your logic, its consensual and not coercion. By your logic, the boss is morally free and clear as long a an employee can go find a job somewhere else. At will employment, right?
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  Nope. To everything what you just said, I supposedly said.
another_why 5y ago
> I was talking about a person who looks at the options in the job market, and figures all on own their that prostitution is the least shitty option available to them. If prostitution, which is heavily stigmatized by the society a person lives in and is illegal, starts looking attractive, then there is something wrong, don't you think? The problem is not decriminalization, the problem is that people don't have anywhere to look at if they want a decent life. > And some prostitutes reportedly even like their job well enough. Which part of it, stigma, having no rights or a fair chance to get degraded/killed/catch STD/highly reducing their chances of having a romantic relationship? >they can join the large group of other people who do not like their jobs either, but do it anyway to provide for themselves and loved ones. You can't provide for yourself and, even more so for you loved ones, by working at McDonalds. You can barely survive. > There is no coerced consent. Sure, if you have 2 choices - prostitution or dying from starvation, then it's not coerced consent. You always had a choice to die.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  >If prostitution, which is heavily stigmatized by the society a person lives in and is illegal, starts looking attractive, then there is something wrong, don't you think? I live in a country that doesn't criminalize prostitution. But even in countries where it is criminalized (most of them), it still can be an attractive enough proposition for sure, depending on the circumstances. Not all prostitutes are those "street workers". A lot of prostitutes are living rather normal lives on the outset, at least in my country. There is plenty of part time prostitutes, too, apparently. Your next door neighbor could be a prostitute, and you won't know it. Stigmatization surely is a problem, but that is directly correlated with criminalization too (but of course not entirely caused by it). Media plays a big role for sure too, usually portraying every prostitute as either a drug addict, abused, or both. There is no easy solution, but one can start by stopping to stigmatize prostitutes, starting with ourselves and then with the people we know. Just threat them as well human beings. >Which part of it, stigma, having no rights or a fair chance to get degraded/killed/catch STD/highly reducing their chances of having a romantic relationship? Not every prostitute gets regularly degraded and/or abused, or killed. Most of the prostitutes around here probably do not have a much higher chance of being killed than other groups. STDs are another matter. But sure, some jobs are riskier than others. We as a society should make it less risky. The chances of bad things happening to prostitutes skyrockets when you criminalize prostitution and thus take away their chances of reporting crimes without being harassed or arrested by law enforcement themselves. Or when the police dismiss a prostitute reporting a rape because "how can a prostitute be raped?!". Or some child protective services agency shows up to take away your kid, because you dared report you were beaten and robbed by a John. Then again, I can hardly find any justification for the laws to criminalize prostitution, other than "it leads to more crime". No shit sherlock, it's criminalized, and that brings more crime with it, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. We have plenty of examples of this happening, like when the US banned alcoholic beverages for a while, and this caused not only speak easys to spring up everywhere, it brought along murder and mayhem, lives destroyed and a vast spike in corruption. >You can't provide for yourself and, even more so for you loved ones, by working at McDonalds. You can barely survive. True, and that needs to change. >Sure, if you have 2 choices - prostitution or dying from starvation, then it's not coerced consent. Correct, that's life being shitty to you. It's not coercion because coercion requires somebody to make threats. Regardless, they are usually either more than two options, and sadly quite often only the one option of starvation. It seems to me you're advocating taking away the prostitution option, which then leaves only starvation? How is this better? In a better world, we would only have people going into prostitution who really want it for some reason, instead of outright, desperate economic need. A world were people do not have to work 14h in some shitty factory and still cannot pay their rent, and cannot even dream of owning a house. A world were nobody starves, and everybody has access to fresh, clean drinking water. We don't have such a world. Making this world we actually got worse for these desperate people by criminalizing them does not help anybody, does it?