3 ms·

I'd rather that your sex worker acquaintances spend their energy surveying the existing body of academic literature on the subject than to make pleas to me. No

by pen2l 5y ago

I'd rather that your sex worker acquaintances spend their energy surveying the existing body of academic literature on the subject than to make pleas to me. Not trying to be snarky here, and I'm not mounting a defense for complete prohibition of prostitution and the varying types of sex work, I'm just terrified by the increasing acceptability of the work in common society: I want little girls to have engineers and doctors as role models instead of being prodded into sex work by virtue of its encroaching and increasing presence and exposure, a trade that obliges (commonly) the woman to invest their time pleasing men, a trade that has diminishing returns overtime as they age. Leaving aside the mountain of studies that pinpoint poverty as root of most sex work the continents across the globe and related psychological issues brought on by the experiences later on, if you cannot accept earlier-stated premise, then I reckon we come from differing views and further debate on this forum on this subject will likely be fruitless.

Manuel_D 5y ago
The "existing body of literature" is dominated by sex-negative academics that consider all compensated sex to be exploitative, ignoring the agency of sex workers. Apply the same logic to any other type of work and it's clear how shallow these arguments are. Sports also have diminishing returns as athletes age. I'm confident fast-food workers wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't need it to put a roof over their head and food on their table. Yet these don't elicit the same negative response.
- yucky 5y ago
  >Apply the same logic to any other type of work and it's clear how shallow these arguments are. Nobody wants their kids to grow up and do sex work, no matter how progressive they claim to be. So yes, there is a clear difference.
- colpabar 5y ago
  > The "existing body of literature" is dominated by sex-negative academics Off topic, but congratulations, you've just found an example of why the phrase "trust the experts/science" is not a good argument!
  - sascha_sl 5y ago
    If you want an even easier way to phrase it, "appeal to authority" does just fine. One of the few fallacies that stops being a fallacy if your science checks out. Which it doesn't here.

by pen2l 5y ago

Manuel_D 5y ago

The "existing body of literature" is dominated by sex-negative academics that consider all compensated sex to be exploitative, ignoring the agency of sex workers. Apply the same logic to any other type of work and it's clear how shallow these arguments are. Sports also have diminishing returns as athletes age. I'm confident fast-food workers wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't need it to put a roof over their head and food on their table. Yet these don't elicit the same negative response.

yucky 5y ago
>Apply the same logic to any other type of work and it's clear how shallow these arguments are. Nobody wants their kids to grow up and do sex work, no matter how progressive they claim to be. So yes, there is a clear difference.
colpabar 5y ago
> The "existing body of literature" is dominated by sex-negative academics Off topic, but congratulations, you've just found an example of why the phrase "trust the experts/science" is not a good argument!
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  If you want an even easier way to phrase it, "appeal to authority" does just fine. One of the few fallacies that stops being a fallacy if your science checks out. Which it doesn't here.