4 ms·

If someone out there is actively advocating to be able to have sex with a prostitute next to you in a restraunt then I see your point. Otherwise prostitution is

If someone out there is actively advocating to be able to have sex with a prostitute next to you in a restraunt then I see your point. Otherwise prostitution is already not part of public life.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
There are people out there (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/09/sex-work-positivity/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/09/sex-work-...) advocating for prostitution as a reasonable career path which should be discussed openly with women who feel undervalued or unfulfilled in their current career. I don't think people are gonna start plowing each other in public, but I think there's a very real possibility that in a decade or two it could be considered strange and prudish to tell your friends and family that they shouldn't make an OnlyFans. I've seen some spaces online that are already at that point, although it's always hard to know whether online subcultures represent anything in the real world.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  What if they did? In what way does this harm you? At one time they said the same thing about exposing any skin at all even at the beach. Every human, yes including children gasp has a body with body parts, so mere exposure to the sight of them and knowledge of their existance is not harmful. Sight of the act of sex is merely more of the same. Kids on farms see it every day from birth. At worst it's perhaps distasteful or lacks appropriate decorum in some contexts. I find practically everyone to lack taste or decorum in most WalMarts. It's not a valid argument. It's only worth about as much legal consequence as defecating in the wrong place. In fact defecating is worth more since it at least carries an actual public health consequence to others beyond "I don't want to see that" "I don't want to see that" is an utterly invalid demand, since anyone can say that about anyone for any reason. They used to be able to say it about merely being a mixed race couple in public, or hell a lot of people still do say it about gay couples or trans individuals merely existing in the room. It is ever so slowly being recognized that in order to try to claim any kind of say over anyone else like that, you have to show harm, and no one can show any harm from a person merely existing as gay or trans or black or female etc. Anything you can say about how obviously depraved and harmful it would be to see naked people or sex acts in public, used to be said about all kinds of ordinary harmless things. People were imprisoned or killed over nothing but "I don't want to see that" and "I don't like it that that exists" without any actual harm to justify it. Talking this way about sex work and evidense of sex work being visible in public, is exactly the same.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    I don't think there can be a rigid distinction between "I don't want to see that" and "actual harm". We can presumably agree that it would be wrong if Google put up posters of naked women all over the office, and that the EEOC is right to prohibit such things as a hostile work environment. But what "actual harm" could you point to beyond the fact that the posters are offensive and people don't want to see them? I understand the appeal of being able to take a "live and let live" attitude without considering these kind of tricky values judgments, but I just don't see how you can avoid it.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      It's an interesting idea to follow. So a buisiness that isn't any of the many that might legitimately have pictures of naked women in their offices or other public spaces where employees have to work, has them. What makes them a hostile work environment? Hostile or harmful to who, and by what mechanism? I'll proceed on the assumption that it causes women to feel threatened by the men in the area and/or the owners/managers who installed the posters. This line of reasoning is essentially the same as blaming women for the rapes they endure because they should have made sure they didn't look attractive to any men, instead of holding men to a standard to be responsible for their actions.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      The harm in your example is that by putting up these posters of naked women being valued only for their body, you send the message that that is how women are seen here. A woman is likely to feel she is at risk of being objectified the same as the women you've put on the wall as literal objects. I'm confused what the analogous harm is to you when two adults have consensual sex behind closed doors where you can't see or know about it.
      - Brian_K_White 4y ago
        Who said consentual sex causes any harm? I'm arguing the opposite. The argument that women will interpret the posters as a message that they are seen as objects is potentially interesting, but then what about all the women who work at modelling agencies and ad agencies and actual sex related businesses? The argument that women will feel threatened because the posters will cause the men to attack them, or even just low level menace them, is saying that men are helpless reacting animals and are not responsible for their actions, which is the same argument as saying women are responsible for rape by not dressing badly enough. These theoretical posters are simply and merely inappropriate for facililitating the work being done in most workplaces. They are unwelcome but it's merely because they are a distraction and an annoyance. It doesn't cause any sort of harm that can justify any legal consequences. There is no argument for making them illegal, and in fact they're already not because there are tons of businesses where such images are central to the business. The same image will be interpreted as porn in one room while it's just the businesses product on the wall at countless clothing manufacturers. So the image itself can not be said to posess any intrinsic harm or evil.
- Volundr 4y ago
  > which should be discussed openly with women who feel undervalued or unfulfilled in their current career. Why shouldn't it be "discussed openly"? Why should a person making a good living in their career not be allowed to discuss it? I'm also not getting where your getting the "women who feel undervalued or unfulfilled in their current career". It seems like your implying she's suggesting we push these women into that work, but that's not supported by your article at all. And yeah, maybe in 10-years it'll be frowned on to tell people they shouldn't make their money the way they choose. I don't see why it should be anymore acceptable to tell fully grown adults you don't like them making their money on OnlyFans vs say joining the military or starting a risky business. Poo pooing adult's life decisions uninvited is generally frowned upon. There's no reason we need an exception to this for OnlyFans. I also now wonder exactly where the line is here. We were talking prostitution now the goalposts have moved to OnlyFans, so I guess nudity for money is now unacceptable? That's a pretty broad line that rules out a lot of modelling and mainstream acting as well.

If someone out there is actively advocating to be able to have sex with a prostitute next to you in a restraunt then I see your point. Otherwise prostitution is already not part of public life.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

There are people out there (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/09/sex-work-positivity/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/09/sex-work-...) advocating for prostitution as a reasonable career path which should be discussed openly with women who feel undervalued or unfulfilled in their current career. I don't think people are gonna start plowing each other in public, but I think there's a very real possibility that in a decade or two it could be considered strange and prudish to tell your friends and family that they shouldn't make an OnlyFans. I've seen some spaces online that are already at that point, although it's always hard to know whether online subcultures represent anything in the real world.

Brian_K_White 4y ago
What if they did? In what way does this harm you? At one time they said the same thing about exposing any skin at all even at the beach. Every human, yes including children gasp has a body with body parts, so mere exposure to the sight of them and knowledge of their existance is not harmful. Sight of the act of sex is merely more of the same. Kids on farms see it every day from birth. At worst it's perhaps distasteful or lacks appropriate decorum in some contexts. I find practically everyone to lack taste or decorum in most WalMarts. It's not a valid argument. It's only worth about as much legal consequence as defecating in the wrong place. In fact defecating is worth more since it at least carries an actual public health consequence to others beyond "I don't want to see that" "I don't want to see that" is an utterly invalid demand, since anyone can say that about anyone for any reason. They used to be able to say it about merely being a mixed race couple in public, or hell a lot of people still do say it about gay couples or trans individuals merely existing in the room. It is ever so slowly being recognized that in order to try to claim any kind of say over anyone else like that, you have to show harm, and no one can show any harm from a person merely existing as gay or trans or black or female etc. Anything you can say about how obviously depraved and harmful it would be to see naked people or sex acts in public, used to be said about all kinds of ordinary harmless things. People were imprisoned or killed over nothing but "I don't want to see that" and "I don't like it that that exists" without any actual harm to justify it. Talking this way about sex work and evidense of sex work being visible in public, is exactly the same.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  I don't think there can be a rigid distinction between "I don't want to see that" and "actual harm". We can presumably agree that it would be wrong if Google put up posters of naked women all over the office, and that the EEOC is right to prohibit such things as a hostile work environment. But what "actual harm" could you point to beyond the fact that the posters are offensive and people don't want to see them? I understand the appeal of being able to take a "live and let live" attitude without considering these kind of tricky values judgments, but I just don't see how you can avoid it.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    It's an interesting idea to follow. So a buisiness that isn't any of the many that might legitimately have pictures of naked women in their offices or other public spaces where employees have to work, has them. What makes them a hostile work environment? Hostile or harmful to who, and by what mechanism? I'll proceed on the assumption that it causes women to feel threatened by the men in the area and/or the owners/managers who installed the posters. This line of reasoning is essentially the same as blaming women for the rapes they endure because they should have made sure they didn't look attractive to any men, instead of holding men to a standard to be responsible for their actions.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    The harm in your example is that by putting up these posters of naked women being valued only for their body, you send the message that that is how women are seen here. A woman is likely to feel she is at risk of being objectified the same as the women you've put on the wall as literal objects. I'm confused what the analogous harm is to you when two adults have consensual sex behind closed doors where you can't see or know about it.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      Who said consentual sex causes any harm? I'm arguing the opposite. The argument that women will interpret the posters as a message that they are seen as objects is potentially interesting, but then what about all the women who work at modelling agencies and ad agencies and actual sex related businesses? The argument that women will feel threatened because the posters will cause the men to attack them, or even just low level menace them, is saying that men are helpless reacting animals and are not responsible for their actions, which is the same argument as saying women are responsible for rape by not dressing badly enough. These theoretical posters are simply and merely inappropriate for facililitating the work being done in most workplaces. They are unwelcome but it's merely because they are a distraction and an annoyance. It doesn't cause any sort of harm that can justify any legal consequences. There is no argument for making them illegal, and in fact they're already not because there are tons of businesses where such images are central to the business. The same image will be interpreted as porn in one room while it's just the businesses product on the wall at countless clothing manufacturers. So the image itself can not be said to posess any intrinsic harm or evil.
Volundr 4y ago
> which should be discussed openly with women who feel undervalued or unfulfilled in their current career. Why shouldn't it be "discussed openly"? Why should a person making a good living in their career not be allowed to discuss it? I'm also not getting where your getting the "women who feel undervalued or unfulfilled in their current career". It seems like your implying she's suggesting we push these women into that work, but that's not supported by your article at all. And yeah, maybe in 10-years it'll be frowned on to tell people they shouldn't make their money the way they choose. I don't see why it should be anymore acceptable to tell fully grown adults you don't like them making their money on OnlyFans vs say joining the military or starting a risky business. Poo pooing adult's life decisions uninvited is generally frowned upon. There's no reason we need an exception to this for OnlyFans. I also now wonder exactly where the line is here. We were talking prostitution now the goalposts have moved to OnlyFans, so I guess nudity for money is now unacceptable? That's a pretty broad line that rules out a lot of modelling and mainstream acting as well.