4 ms·

So the issue is so-called “economic coercion?” By the same token can’t it be argued that work is inherently coercive, and therefore a form of exploitation? For

So the issue is so-called “economic coercion?” By the same token can’t it be argued that work is inherently coercive, and therefore a form of exploitation? For example, I’d rather not work at all but then I’d be evicted. Can we ban work since it’s non-consensual? What’s so special about sex work that it gets a carve-out?

drdeca 3y ago
Are you of the opinion that “sexual assault” is not different in a morally relevant way from “assault”? If not, then, it seems that we’ve established that in some cases, something being of a sexual nature, can be morally relevant.
- henriquez 3y ago
  You’re right; sexual coercion is morally relevant, similarly to how certain crimes can be up-charged to “hate crimes” based on intent. But then one can’t argue that some forms of economic coercion are okay, while others aren’t (ie. sex-related). All we’d be splitting hairs over would be the degree to which how “not okay” a particular form of coercion is. Fundamentally, economic coercion is the basis of capitalism. For what it’s worth I think it’s a free country and if college girls want to flash their titties on OnlyFans to gratify thirsty sexless losers then that’s between them and the IRS. There’s a reason prostitution is often referred to as a victimless crime.
jstarfish 3y ago
Not quite. People think this is about OnlyFans thots or ex-boyfriends posting revenge porn but I think everyone's reading into it. This smells like FOSTA/SESTA verbiage and the government is not quick to legislate porn, so I assume it's more about trafficking victims who were also filmed during their exploitation (as an additional revenue stream). Reference the part about abuse victims being retraumatized. This bill retroactively imposes something like 2257 on all porn. It just happens to cover some additional cases.

drdeca 3y ago

Are you of the opinion that “sexual assault” is not different in a morally relevant way from “assault”? If not, then, it seems that we’ve established that in some cases, something being of a sexual nature, can be morally relevant.

henriquez 3y ago
You’re right; sexual coercion is morally relevant, similarly to how certain crimes can be up-charged to “hate crimes” based on intent. But then one can’t argue that some forms of economic coercion are okay, while others aren’t (ie. sex-related). All we’d be splitting hairs over would be the degree to which how “not okay” a particular form of coercion is. Fundamentally, economic coercion is the basis of capitalism. For what it’s worth I think it’s a free country and if college girls want to flash their titties on OnlyFans to gratify thirsty sexless losers then that’s between them and the IRS. There’s a reason prostitution is often referred to as a victimless crime.

jstarfish 3y ago

Not quite. People think this is about OnlyFans thots or ex-boyfriends posting revenge porn but I think everyone's reading into it. This smells like FOSTA/SESTA verbiage and the government is not quick to legislate porn, so I assume it's more about trafficking victims who were also filmed during their exploitation (as an additional revenue stream). Reference the part about abuse victims being retraumatized. This bill retroactively imposes something like 2257 on all porn. It just happens to cover some additional cases.