3 ms·

People working in the mines, or the military, I wonder why that's a socially acceptable way of "selling" their body, but prostitution is not. Even we, behind a

• TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Even coming from mainstream religions, that's annoyingly knee-jerk. Sure, prostitution is shameful and sinful and whatnot, but what about maliciously lying to your neighbor, trying to get rich off their misfortune? Even from a mainstream religious perspective, marketing gives prostitution a run for its money, and outside that framework, arguably it's less shameful to do OF than to be a "regular" influencer, or go into telemarketing. At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily.
  • ath3nd 2y ago
    > At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily Beautifully put! > Sure, prostitution is shameful and sinful and whatnot Only according to some. Imo it's much more immoral to work in fossil fuels or the police/military (where you abandon morals to execute orders).
  • broken-kebab 2y ago
    It's whataboutism, isn't it? It surely hypocritical when someone only fights other's sin while ignoring own (and one mainstream religion has a special piece about it - speck in a brother's eye). But my harmful behavior still doesn't make your harmful behavior good, and vice versa
    • ath3nd 2y ago
      > But my harmful behavior still doesn't make your harmful behavior good, and vice versa In principle I agree. We have a society praising a soldier for killing and risks losing limbs and life (basically selling his body) during military service, but demonizing a sex worker. This society needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. We have people admonishing sex work and marijuana use, while its most "successful" members are in arms dealing, fossil fuels, workers exploitation (amazon), and gambling with the livelihoods of people (banks/wall street).
      • broken-kebab 2y ago
        This is pretty illogical comparison. When we praise soldiers, we do it not for them getting paid for their bodies, but for hard work, and risks they take protecting us.
        • ath3nd 2y ago
          > and risks they take protecting us. Considering the risk are bodily harm, there is some similarity to the risks of bodily harm that some sex workers take, and far more frequently, than soldiers. STDs, violent guys, etc etc. > but for hard work Do sex workers not work hard (pun potentially intended)? I don't see society praising them for their hard work and the risks they take.
  • paulryanrogers 2y ago
    > At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily. Haven't some OF creators come out admitting they were pressured into it, or at least doing it more than they'd like.
    • dragonwriter 2y ago
      I think you'll find that lots of people in non-sex-work, non-stigmatized, socially respected jobs feel like they were pressured into them and/or currently doing more of the work they are in than they'd like due to economic coercion.
    • TeMPOraL 2y ago
      I can believe it. Sex work in general is fraught with various degrees of abuse. However, it's also clear that there is a large class of workers that's doing this work voluntarily, under no pressure (at least not beyond the pressures every employee in any field experiences); my comparison would apply to them.
• akimbostrawman 2y ago
  >I wonder why that's a socially acceptable way of "selling" their body, but prostitution is not. Probably because its not the same at all. Getting naked and spreading your legs is neither as productive nor difficult as serving your country. Neither should it have the same social status.
  • lotsofpulp 2y ago
    ath3nd did not write same social status, they wrote socially acceptable. Relevant username, I guess.
    • ath3nd 2y ago
      I guess I meant a bit of both. We don't give high social status to killers, thugs, murderers and hired assassins, but when it's institutionalized killing, (which is the military) that's okay? The fact that an "official" gives the word, and the victims are not citizens of your country doesn't make the military be less about killing. There also is nothing "productive" about paying for salaries, equipment and training to a bunch of grown men in the anticipation that you have to send them to do violence to your bidding. If the military was not under the veneer of "official", wrapping it in an "institution" and all the language of "serving your country", we'd not been able to distinguish between military, militia and armed thugs. Yet, our society at large reveres them as some heroes and they are mainly socially acceptable. I bet that if we had a "Department of pleasure", with ranks, hierarchies, rules, promotion paths, etc, sex workers wouldn't be as marginalized as they are now. In fact, in many civilized countries, prostitutions is both legal and taxed, and less stigmatized than it is in the US, who are too puritanical/religion influenced in their views to want it to be otherwise.
      • lotsofpulp 2y ago
        > There also is nothing "productive" about paying for salaries, equipment and training to a bunch of grown men in the anticipation that you have to send them to do violence to your bidding. I disagree. First and only rule of nature is might makes right, and being capable of dishing out the most violence (and hence also least likely to be the victim of it) is very “productive”. It is a huge contributor to the purchasing power of the US dollar, which is a referendum on the stability and productivity of US society. For example, the oceanic transportation routes around the world are kept mostly safe and humming along because of militaries enforcing it.