9 ms·

Exactly this. I feel as thought op's definition of rape is slightly skewed or that all sex work is viewed as involuntary. Which is not the case. Some use it as

by lewi 13y ago

Exactly this. I feel as thought op's definition of rape is slightly skewed or that all sex work is viewed as involuntary. Which is not the case. Some use it as a supplementary income, some as their primary job and others may use it to valid their self worth. These do not equate to rape.

weland 13y ago
Is there such a considerable difference between being coerced into sex using the threat of a gun held to one's temple and being coerced into sex using the threat of starving tomorrow? Granted, not all sex work is involuntary, but don't delude yourself thinking it's a voluntary choice in poor countries.
- mseebach 13y ago
  Yes, there is all the difference in the world. "The threat of starving tomorrow" is not a condition invented by ruthless capitalist patriarchs or whatever the claptrap of the day is, it's the basis of the human condition for all but the last ~20 minutes of the species' time on this planet. The fact that in most rich countries we generally, mostly can expect to eat tomorrow no matter what happens is still a state of unimaginable luxury for a large portion of the planet's population (although quickly shrinking). The idea that everybody should be free to do (and especially not do) whatever they please without ever suffering adverse consequences is still a fantasy for most, even in the rich part of the world. Using it as some sort of objective universal yardstick next to having a gun to your head is lacking proportions on an epic scale.
  - weland 13y ago
    > "The threat of starving tomorrow" is not a condition invented by ruthless capitalist patriarchs No, but when ruthless capitlist patriarchs or whatever intervene with their money in order to maintain its status quo, the difference begins to fade. Or did you think the girls came up with the money for the studios by themselves? That unless they come up with a steady cashflow for the studio, they're not back wherever they came from? Yes, there's a legitimate business need for what they do, but I find it difficult to shake off the feeling that the investors behind the studios would be so quick to invest in, say, education.
    - mseebach 13y ago
      You're changing the subject. You were comparing the coercion by direct deadly force to coercion by needing a job to eat. I'm sure the people who run such a studio are not God's best children, but if they're not threatening physical violence, it's not comparable to threatening physical violence, not matter how much you'd like them to invest in schools instead.
      - weland 13y ago
        I'm not saying the people who run such a studio are doing the coercion directly, obviously. They're simply taking advantage of it. The fact that the advantage they are taking is primarily economic in nature does little to change the ethical matters. They act as intermediaries to people who gain advantages that are not only economic.
        mseebach 13y ago
        Richelieu famously said that given five lines by the most honest of men, he could find something to hang him by. Today that role falls to the tired and unimaginative application of critical theory to, well, everything.
    - lmm 13y ago
      > No, but when ruthless capitlist patriarchs or whatever intervene with their money in order to maintain its status quo, the difference begins to fade. What are you talking about here? Bribing regulators to keep the girls poor? That would certainly be an issue if was happening, but I don't think it is. > Or did you think the girls came up with the money for the studios by themselves? That unless they come up with a steady cashflow for the studio, they're not back wherever they came from? What are you talking about? This whole line seems very incoherent. > Yes, there's a legitimate business need for what they do, but I find it difficult to shake off the feeling that the investors behind the studios would be so quick to invest in, say, education. I don't think so; I think they're just chasing whichever investment gives the best return on their money, and if that were education they'd be in there like a shot. (There are certainly plenty of scumbags in the education industry if that's where you were going with this)
bayesianhorse 13y ago
I highly doubt that most johns would be able to tell if they are raping a girl or if they are using a prostitute. A little hint: Forced Prostitution does not necessarily mean that the girls run around with bruises all the time. Flirting behavior or turning on a customer isn't proof there is no coercion involved. Pimps do believe in employee education, you know...
- philh 13y ago
  > I highly doubt that most johns would be able to tell if they are raping a girl or if they are using a prostitute. There is a massive ethical (and I believe legal) difference between having sex with someone who you believe is consenting (even if just for money), and having sex with someone who you believe is not consenting.
  - bayesianhorse 13y ago
    Ignorance is usually not a very good moral defense. In the context of prostitution, real or faked ignorance proves highly effective, though...

by lewi 13y ago

weland 13y ago

Is there such a considerable difference between being coerced into sex using the threat of a gun held to one's temple and being coerced into sex using the threat of starving tomorrow? Granted, not all sex work is involuntary, but don't delude yourself thinking it's a voluntary choice in poor countries.

mseebach 13y ago
Yes, there is all the difference in the world. "The threat of starving tomorrow" is not a condition invented by ruthless capitalist patriarchs or whatever the claptrap of the day is, it's the basis of the human condition for all but the last ~20 minutes of the species' time on this planet. The fact that in most rich countries we generally, mostly can expect to eat tomorrow no matter what happens is still a state of unimaginable luxury for a large portion of the planet's population (although quickly shrinking). The idea that everybody should be free to do (and especially not do) whatever they please without ever suffering adverse consequences is still a fantasy for most, even in the rich part of the world. Using it as some sort of objective universal yardstick next to having a gun to your head is lacking proportions on an epic scale.
- weland 13y ago
  > "The threat of starving tomorrow" is not a condition invented by ruthless capitalist patriarchs No, but when ruthless capitlist patriarchs or whatever intervene with their money in order to maintain its status quo, the difference begins to fade. Or did you think the girls came up with the money for the studios by themselves? That unless they come up with a steady cashflow for the studio, they're not back wherever they came from? Yes, there's a legitimate business need for what they do, but I find it difficult to shake off the feeling that the investors behind the studios would be so quick to invest in, say, education.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    You're changing the subject. You were comparing the coercion by direct deadly force to coercion by needing a job to eat. I'm sure the people who run such a studio are not God's best children, but if they're not threatening physical violence, it's not comparable to threatening physical violence, not matter how much you'd like them to invest in schools instead.
    - weland 13y ago
      I'm not saying the people who run such a studio are doing the coercion directly, obviously. They're simply taking advantage of it. The fact that the advantage they are taking is primarily economic in nature does little to change the ethical matters. They act as intermediaries to people who gain advantages that are not only economic.
      - mseebach 13y ago
        Richelieu famously said that given five lines by the most honest of men, he could find something to hang him by. Today that role falls to the tired and unimaginative application of critical theory to, well, everything.
  - lmm 13y ago
    > No, but when ruthless capitlist patriarchs or whatever intervene with their money in order to maintain its status quo, the difference begins to fade. What are you talking about here? Bribing regulators to keep the girls poor? That would certainly be an issue if was happening, but I don't think it is. > Or did you think the girls came up with the money for the studios by themselves? That unless they come up with a steady cashflow for the studio, they're not back wherever they came from? What are you talking about? This whole line seems very incoherent. > Yes, there's a legitimate business need for what they do, but I find it difficult to shake off the feeling that the investors behind the studios would be so quick to invest in, say, education. I don't think so; I think they're just chasing whichever investment gives the best return on their money, and if that were education they'd be in there like a shot. (There are certainly plenty of scumbags in the education industry if that's where you were going with this)

bayesianhorse 13y ago

I highly doubt that most johns would be able to tell if they are raping a girl or if they are using a prostitute. A little hint: Forced Prostitution does not necessarily mean that the girls run around with bruises all the time. Flirting behavior or turning on a customer isn't proof there is no coercion involved. Pimps do believe in employee education, you know...

philh 13y ago
> I highly doubt that most johns would be able to tell if they are raping a girl or if they are using a prostitute. There is a massive ethical (and I believe legal) difference between having sex with someone who you believe is consenting (even if just for money), and having sex with someone who you believe is not consenting.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  Ignorance is usually not a very good moral defense. In the context of prostitution, real or faked ignorance proves highly effective, though...