Ms Harmless wrote:The Argonaut wrote:Bi_3 wrote:B wrote:Ms Harmless wrote:I'm wondering if Bi_3 knows the difference between paying a woman for her time, and rape
Now, I told Bi to play nice. You have to play nice too. No ad hominem attacks.
Thanks, but I don't take anything on RM personally.
And I'll answer if Harmless answers this first so we are sure we are using the same words:
Is giving food to a starving person in exchange for sex "rape" by your definition?
Bi3 is on to something here. I agree with him. Legalizing sex work should be paired with a robust social safety net: single payer health care, clean and safe housing, food assistance, a guaranteed jobs program.
The problem with sex work isn't sex work. It's that capitalism is by nature and design exploitative of everything.
That fact just jumps out at us when the work is sex
right, and it's jumping out at him, but leading him to say it shouldn't be legalised
and I'm trying to get at why
You want to legalize to keep Sally, Jim, and Jane safe while they engage in sex work
I want to keep it illegal to stop market forces from creating 500,000 more Sallys, Jims, and Janes to worry about.
We are not the same.
Ms Harmless wrote:
Bi_3, no, I don't think that, but let's give sex workers more than a sandwich, yeah?
And this is where we will have to cut bait on this discussion because I see food-for-sex as an egregious violation of human rights and yes, as rape.
So, as promised, to answer
your question, I don't think anyone can know the difference between paying a woman for her time and rape without understanding her life first, otherwise you cannot know if the consent is 'freely given'.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."