Red Mosquito

Capitalism itself puts a 'market price' on bodily autonomy; people are exploited when they work at McDonald's, at supermarkets, in offices; we need to campaign against exploitation in work, we need to make it safe and fair to work across the board, we need to talk about power and consent, including in sex work; but isolating sex work as a uniquely and inevitably exploitative and non-consensual form of supply and demand is the wrong way to go about things

the #MeToo movement is against the breaching of consent, it's not anti-sex

and none of this is even "down with Capitalism" (even if I believe that, which I do); just that, as long as we are under it, sex work deserves the same rights and protections as any other form of work

BurtReynolds wrote:It might help to explain to these dopes what a right is.

So much this. Good grief.

BurtReynolds wrote:

B wrote:Is she not properly defining a "right to sex" in that tweet?

Lol no, and no one has one.

I didn't thinks she was arguing that.

I don't think this example of "right to sex" legitimises incel ideology (although I wouldn't have put it like that, for sure), I think it highlights the absurdity of the incel ideology's interpretation of it; a right to sexual expression, enjoyment or content, yes; a right to the bodies of any individual you'd like? absolutely not -- no individual owes you a fuck, but the outlawing of sexual freedom IS a breach of human rights; so I'm both cringing at the way the tweet was written, and supporting what I believe it means

.

Ms Harmless wrote:Capitalism itself puts a 'market price' on bodily autonomy; people are exploited when they work at McDonald's, at supermarkets, in offices; we need to campaign against exploitation in work, we need to make it safe and fair to work across the board, we need to talk about power and consent, including in sex work; but isolating sex work as a uniquely and inevitably exploitative and non-consensual form of supply and demand is the wrong way to go about things

.

BurtReynolds wrote:Yeah she's not talking about any of that. She's attempting to shoehorn a stat she saw that illustrates a problem with men into an argument for why we need more of what she's selling, and doing a hilarious job of it.

I think you're wrong, and you're reducing quite a lot of detail to something you can shrug off and laugh at, and then laugh at me for having any points of agreement with her

BurtReynolds wrote:When do we skip to government welfare programs that allowe for poor people to rent pussy too? The truly unlimited demand mixed with very limited supply is going to make our healthcare spending seem like a rounding error compared to that boondoggle!

there isn't limited supply, the supply is forced underground because of criminalisation

.

.

sex workers =/= "prostitutes"

if you think women in general are ashamed of the thought of making money with sexual content, you've somehow missed the explosion in OnlyFans accounts, and similar; in spite of what incel shite might tell you, a lot of women enjoy sex

BurtReynolds wrote:If supply for sex kept up with demand, we'd still be living in caves.

you write things like this and then tell me that my posts don't make sense

don't assume your own struggle to get any reflects a lack of general potential availability; that struggle is a you problem

Ms Harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:If supply for sex kept up with demand, we'd still be living in caves.

you write things like this and then tell me that my posts don't make sense

He's correctly asserting that all human actions in history are based on reproductive fitness.

why is it that women who want to monetise sex are "prostitutes", and men are "playboys"?

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:If supply for sex kept up with demand, we'd still be living in caves.

you write things like this and then tell me that my posts don't make sense

He's correctly asserting that all human actions in history are based on reproductive fitness.

lol nah

.