Red Mosquito

people don't need a "thrill" to work jobs

the question is whether you see them as real people or career criminals in it for the kicks

spike wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

spike wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:the government regulation stuff is irrelevant

i don't think many hookers are interested in paying income tax

do you know any?

No, so what?

You're chatting with a poster who seems to think the way to address men buying vulnerable women's bodies via the criminal sex trade is let men buy vulnerable women's bodies via a legalized sex trade, and that somehow this a benefit to society writ-large. Because, as is obvious to all, the way to stop a person from treating someone else like a dehumanized object and not a person, is to sell that person to them. Exactly like McDonalds. Long and successful history of people purchasing the bodies of others here in the Americas.

I have full confidence you know exactly how to treat (and not treat) women's bodies, Bi_3

"vulnerable" doesn't mean without-agency or autonomy to decide for themselves, it means systemically oppressed

let's make sure that their harassers, rapists and murderers can be prosecuted and arrested; let's give them power to be listened to in court, OK?

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

spike wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:the government regulation stuff is irrelevant

i don't think many hookers are interested in paying income tax

do you know any?

No, so what?

You're chatting with a poster who seems to think the way to address men buying vulnerable women's bodies via the criminal sex trade is let men buy vulnerable women's bodies via a legalized sex trade, and that somehow this a benefit to society writ-large. Because, as is obvious to all, the way to stop a person from treating someone else like a dehumanized object and not a person, is to sell that person to them. Exactly like McDonalds. Long and successful history of people purchasing the bodies of others here in the Americas.

This isn't really a hill I want to die on, but it's not as absurd of an idea as you're struggling to make it sound. Legalizing things and bringing them into the light often makes it harder for the black market to operate. I'd imagine less people are hurt or robbed in drug deals in places where marijuana is now legal. A lot less people were killed by the mob at the end of prohibition. People who study this sort of thing seem to think that you'd be less likely to beat or rape a prostitute if you knew they could call the cops without fear of getting themselves into trouble.

I know almost nothing specific about the sex trade, and neither do you, so even if you disagree with the issue, mocking someone for the opinion seems like a dick move.

"I know how to stop violence! keep people poor and homeless!"

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

spike wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:the government regulation stuff is irrelevant

i don't think many hookers are interested in paying income tax

do you know any?

No, so what?

You're chatting with a poster who seems to think the way to address men buying vulnerable women's bodies via the criminal sex trade is let men buy vulnerable women's bodies via a legalized sex trade, and that somehow this a benefit to society writ-large. Because, as is obvious to all, the way to stop a person from treating someone else like a dehumanized object and not a person, is to sell that person to them. Exactly like McDonalds. Long and successful history of people purchasing the bodies of others here in the Americas.

This isn't really a hill I want to die on, but it's not as absurd of an idea as you're struggling to make it sound. Legalizing things and bringing them into the light often makes it harder for the black market to operate. I'd imagine less people are hurt or robbed in drug deals in places where marijuana is now legal. A lot less people were killed by the mob at the end of prohibition. People who study this sort of thing seem to think that you'd be less likely to beat or rape a prostitute if you knew they could call the cops without fear of getting themselves into trouble.

I know almost nothing specific about the sex trade, and neither do you, so even if you disagree with the issue, mocking someone for the opinion seems like a dick move.

especially as someone who wants to be disagreed with politely and treated like an adult

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

spike wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:the government regulation stuff is irrelevant

i don't think many hookers are interested in paying income tax

do you know any?

No, so what?

You're chatting with a poster who seems to think the way to address men buying vulnerable women's bodies via the criminal sex trade is let men buy vulnerable women's bodies via a legalized sex trade, and that somehow this a benefit to society writ-large. Because, as is obvious to all, the way to stop a person from treating someone else like a dehumanized object and not a person, is to sell that person to them. Exactly like McDonalds. Long and successful history of people purchasing the bodies of others here in the Americas.

This position seems far more regressive than usual for you. Is there some personal connection you have to this issue?

I guess I just thought it was pretty well established that vice laws are pretty infective. People are going to get high drunk, laid... Etc whether it's illegal or not. All making it illegal accomplishes is is making it more dangerous for everyone involved.

Ms Harmless wrote:people don't need a "thrill" to work jobs

Why would someone choose sex work then?

lol

because clients want the thrill

Bi_3 wrote:You're chatting with a poster who seems to think the way to address men buying vulnerable women's bodies via the criminal sex trade is let men buy vulnerable women's bodies via a legalized sex trade, and that somehow this a benefit to society writ-large. Because, as is obvious to all, the way to stop a person from treating someone else like a dehumanized object and not a person, is to sell that person to them. Exactly like McDonalds. Long and successful history of people purchasing the bodies of others here in the Americas.

This falls into that silly fallacious framing of sex workers are selling "their bodies" instead of a service, or labor, performed with their bodies -- which is what all working people do. Framing it this way, and conflating consensual sex work with human trafficking as if there were no discernible difference between the two, is a pretty transparent rhetorical tactic to further delegitimize sex work. It often stinks of moral finger-wagging more than concern for the vulnerable

Ms Harmless wrote:lol

It seemed you were talking about consensual sex work.

spike wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:lol

It’s seemed you were talking about consensual sex work.

I am? are you equating monetising something one is good at and people want from them with a "thrill"?

"consent" is an agreement that something happening is appropriate; "we're fucking, with guidelines in place so that neither of us is hurt, and I get paid -- this is fine, we're both getting something we want"

except those guidelines can't be properly enforced while it's illegal

Ms Harmless wrote:a "prostitute" is someone who has no agency in what she's doing; a "sex worker" has full control, is safe and able to assert boundaries

I know you think that "definition" is all that matters, but where there is more than one word that we could choose to describe something, rhetoric matters even more

I’ve agreed with plenty you’ve said these last few pages, but I cannot make sense of this. Why does a “sex worker” have agency but a prostitute (a term that describes many sex workers) does not?

.

Rob wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:a "prostitute" is someone who has no agency in what she's doing; a "sex worker" has full control, is safe and able to assert boundaries

I know you think that "definition" is all that matters, but where there is more than one word that we could choose to describe something, rhetoric matters even more

I’ve agreed with plenty you’ve said these last few pages, but I cannot make sense of this. Why does a “sex worker” have agency but a prostitute (a term that describes many sex workers) does not?

what we call people communicates how much humanity (and agency) we think they deserve

a "prostitute" has agency because she's a person, but the term is derogatory so it sends society a message that she's just a toy to be used, like "hooker"; what we call people matters

BurtReynolds wrote:

We must find a solution to the problem of too many white people.

It would certainly change the dynamic of RM.