Red Mosquito

JuanHamm wrote:I guess I just thought it was pretty well established that vice laws are pretty ineffective. 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.

I don't think it's a question of if vice laws are effective or not, more that I don't think prostitution law belongs in the same category as pot and booze because of the uniquely human element to it. BUT, if you look at what happened when pot was legalized, what you'll see is that it's use skyrocketed. But you'll also notice that it did not eliminate the black market, that competition drove providers to make more extreme product experiences, and that it also resulted in downward price pressures. Nothing shocking, we would expect this from knowledge of basic market economics. Legalization cause a spike in supply, the market responds. Same shit happens in the labor market, as labor supply increases price moves. It moves down to an equilibrium where there are no workers available at that price and the workers making that minimum are barely getting by (hence the need for minimum wage laws) and you start to get class stratification, etc. Again, basic econ. So why would we think that sex work would not follow exactly the same pattern of everything else? What makes us believe we wouldn't just be creating a entire generation of impoverished sex workers who would then need to start doing 'more' for lower prices to compete, particularly as they age? Maybe porn is really the best analogue here: Hot Girls Wanted.

Jorge wrote:

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

If you can reconcile that bit of linguistic rhetoric in your mind, the idea that an 18 year old typing in a spreadsheet for eight hours a day is the same thing as that 18 year old getting railed by strangers for eight hours a day... that getting paid to fold pants at Topshop or sweep floors at McDonalds is no different physically or psychologically than getting paid for intercourse... ok. I can't. And as I've put out the challenge before, what is the definition of consensual sex work that people are coming from? Cause, and I hate to back to this again, #MeToo has shown us that agreement to and consent can be very different things when it comes to sex and basically all of women's recorded history backs that up.

Bi_3 wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:I guess I just thought it was pretty well established that vice laws are pretty ineffective. 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.

I don't think it's a question of if vice laws are effective or not, more that I don't think prostitution law belongs in the same category as pot and booze because of the uniquely human element to it. BUT, if you look at what happened when pot was legalized, what you'll see is that it's use skyrocketed. But you'll also notice that it did not eliminate the black market, that competition drove providers to make more extreme product experiences, and that it also resulted in downward price pressures. Nothing shocking, we would expect this from knowledge of basic market economics. Legalization cause a spike in supply, the market responds. Same shit happens in the labor market, as labor supply increases price moves. It moves down to an equilibrium where there are no workers available at that price and the workers making that minimum are barely getting by (hence the need for minimum wage laws) and you start to get class stratification, etc. Again, basic econ. So why would we think that sex work would not follow exactly the same pattern of everything else? What makes us believe we wouldn't just be creating a entire generation of impoverished sex workers who would then need to start doing 'more' for lower prices to compete, particularly as they age? Maybe porn is really the best analogue here: Hot Girls Wanted.

Jorge wrote:

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

If you can reconcile that bit of linguistic rhetoric in your mind, the idea that an 18 year old typing in a spreadsheet for eight hours a day is the same thing as that 18 year old getting railed by strangers for eight hours a day... that getting paid to fold pants at Topshop or sweep floors at McDonalds is no different physically or psychologically than getting paid for intercourse... ok. I can't. And as I've put out the challenge before, what is the definition of consensual sex work that people are coming from? Cause, and I hate to back to this again, #MeToo has shown us that agreement to and consent can be very different things when it comes to sex and basically all of women's recorded history backs that up.

everyone bitches about having to work 8 hours a day. i never heard anyone bitch about getting laid 8 hours a day

Peeps… lol and wtf…

Bi_3 wrote: If you can reconcile that bit of linguistic rhetoric in your mind, the idea that an 18 year old typing in a spreadsheet for eight hours a day is the same thing as that 18 year old getting railed by strangers for eight hours a day... that getting paid to fold pants at Topshop or sweep floors at McDonalds is no different physically or psychologically than getting paid for intercourse... ok. I can't.

Sex means different things to different people, and not everyone should have to abide by what it means to one group. It is a physical act that can have as much or as little emotion attached to it depending on the individual. You can't reconcile it? Cool, don't be a sex worker. Those who can deserve protections and respect

Peeps wrote:everyone bitches about having to work 8 hours a day. i never heard anyone bitch about getting laid 8 hours a day

I've never gotten laid for 8 hours in a day, but I'm pretty sure I'd be complaining by day #3.

Ms Harmless wrote:

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

I get that language matters and that sometimes words gain a connotation that renders it derogatory. Shifting from “prostitute” to “sex worker” does make sense. I just wondered about the agency bit. No doubt there are prostitutes (sex workers) out there who feel they have no other choice, no agency. Surely some do, though.

Jorge wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: If you can reconcile that bit of linguistic rhetoric in your mind, the idea that an 18 year old typing in a spreadsheet for eight hours a day is the same thing as that 18 year old getting railed by strangers for eight hours a day... that getting paid to fold pants at Topshop or sweep floors at McDonalds is no different physically or psychologically than getting paid for intercourse... ok. I can't.

Sex means different things to different people, and not everyone should have to abide by what it means to one group. It is a physical act that can have as much or as little emotion attached to it depending on the individual. You can't reconcile it? Cool, don't be a sex worker. Those who can deserve protections and respect

Maybe I am underestimating the syphilis risk that comes with Excel or maybe the motte you are in blinds you to the real world ramifications of this position.

I see a third possibility

I'm wondering if Bi_3 knows the difference between paying a woman for her time, and rape

Whoa whoa whoa whoa

Rob wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

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

I get that language matters and that sometimes words gain a connotation that renders it derogatory. Shifting from “prostitute” to “sex worker” does make sense. I just wondered about the agency bit. No doubt there are prostitutes (sex workers) out there who feel they have no other choice, no agency. Surely some do, though.

choice is only one area of agency; another is being able to have control in your particular field of work, even if you're doing it because you need the money

the beginning of gaining that control is telling people how you'd like to be addressed

Jorge wrote:Whoa whoa whoa whoa

he seems to think that sex workers are uniquely undeserving of pay, because sex is involved

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.

fair, that's fine

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

I don't believe you mean that

for some reason I think that "legalising sex work and legalising weed are inherently different because sex involves people's bodies" is an interesting direction to take the discussion, even if I don't agree with the statement

many of our poorest people sell weed (and other drugs) because they have no other choice, as well; prisons are chock-full of Black men arrested on such drug charges

so I think the selling of drugs involves the exploitation of bodies as well

legalising weed doesn't just mean allowing white people to get stoned in the suburbs, potentially it means pardoning a fuck ton of others too

.

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?