Red Mosquito

does the donkey get a dental plan?

Harvey Weinstein’s Lawyers Say Everyone Had ‘Transactional Sex’ in Hollywood Before #MeToo

Hmmm.... "transactional sex"... where have we heard that...

lol

he thinks rape is a transaction

Ms Harmless wrote:he thinks rape is a transaction

Is the casting couch rape or did you not read the article? And how is the casting couch worse than the starving person analogy from a few pages back?

The starving thing is such a weird analogy.

B wrote:The starving thing is such a weird analogy.

It's the edge, but it's something happening all over the world: France24: UN peacekeepers engaged in “transactional sex” with more than 225 Haitian women, as well as women in other countries, who said they did so in order to obtain things like food and medication, according to a new report.

To me that's sexual exploitation and if these people were starving it's a form of rape. If you're cool with it, that's on you. But for me, once we acknowledge that the power imbalances in some of these transactions mean they are not freely consensual, because the victims (sorry, "exchange partners") need food and medicine, then we must acknowledge that this is at play whether transactional sex is legal or not.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The starving thing is such a weird analogy.

It's the edge, but it's something happening all over the world: France24: UN peacekeepers engaged in “transactional sex” with more than 225 Haitian women, as well as women in other countries, who said they did so in order to obtain things like food and medication, according to a new report.

To me that's sexual exploitation and if these people were starving it's a form of rape. If you're cool with it, that's on you. But for me, once we acknowledge that the power imbalances in some of these transactions mean they are not freely consensual, because the victims (sorry, "exchange partners") need food and medicine, then we must acknowledge that this is at play whether transactional sex is legal or not.

Prohibition doesn't seem to be working, so what would you suggest?

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The starving thing is such a weird analogy.

It's the edge, but it's something happening all over the world: France24: UN peacekeepers engaged in “transactional sex” with more than 225 Haitian women, as well as women in other countries, who said they did so in order to obtain things like food and medication, according to a new report.

To me that's sexual exploitation and if these people were starving it's a form of rape. If you're cool with it, that's on you. But for me, once we acknowledge that the power imbalances in some of these transactions mean they are not freely consensual, because the victims (sorry, "exchange partners") need food and medicine, then we must acknowledge that this is at play whether transactional sex is legal or not.

Of course that's exploitation. Of course that's rape. Of course a power imbalance is not an acceptable situation for any transaction sexual or otherwise.

I don't see how the decriminalization of sex work changes any of that.

JuanHamm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The starving thing is such a weird analogy.

It's the edge, but it's something happening all over the world: France24: UN peacekeepers engaged in “transactional sex” with more than 225 Haitian women, as well as women in other countries, who said they did so in order to obtain things like food and medication, according to a new report.

To me that's sexual exploitation and if these people were starving it's a form of rape. If you're cool with it, that's on you. But for me, once we acknowledge that the power imbalances in some of these transactions mean they are not freely consensual, because the victims (sorry, "exchange partners") need food and medicine, then we must acknowledge that this is at play whether transactional sex is legal or not.

Prohibition doesn't seem to be working, so what would you suggest?

It don't know, even if I was absolute emperor and could instantly apply any law I wanted, I really don't what would solve the problem. But we should first not make things worse and I don't see how legalization will not make things worse in aggregate even if it helps some percentage of folks trapped in the problem today.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The starving thing is such a weird analogy.

It's the edge, but it's something happening all over the world: France24: UN peacekeepers engaged in “transactional sex” with more than 225 Haitian women, as well as women in other countries, who said they did so in order to obtain things like food and medication, according to a new report.

To me that's sexual exploitation and if these people were starving it's a form of rape. If you're cool with it, that's on you. But for me, once we acknowledge that the power imbalances in some of these transactions mean they are not freely consensual, because the victims (sorry, "exchange partners") need food and medicine, then we must acknowledge that this is at play whether transactional sex is legal or not.

Of course that's exploitation. Of course that's rape. Of course a power imbalance is not an acceptable situation for any transaction sexual or otherwise.

I don't see how the decriminalization of sex work changes any of that.

When does the transaction stop being sexual exploitation?

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The starving thing is such a weird analogy.

It's the edge, but it's something happening all over the world: France24: UN peacekeepers engaged in “transactional sex” with more than 225 Haitian women, as well as women in other countries, who said they did so in order to obtain things like food and medication, according to a new report.

To me that's sexual exploitation and if these people were starving it's a form of rape. If you're cool with it, that's on you. But for me, once we acknowledge that the power imbalances in some of these transactions mean they are not freely consensual, because the victims (sorry, "exchange partners") need food and medicine, then we must acknowledge that this is at play whether transactional sex is legal or not.

Of course that's exploitation. Of course that's rape. Of course a power imbalance is not an acceptable situation for any transaction sexual or otherwise.

I don't see how the decriminalization of sex work changes any of that.

When does the transaction stop being sexual exploitation?

Well, one line is that if you're an Aid Worker with the UN you can't demand anything for the support you provide.

Other power relationships that may invalidate your attempt to purchase sexual services:
- You're the person's boss or potential boss.
- You're the person's family member.
- You're the person's priest.
- You're the person's social worker.
- You're the person's counselor.
- You're the person's doctor.
- You're threatening violence.
- You control the person's access to food, water, and/or shelter.
- You're the person's coach.
- You're the person's teacher.
- The person is a minor.

This isn't hard.

rapists might use a shitty phrase like "transactional sex" to make it sound non-violent but colonisers use the phrase "agreements with tribes", it's the same shit

sex that is *actually*, *equally* transactional, will be consensual sex (if perhaps of the more casual variety, which is fine)

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The starving thing is such a weird analogy.

It's the edge, but it's something happening all over the world: France24: UN peacekeepers engaged in “transactional sex” with more than 225 Haitian women, as well as women in other countries, who said they did so in order to obtain things like food and medication, according to a new report.

To me that's sexual exploitation and if these people were starving it's a form of rape. If you're cool with it, that's on you. But for me, once we acknowledge that the power imbalances in some of these transactions mean they are not freely consensual, because the victims (sorry, "exchange partners") need food and medicine, then we must acknowledge that this is at play whether transactional sex is legal or not.

Of course that's exploitation. Of course that's rape. Of course a power imbalance is not an acceptable situation for any transaction sexual or otherwise.

I don't see how the decriminalization of sex work changes any of that.

exactly

Bi_3, you're collecting a whole bunch of situations and contexts and acts together and calling them all the same thing, just because they (could, at a stretch) involve sex of some kind

human sex trafficking is a distinct crime, and so is the weapon of rape historically used by colonisers to overthrow people groups

Ms Harmless wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The starving thing is such a weird analogy.

It's the edge, but it's something happening all over the world: France24: UN peacekeepers engaged in “transactional sex” with more than 225 Haitian women, as well as women in other countries, who said they did so in order to obtain things like food and medication, according to a new report.

To me that's sexual exploitation and if these people were starving it's a form of rape. If you're cool with it, that's on you. But for me, once we acknowledge that the power imbalances in some of these transactions mean they are not freely consensual, because the victims (sorry, "exchange partners") need food and medicine, then we must acknowledge that this is at play whether transactional sex is legal or not.

Of course that's exploitation. Of course that's rape. Of course a power imbalance is not an acceptable situation for any transaction sexual or otherwise.

I don't see how the decriminalization of sex work changes any of that.

exactly

Bi_3, you're collecting a whole bunch of situations and contexts and acts together and calling them all the same thing, just because they (could, at a stretch) involve sex of some kind

human sex trafficking is a distinct crime, and so is the weapon of rape historically used by colonisers to overthrow people groups

Rare photo of the first known coloniser:

Spoiler: show

what if we stopped acting like cavemen

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:
When does the transaction stop being sexual exploitation?

Well, one line is that if you're an Aid Worker with the UN you can't demand anything for the support you provide.

Other power relationships that may invalidate your attempt to purchase sexual services:
- You're the person's boss or potential boss.
- You're the person's family member.
- You're the person's priest.
- You're the person's social worker.
- You're the person's counselor.
- You're the person's doctor.
- You're threatening violence.
- You control the person's access to food, water, and/or shelter.
- You're the person's coach.
- You're the person's teacher.
- The person is a minor.

This isn't hard.

Other than the obvious, how do the parties know? How would a customer know the difference between a minor and a legal adult in this scenario? What about something like someone says "I'm your boss' best friend and I think you're hot..."? But more importantly, how does the buyer know the seller is freely consenting? Because they say so?

This is why I'm saving myself for marriage. It's all too complicated

maybe that's the only way to avoid sex trafficking or something

Ms Harmless wrote:maybe that's the only way to avoid sex trafficking or something

What specific characteristics can be used by a customer to distinguish a sex trafficking victim and sex worker?