this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
229 points (91.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43850 readers
1109 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Economic coercion don't real.
Economic coercion is a problem in sex work, but it is one that cannot ever be adressed by any policy only targeting conditions around sex work, but exclusively by policies that directly remove the coercive conditions under the rule of capital. No anti-sex work law will remove the fact that people see no choice but entering survival sex work, or migrating from the periphery into the center to work as prostitutes. The only way to prevent that is to end poverty and i know i do not have to explain to you what that entails, we're in agreement on that.
This comment is also not entirely directed at your reply, it's more about the general line of thinking that started this comment chain. I'm not under the impression that most sex workers are abducted victims of human trafficking, that's a line of thinking that is always brough tup by swerfs and never backed up with any evidence, i think that your remark towards economic coercion is much closer to the core problem at play here.
I'm not disagreeing with your take there. I have no policy ideas to offer myself.
My issue is with the agonizingly bad take of "buying breakfast at the cafe down the road is exactly as exploitative as soliciting (possibly) trafficked people for sex in the Phillipines."
Keep in mind that buying breakfast is connected to exploitation as well.
Children as young as eight picked coffee beans on farms supplying Starbucks and Nespresso
That is true. It is nearly impossible to purchase anything under the current system without someone having been exploited unjustly along the way. That doesn't mean that all such purchases are equally exploiting or that they all must be seen and treated exactly the same way (which under false equivalency arguments, tends to mean "do nothing at all, status quo is fine").
We're all victims of economic coercion. Very few would willingly work service or clerical jobs if they didn't need to.
If that's your rubrik, then whatever your opinion of Johns is, it should consistently be applied to anyone who ever buys any product or uses any service.
We all work because we need to get paid to survive. Knowing that, how do you believe those who choose for that work to be sex work should be treated?
false equivalency intensifies
Some things that are bad are worse than other things that are bad.
Fuck everything that came after that pretentious sentence starter. I'm not going to humor your dubiously-motivated sophistry.
EDIT:
With that bewilderingly bad false equivalency, you sound like you may be trying to banish a guilty conscience, or if you lack even that, you may be trying to vindicate what you've already paid for regarding economically coerced company.
Youβre being an asshole in response to a good faith discussion.
Believe that if you want, but "buying breakfast at the cafe down the road is exactly as exploitative as soliciting (possibly) trafficked people for sex in the Phillipines" is a horrible take and the pretentious Reddity format it was presented in did not seem good faith to me.
Guy who refuses to answer the first question asked continues to deflect because he knows there's no logical position he can take that isn't 'I don't like sex workers'.
Your "question" was garbage to begin with because you're seriously arguing that all work is only equally harmful and exploitative.
I don't see why you need to stan so hard for unregulated sexpat adventures when you're doing a fine job masturbating right there.
You deflected first by invoking economic coercion. Unless it's your firm belief that there are zero people who would knowingly choose to fuck for money over taking a menial job.
Get better talking points than these sad little ad hominems, they aren't helping you.
That doesn't matter to me whatsoever. You sound like a creepy sexpat using false equivalencies to vindicate your little hobby.
Don't say stupid shit like "all work is equally as exploitative."
Never said they were equally exploitative, just that we all suffer from some level of economic coercion.
What you are doing is what's called strawmanning. It's where you reframe an argument you are unable to counter to a slightly different one that you are able to counter.
I'd say it's beneath you, but it honestly doesn't seem to be.
you spelt rubric with a k
also, you're a creep
Indeed I did. I'll own up to that mistake.
The rest is projection, I'm afraid. Your should probably spend some time in reflection, but you're not going to.
Get whatever jibe is left in you out of your system and be on your way.
If you got into the habit of doing this before you went outside, you probably wouldn't find yourself compelled to defend such a shitty position.
You are such an incredibly pretentious creep as well as a liar.
You very strongly implied otherwise:
If we play devil's advocate, the strictest denotation of what you are saying allows for the interpretation that one should consider exploitation in all cases, but you are very clearly implying that there is a comparable magnitude. I don't "apply my opinion of" John Wayne Gacy to someone was convicted of a sexual assault charge, because both people are sex criminals (and should be condemned) but the cases are clearly not comparable beyond a statement as generic as that.
Likewise, I don't "apply my opinion of Johns" to someone who bought a bundle of bananas at a grocery store because both people "contributed in some manner to exploitation" but the scale is not remotely similar and also the latter person still needs to eat!
You're a liar and a creep.
someone being forced to work a till is not morally equivicable with being forced to have sex the later is far more intimate a violation
But it's totally not a false equivalency because wall of Reddity sophistry here