• AcidSmiley [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.” libertarian-alert

    • Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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?

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        false equivalency intensifies

        Some things that are bad are worse than other things that are bad.

        If that’s your rubrik

        Fuck everything that came after that pretentious sentence starter. I’m not going to humor your dubiously-motivated sophistry.

        EDIT:

        then whatever your opinion of Johns is, it should consistently be applied to anyone who ever buys any product or uses any service

        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. kombucha-disgust

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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’.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Guy who refuses to answer the first question

            Your “question” was garbage to begin with because you’re seriously arguing that all work is only equally harmful and exploitative.

            no logical position

            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.

            • Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You deflected first

                That doesn’t matter to me whatsoever. You sound like a creepy sexpat using false equivalencies to vindicate your little hobby.

                they aren’t helping you

                Don’t say stupid shit like “all work is equally as exploitative.”

                • Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Never said they were equally exploitative, just that we all suffer from some level of economic coercion.

                    You very strongly implied otherwise:

                    whatever your opinion of Johns is, it should consistently be applied to anyone who ever buys any product or uses any service.

                    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!

                  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Never said they were equally exploitative

                    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.

                    You’re a liar and a creep.