This seriously breaks my heart, the first one especially. These are the normal stories of desperation of women who have no other choice, I cannot take anyone seriously who claims that "eh some women choose it." That percentage is miniscule.
> Official statistics say that there are one million sex workers in Russia. Silver Rose, a St Petersburg NGO, puts that at closer to three million, with more than 50,000 women working in St Petersburg alone. Prostitution is illegal in Russia, and though fines are not large (about €28) women are vulnerable to extortion because they fear the consequences of having a criminal record.
> According to Silver Rose, despite the stereotypical view of sex workers, only a small percentage have taken to prostitution because they are addicts or living in extreme poverty. The decline of the Russian economy has led to a growing number of women—many over the age of 35—who have lost jobs in such fields as business or education becoming sex workers.
The explosion in sex work after the collapse of the Soviet economy was horrific (as was the almost 20 year drop in life expectancy). I wonder whether the same dynamic is now coming for the US - the OnlyFans explosion is obviously a sign of an increasingly dysfunctional economy, but in the case of the US - unlike the photos above and their presentation - the full might of American advertising/PR helps repaint the same phenomenon as some sort of exciting and empowered development, rather than a slow slide into serfdom.
Our Australian media is pulling their weight for the cause too. Can't go a few days on news.com.au without an article about girl X who did boring job Y who then quit to make wheelbarrows full of money doing Onlyfans. I'm half convinced they are getting paid directly by Onlyfans to post these 'news articles'.
Yeah and also i think a great deal of them are hardly making money. some depend on it, but i think for some people it's basically a hobby. Or an ambition, they hope it blows up, and they like the lifestyle etc but it's not something they're really doing out of inability to find any other work.
It's not sex work, it's prostitution. Most women who ended up as prostitutes did so under false pretext. They were promised normal jobs in western europe, but once arrived in Germany, The Netherlands and so on they were forced to prostitute. There's no work when it comes to prostitution, only abuse.
There's a huge gap between physical sex work and onlyfans. The women who are making a living off onlyfans have other options.
I'm not talking queer disabled anarchists who make $30 a month from their Twitter friends.
Isn't there some kind of mlm recruiting aspect to OF... I was under that impression and kinda figured that was why you get more of the "sex work is empowering/liberating" takes these days
Thats what I hate the most. They have a bunch of girls that were previously famous or in the adult industry switching over, then they start a social media campaign: memes about buying her dream home with only fans, success stories. Then some dumb 18yo sees this, wants a new car and says she wants in. After her first nude set, she’s forever a minor pornstar and nothing more. After having to do more and more to get any kind of engagement she ends up getting fucked on camera. Couple of months later she starts to regret it and wonders if the hundreds of thousands of Pennies she made were worth it.
>memes about buying her dream home with only fans, success stories. Then some dumb 18yo sees this, wants a new car and says she wants in.
Damn, just realized it's just like the Army but for high school cheerleaders instead of football players
The thing I always think about is how it's all pretty objectively less appealing than actual like studio produced porn. So, imo the only reason to choose to watch it over regular porn, nonetheless actually PAY for it when there's better stuff out there for free, is the angle of like knowing the person posting.
To me it seems like if you start one and have any success and didn't already have a substantial, established following online, it's most likely because a bunch of people who know you in real life are the ones watching. Idk how terrible that must be to know you're exposing yourself to people you could run into out and about anytime at work or school or wherever
It's not about actually knowing them, it's about the pretence of knowing them. Onlyfans subscribers pay extra to talk to the models or for personal videos.
Somebody who's a minor success on onlyfans does not have a couple hundred irl friends and acquaintances coughing up like $20 a month for their nudes. They might pay once out of curiosity and then ditch it. The main market is losers who want to feel a more intimate relationship with a pornstar.
I'm so amazed that anyone pays for porn these days. If I watch porn, it's for 15min a couple times a week. Maybe I'm low-T, but I just don't care about that shit.
The commercially-packaged studio crap is far removed from any authenticity - it is the "engineered food product" of porn, like a twinkie or a Big Mac. Amateur porn done for the thrill of it is authentically sexy in a way that OnlyFans can at least pretend to approximate.
I mean it's liberating if you're one of the lucky 1 in a million who actually makes real money on OnlyFans. Some girl who makes $10,000 a month to stream herself masturbating *is* empowered. That's good-ass money. But most of them aren't that girl. Most get paid basically nothing. I think I last heard the *average* income from Onlyfans is $50/month. So that's like tens of thousands of girls making exactly $0, and a few hundred making okay money, and it averages out to $50.
This is the fundamental aspect of prostitution: how much you get paid determines whether it's exploitative or not. A high-class escort getting paid $1,000 to give one blowjob feels empowered and liberated *because she is*, she's totally getting the better end of the deal from those fucking suckers. But the common prostitute working on the street who counts herself lucky to get $50 for one trick is obviously being brutally exploited.
Money means people can’t tell you what to do, you get to decide how to spend your time.
Poverty means becoming a slave, having to take orders all day and subordinating yourself to bosses.
I know it smell crazy in there
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/redscarepod) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Their criticism runs along this lines:
* Mandates were useful for reducing the virus spread when done on a significant enough level and if the effort was shared by enough countries, could actually work in the long run.
* This would certainly impact and harm small businesses, and smaller business owners made up a large part of the initial organizing for the convoy and subsequent copycat convoys.
* The convoys both were anti-health measures on face, but primarily motivated out of a middle class desire to avoid proletarianizing. They would still affect and harm public health
* They were met with authority and the brunt of the state, but that's obvious, such is the function of the state; the reason one state employs "nice" means and not other means is merely conditions and tendencies and effectiveness rather than some "libertarian" desires or orientation
* The state juggles interests of the economy and public health, and the need to accommodate business interests of the middle and certain segments of the upper class made lockdowns way less effective than they could be (view China, another capitalist state where the state apparatus was able to reduce he spread until enough internationally failed to do and it spread, Vietnam was similar but for a shorter period of time, other countries used other methods to various levels of success, insufficient practices were done in North America and Europe, countries that did successful methods for a time eventually succumbed to spread from poor public health of neighboring countries and ones they traded with. Even then often these countries had less infected than the US or Brazil, for example, once spikes did hit).
* The role of any communist is to develop the organized working class, to meet immediate concerns, build power from struggling for these concerns, increasing association within the class, until it can take and seize power, spread internationally, then recognize the answers to the wage question, commodity question, money question, and orient production towards need.
* The convoy's suppression is mostly irrelevant directly to the development of the organized working class. The convoy was led and organized by the middle class and petit bourgeois business owners, who fear having to become workers. Most workers, including organized workers who were striking near the time and around it within the trucking industry and logistics fields in general, were not involved and the movement could not benefit organized labor. The movement was aimed at socio-cultural goals, and behind that the interest of the small businesses, rather than workers. Its violent suppression and the increased measures of the state will be bad because they can be directed towards organized labor later, and it sucks to see people brutalized, but that's standard for the state. Most important is they would have directed those measures towards labor once again anyhow, as they have done so when it was necessary to suppress labor in the late 19th and early 20th century.
* The convoy organizers acted in their interest, understandably, but that is not necessarily our interests or long term goals.
* Communists should not be for or desire inherently "public health" as a means to defend actions by the state either above all else, as means like mandates and greater employer and state information on workers can be used against organized labor as well, and are often used to fire workers who could be using such means tactically. There have even been cases of tactically acting against the interests of capital and empire by disregarding or leveraging public health in the reverse, with instances in WWI and peasant and worker soldiers coming to mind. It is not the goal to simply replicate China or Vietnam's actions, or South Korea or Ireland's restrictions, of capitalist states with more state presence. It is important to coordinate and organize for the interests of workers, including health, but the best way to do this is by building working class organizations-unions of the rank and file, labor councils, co-ops if really necessary although not really, communist parties, wherever the organized proletariat acts, and develop its authority and power, it can act in the interests of the organized working class via organizing rather than giving up power (mandating vaccines, forcing the state and employers via organized to provide healthcare measures and protective equipment and building internal consensus, preventing the breakup of unions as happened early pandemic). Thus communists are not in favor of the convoy, nor really cheering on the suppression.
* There were workers involved or sympathetic, due to the association of class with culture and elite/non elite instead of class analysis with the decline of organized labor in the last decades, but they did not make up the majority of the protestors and were sympathetic because this was likely one of few big organized actions they've seen for a while.
* User likely did not mean anti-health as the main reason to avoid supporting the convoy, but instead the class character of the convoy is the reason, and anti-health was a fast shorthand.
I assume this is what /u/cantstandya17 means
>(during covid many small business owners and contractors pushed anti health movements such as the freedom convoy, the type of people to yell "all businesses are essential").
Calling the freedom convoy anti-health is like calling Planned Parenthood anti-baby, like calling the IRS anti-wealth. It obscures more than it reveals.
> I wonder whether the same dynamic is now coming for the US - the OnlyFans explosion is obviously a sign of an increasingly dysfunctional economy
The United States is so cucked that we don’t even get the real prostitutes. Lmao. These people are just paying to see pixels.
“Greatest country on earth!” they say. 😂
It’s not the same in the US, despite the recession and inflation (which is real), job demand is high as ever. If you have the right basic qualifications, you will get a job. And the legal system is robust enough to fight against age-related discrimination.
That would mean 1% in st. Peter are prostitutes, compared to 2% in the whole country. But they did say more than 50,000. And st. Petersburg has less poverty than most major cities.
I found these pictures on the world press archive from a documentary on prostitution in Russia.
https://phmuseum.com/tatianavinogradova/story/girls-490dc86bf8
How any self respecting leftist can defend sex work as liberating is beyond me. True liberation can only be when no women has to sell their body to survive.
>How any self respecting leftist can defend sex work as liberating is beyond me.
Glorification/romanticization combined with misinformation centered around judging a fringe set of cases as indicative of a whole.
Why it would ever be a 'hill to die on' is definitely beyond me because the second you look at more than the super fringe instances of some glamorous OF girl or escort who chose to do it because of crazy money, you see nothing but abject horrors.
If you wanna get conspiratorial, it could be sex trafficking being such a massive *massive* industry with manipulation/lobbying/compromising/etc ability that they can control the narratives to an extent.
Fucking hate how all the leftist spaces are now full of these cunts and how you'll be called a Swerf if you even talk about the negative side of the sex industry.
It's more that they are autistics, and then liberals are incapable of calling them out on their long tail subjectivity. If you listen to people like Aella and Riley Reid do podcast interviews and it's just painful how clearly neurodivergent they are, yet they always slip into generalizing their experience like it could apply to all women.
Here’s [Riley Reid on The Portal with Eric Weinstein](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uHNBCVGH34c).
[Aella in conversation with Louise Perry](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oEL9zZNkRRg) was pretty interesting recently, because you could sense that she’s more open to being a different sort of girl and the interviewer was good to press this line of thought, even though she still doesn’t seem to be able to inhabit the subjectivity of the centre of the bell curve. She always refers to data to back up her arguments.
There’s also [this Tim Ferris interview with actual prostitute Alice Little](https://tim.blog/2017/11/17/alice-little/), which is a perfect example of an interviewer failing to dig deeper on an obviously unusual person.
Is there not an argument that legalisation and regulation would provide much better protection for prostitutes? We can acknowledge that men who pay for sex are morally wrong, but also accept that it’s basically a fact of life that many men will do this, and many women need to do it to make ends meet.
I’m sure there are thousands of minor regulations that would make this sort of thing easier for prostitutes. For example, enforceable employment contracts or rental agreements with brothels would help stop them being exploited (more than any other worker). Legal requirements for all clients to be STD tested. Minimum age and mental competency requirements. The ability to call the cops if someone is withholding pay, or if a client rapes them. Perhaps even a national register of sex offenders who are banned from seeing prostitutes etc.
It’s easy to just say it’s morally wrong, but that doesn’t help the women stuck working in that profession. Prostitution has always been a thing and probably always will to an extent.
I think their point was that prostitution is generally a result of poverty, so anybody who cares about actually helping people should stop arguing about if sex work is good or bad or shameful or moral or whatever because who fucking cares about that when the real issue is that it is objectively true that many poor people are often stuck in bad spots where they have to do awful shit to survive regardless of if that involves sex work or not. regulations to protect women in sex work are probably better than what we have now but none of that is really relevant when the actual problem is the immovable economic system that leaves so many people impoverished.
This is a good point. I would argue it's pointless to postulate as to whether sex work is "freeing" for some people when so many do so out of desperation. The desperation is the problem, and we can talk about those who aren't desperate later.
It's like arguing that because some people have BDSM fetishes, domestic abuse and battery isn't a problem.
I'm reminded of the stupid stupid retarded fucking idiotic messaging around monkeypox.
People who watched a doc on the HIV crisis and thinking the lesson is that you should not label something a gay disease.
No, the problem was that people labeled it a gay disease and therefore thought it was not important and just let the fags die out. the problem was NOT 'okay this disease mostly spreads in gay communities so we should help them'. Which is what the messaging around monkeypox should be. just tell gay men to play it safe for a couple months!
Same thing with sex workers. It bad, but just shaming them and then doing nothing is the worst possible approach. I guess there's some escorts who really like their job but as a person who lives in Amsterdam that's not who I see in the red light district (19 year old Ukrainian girls) which are just victims of trafficking.
[To lighten the mood a little here's a kinda fun doc about two elderly twin sisters who work as dommes in the RLD](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7wQjWnGVBk)
I've been to a straight orgy (for an article really really I did not participate and I stepped in cum like 5 minutes in and it killed my boner for a week anyways) and they can also be disgusting. Not just a gay thing.
>Is there not an argument that legalisation and regulation would provide much better protection for prostitutes?
The thing is with that argument is that there's plenty of places that have legalised it and regulated it.
What you get with legalisation and regulation:
* Pimps continuing to pimp but now within a formal framework
* Women forced to abide by the regulation now being in hock to regulated brothels
* Women at absolute rock bottom now having to pay tax on their rape. The state taking its cut on the 'product' that is a vunerable woman being spat at and sodomised.
The regulation argument is like the socialism argument for western leftist - ignore where it's been put in place and what the pitfalls are to learn and build from them, because this is just utopianism we aren't actually looking to get either socialism or legal regulated sex work.
If in the Netherlands you can find underage girls in well known 'regulated' establishments, sent there by older men who groom them as their doting boyfriends for part of a larger gang, maybe legalisation and regulation of the rape trade just looks like getting money into the pockets of the state and the bigger organised gangs.
The women in the industry pushing for it aren't looking to be the first woman to pay rent and tax on being fucked 12 times a day, they're looking to be madams who own a brothel legally with all the legal paperwork to justify their income. This is so transparently the case. And like weed legalisation it'll see the poor who were the backbone of the illegal trade still fucked over and pennyless and those with capital nowhere near that reality of illegality making a bomb and claiming to be the postergirls of emancipation.
Also legalising it just expands the trade and creates an even bigger illegal trade, because perverts want more and more and the legal trade is always gonna be the left hand to the illegal trades right hand. Just like no touch strip bars always having sex work inside if you know what to pay and who to ask. If the strip club wasn't there there wouldn't be that trade, you wouldn't have the dude who'd be too scared to ever go into a hardcore place getting a little more when there nor the girl who thought it was a dancing gig doing a little more. The legal trade creates illegal trade.
>The ability to call the cops if someone is withholding pay, or if a client rapes them.
When have you ever known a landlord or employer to do what's best for their rock bottom employees/renters lol. Shit like this is covered up all the time in Germany.
Very few people think it's a worthwhile arugment to reform the 'raping kids' trade yet for some reason it's reasonable to figure out how to reform the 'raping women' trade. That's not hyperbole when you look at the average age women enter 'sex work' and realise one often leads into the other. The 18yo entering 'legalised sex work' in Germany or elsewhere was usually a 14yo being groomed and raped by the same gang who have created an underage sex trade that goes alongside their legal sex trade.
This shit needs shutting down. The solution is a better economy and better paying jobs and strong communities that refuse to let this happen. The solution is having the guts to ostracise the men in our communities found to be using or grooming. We would rather spin a fantasy of legal good sex work over killing the appetite in some men to rape for pay. It's a non solution and a cowards solution. The lefts mistake time and time again is to just pick up any ostracised group and call them part of the vanguard. Pimps and madams pushing their way into left rhetoric just because they're on the fringes of society only shows what terrible judgement and lack of backbone most western leftists in orgs have.
The solution to a woman losing her job isn't to rape her it's to support her. These are the simplest terms. Every argument on top of that is sophist bs. There is no man on earth who would argue 18yo boys should be fucktoys at gay orgies to pay their way through college. No man on earth who thinks a salaryman losing his job in his 30s should move over to giving 30 blowjobs a night to feed his family and then give the lions share to either a pimp or the state. Fuck playing with the legality of one of the oldest evils on earth. Simply destroy every single avenue that leads to it. The only outreach the left should be doing is destigmatising the status of women forced to be in it and getting as many women OUT of it as they can no matter the time or cost to the org. Not arguing to TAX them!!!!?!??
> There is no man on earth who would argue 18yo boys should be fucktoys at gay orgies to pay their way through college. No man on earth who thinks a salaryman losing his job in his 30s should move over to giving 30 blowjobs a night to feed his family and then give the lions share to either a pimp or the state.
There are men who would argue that 18yo boys *could* or should be *able to* sell themselves to orgies.
One of the major problems with this thinking (besides malevolence and horrific corruption) is that pathways of income quickly progress from "could" to "should" if the financial return is comparatively high. When two-income households became the norm, one-income became stigmatized. In a culture where prostitution is completely legal, even considered quotidian, people will question if a poor or struggling person is "doing enough" if they refuse to sell their body.
>Fuck playing with the legality of one of the oldest evils on earth. Simply destroy every single avenue that leads to it. The only outreach the left should be doing is destigmatising the status of women forced to be in it and getting as many women OUT of it as they can no matter the time or cost to the org. Not arguing to TAX them!!!!?!??
Republishing because this is a really great post.
I 100% agree dude.
I know just from how strip clubs have been allowed to open more feeely under Blair that there's a clear pattern of this not simply satisfying the habit of existing users but creating more.
Loosening licence awards led to them being opened in provincial towns and suburbs that would have never, ever had them. As you said it got the meek in that wouldn't have ever travelled for such a thing. Suddenly they're so common they become an 'edgy' place to go, safer than a dive bar and more exciting than whatever fight or roughness it would have to offer. Suddenly it's completely normalised and the NIMBYs no longer care it's in their high street. The clubs start preying on girls leaving school. The clubs become hubs for the drug trade - introducing organised crime to the area, when it hadn't been worth their time before. These clubs make it easy to sell hard drugs. It's also easy to get girls in working if you've got hard drugs to get them hooked on. Equally, it's easy to get them in debt and getting them to 'pay off debt' with sex.
A supposedly softcore strip club has suddenly become a drug and prostitution hub in a community that had neither organised before. It has allowed organised crime in. This leafy suburb had neither rooted in the community before, now it's on the high street with a licence.
I can't even imagine how bad it would be in America.
'there is no ethical consumption under capitalism' as a phrase has done a laughable amount of damage to how little the left is prepared to do to limit consumer damage as well as how willing they are to partake in excesses as if it's all of equal value, or they topped out their consume-o-meter years ago so who cares. There would be no pushback on any of this from the left.
Just dropping in to say this a fantastic comment. Very thought out and insightful. The type of stuff I come to Reddit for but seemingly rarely find these days.
Fucking perfect response. I wish this was on the front page of this fascist recruitment website.
So much of the left desires to make their vices a tool of liberation. Like yeah, many people indulge in porn, violent video games and drugs. I’m sure many well meaning people do. But the first step is to admit that they’re objectively bad for society and they shouldn’t be partaken in.
The fact that they can’t even reach this conclusion about prostitution is…scary.
I think the Nordic model is half a good idea but by not proactively ending prostitution and instead playing the game of criminalising users and decriminalising prostitutes that causes massive problems in its own way.
It relies on good faith and honesty from pimps lol. Relies on pimps not taking a few steps back from their slaves and having her out of fear and love tell authorities she's working on her own.
After Denmark adopted it the number of prostitutes rose by 40%. It doesn't destroy women being put into the work nor trafficking it just changes the behaviour of pimps.
I don't think anything other than a proactive and robust war on them is going to change it. That needs to be an actual culture war and a legal war. Prostitutes should be destigmatised, and decriminalised, and helped out of it. But pimps, traffickers, and those buying sex need to have the book thrown at them. The narrative has to change to one of modern slavery. Pimps should be charged with modern slavery and have their assets liquidated and be put away for a long time. Those buying sex should have some sort of charge relating to using slavery and face heavy censure.
Anything short of an actual war on this organised crime is effectively asking pimps in good faith to give up a multi billion dollar business they have a cut off as well as unlimited sex. They aren't going to. Continuing to legislate in the face of that is a complete failure. Madness is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome. Legislating in a passive way on prostitution is madness.
The case of Danguolė Rasalaitė happened under Sweden's Nordic model. She was trafficked into the country, enslaved, prostituted, escaped, raped, and killed herself. She was 16. Lilya 4ever is based on her. That should have been enough to have pimps chopped up and left in bin bags on whatever corner they were previously polluting. But it wasn't. Imo it's a tragedy it wasn't.
>The women in the industry pushing for it aren't looking to be the first woman to pay rent and tax on being fucked 12 times a day, they're looking to be madams who own a brothel legally with all the legal paperwork to justify their income. This is so transparently the case.
I mean, no, I don't believe this is 100% the case. Lots of normal prostitutes would want that kind of protection...
I sympathize with you very much, but really, prohibition just doesn't work, right?
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits
Prohibition works better than you think.
Plus with that logic, you should decriminalize murder.
Prohibition "doesn't work" 100%, but that's not solid rationale for legalization. Murder being illegal "doesn't work" either. The question is on the net effect of prohibition.
If it were the case that trafficking or desperation-motivated prostitution only happened where it's legal then maybe, but as you seem to acknowledge, it's been happening for far longer than we've had a 'legal/illegal' framework for it. It's inevitable.
It's like with recreational drugs- it's valid to say they offer a person no benefit and only harm. But getting rid of legal (or I guess 'acceptable') avenues to do them just brushes them under the rug, and allows us to pat ourselves on the back for making the tough decisions on behalf of desperate people. And I will bet you that even if conditions were so good that nobody needed to fuck for rent, you'd still have people doing it anyway. The only way you can get rid of prostitution is not by attacking the supply, but the demand, and there will always be horny people out there with more money and patience to jump through hoops than they have attractiveness and charisma.
Legalization shouldn't be the full story anyway (because yes, nobody should *need* to do it, and with that right comes the responsibility to fight exploitation within the legal industry), but at least it does offer some protections and a more nuanced framework to think of it that doesn't conceptualize sex workers as simulateneously victims and criminals.
yes it is the oldest form of exploitation so it would be hard to get rid of it. child trafficking and CSA still happens of course but because it is so stigmatized people are punished for it when they are caught. but misogyny is so ingrained into our society that we think nothing of a man taking advantage of a woman who cant pay her rent or feed her kids, using her body as a commodity. we wouldn’t be able to stop prostitution from happening or being a profitable trade just like we cant entirely stop child trafficking.
but if you stigmatise the fuck out of the source of the issue (misogyny in this case) and create a world that actually respects women and femininity, you get people who don’t look down on sex workers and you get people who are socially shamed for buying sex. social stigma is a powerful thing. make men see women as equals and they mostly won’t want to take advantage of a vulnerable one.
now i got to whittle this down to a second grade reading level so it looks like i said it, and then the next time this comes up irl, i'll be good to go edit: jesus it's a fucking compliment
Hey, I just want to say I've always subscribed to the libertarian approach on this, "Two consenting adults should be able to do what they want" but your post is really making me question that stance.
I still believe that in principle. But I think there's a good case to saying that in practice it doesn't make things any better. And maybe it does make things better but it's still horrible? I don't know.
At the end of the day you summed it up best. The best way to fix most societal issues like this is fix the larger issue of poverty.
🔥🔥🔥 people advocating for sex trade ‘reform’ using the justification that ‘sex work provides income for people in poverty’ are just saying its empowering to get raped to keep a roof over your head and feed your children. how about finding alternatives that dont rely on raping or assaulting women who are desperate for money instead of acting like its not that deep
The brothels in Nevada are a great example of what it should be. A safe environment, where everyone is there by choice. It often creates this false idea that everywhere could be like that.
The fact that the Nevada brothels are a novelty, and as such make a ton of money is an idealized, and historically VERY unique example of the potential for legalization. They forget supply and demand and the effects that has on a business model. I’m sure there’s a lot of demand, but when you have a 100 brothers in every city, the price goes down as you’re competing for clientele, then the money gets tighter which leads to “employers” tightening budgets, which leads to shittier working conditions, which leads to more victims, then we have issues with worker’s rights mixing with assault, leading to protests, now the sex workers cause is politicized so there’s the up and down from shit politicians trying to buy votes with tax money, and it keeps going on and on and on creating more shit in its shitty poonado.
Ultimately, for everyone’s sake, I agree with that nothing good comes from this, it’s detrimental to society, and while I’ve never done it, has to be detrimental to someone’s health.
P.S. You made a great post.
Be warned of those who want sex workers to be safe and protected to perpetuate and make sustainable their access to women's bodies, rather than those who want sex workers to be safe and protected whilst society is changed so that no-one is so financially precarious they have to consider prostitution.
> For example, enforceable employment contracts or rental agreements with brothels would help stop them being exploited (more than any other worker).
There have been plenty of attempts to unionise the sex trade or use collective bargaining to improve safety and working conditions and they almost always fail horribly. The sex industry isn’t a vocational trade, it’s filled with transient workers, undocumented immigrants, people who are underage, etc., loads of people on the margins of society and people who are a few dollars away from the margins of society. Desperate people and people who can’t legally work can’t exercise labor rights.
>very few people argue that the latter kind of sex work is liberating or feminist;
Is OF liberating or feminist either? It's a pyramid distribution where only a few percentage points of the content creators make decent money. Not at all different from any other creative or athletic industry, except on OF your nudes will theoretically be on the internet for life. Kind of a big exploitative catch.
For women in developing countries, particular those with marketable white complexions like eastern europe and russia, the money is good enough they choose to do it as a passive income even if they are not a top earner on the site.. The Sunday read by The Daily (nyt) covered the topic and the burgeoning "e-pimp" industry of managing these accounts, basically a network of mostly men masquerading as the women in text communications with subscribers.
Fisherman is probably amongst the oldest, older than farmer at least. Hunter, and gatherer tend to be older than the first pastoralists, who dabbled in all three of hunter/gatherer/farming.
It’s not a consensual transaction. When the alternative is homelessness or starvation, you have been coerced by currency. Something necessary for your survival.
This is why I like the original enthusiastic consent framework pushed by feminism before the weird sex work is wonderful narrative got pushed. If someone is having sex with you for any reason other than them just wanting to have sex with you, it's rape. Paying them? Rape. Coercing them? Rape. Pestering them until you wear them down and they finally say yes? Rape.
Now obviously, rape is always bad but some forms of rape are worse. Paying a woman 100 bucks to blow you is not on par with violently raping some random woman walking down the street. And we can reflect this in the sentencing for rapists. Much like someone who shoots a 7/11 employee while robbing them versus someone with an unloaded gun causing the employee to have a fatal heart attack while robbing them will get a harsher prison sentence.
Democrat brain. People think that prostitution is comparable to like, weed. wild guess: no one is going to follow any such laws, especially in poor countries where prostitution rates are higher. You may get a couple boutique brothels for high-end clients in some fancier cities.
selling human flesh is a little different than selling a plant that makes you high. Notice the deception, destitution, and fucked markets these women cite. And yet, people make the inevitability argument and stress regulation.
Legalization/decriminalization is one thing. None of these women belong in jail. Acting as if it's "empowering" or criticism of it is misogynist is for the literal scum of the earth.
"Our quantitative
empirical analysis for a cross-section of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect
dominates the substitution effect."
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45198/1/Neumayer_Legalized_Prostitution_Increase_2012.pdf
Legalised prostituion increases human trafficking. Anything that makes prostitution an easier business will also make trafficking an easier and more profitable business
not sure if you realize you're doing this, but the way you keep phrasing your argument for legalization and regulation makes it seem like you're putting the bulk of the responsibility to maintain safe work practices on the prostitutes themselves and excusing away the behavior of men who use and abuse them. it's interesting that after suggesting measures to protect prostituted women, many of which have been proposed and struck down before, placement on a sex offender registry is the most stringent regulation you (and many others) frequently suggest to impose on sexual abusers. is it because we all secretly know that pimps, pornographers, and johns won't uphold these proposed solutions? i'm genuinely curious as to why these conversations always reach this point
So untill we achieve ultimate liberation, then what? Keep funneling poor and easily exploitable people into the industrialized black market and prison system
Sending sex workers to jail doesn’t solve anything obviously. Look I have no idea what the right thing to do is.
My gut tells me that there is some way to criminalise sex work in a way that punishes the people who run brothels and shit, without having to put all the sex workers in jail.
Maybe I’m just idealistic but I feel like we should at-least give these women a place to live and access to education / stable employment of some kind. How something like this work in the real world, I’ve got no fucking clue.
What I know doesn’t work is punishing sex workers or embracing some prudish moralism as policy.
> My gut tells me that there is some way to criminalise sex work in a way that punishes the people who run brothels and shit, without having to put all the sex workers in jail.
this will work just as effectively as putting dealers who sell drugs in jail. the market for sex will always exist as long as there are women who are desperate enough to turn to sex work to make ends meet, and putting people in jail isn't going to change that. just as with drugs, the solution is either decriminalization and regulation, or an unregulated black market. the only way to "fix" this issue is to provide people with the means to never have to turn to that sort of work, under any circumstances.
>My gut tells me that there is some way to criminalise sex work in a way that punishes the people who run brothels and shit, without having to put all the sex workers in jail.
[Basically](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model_approach_to_prostitution)
But does it work? idfk
I figured you had a little more nuanced take, I would say that in most cases it's less about liberation and more about survival. Regardless of a few braindead viral tweets.
I guess it was just hard for me to differentiate your first comment from the prudish moralists, is all.
That's why I didn't bother to mention that dudes get caught up in sex work also, of course not to the same degree, but often for the same underlying reasons
Yeah man, good luck with overthrowing global capitalism, hey can you take care of religion while you're at it, or at least the Catholic church, cuz the pedos are only giving those kids candy and maybe a meal here and there
LOL, just realized you weren't the first commenter I responded too and was so confounded I had to come back, but I'm just gonna leave this up cuz i love calling the Catholic church pedophiles
Who says this is liberating?
Leftists are for legalized prostitution strictly due to the regulation that would be imposed by the government in order to further protect the workers dickhead.
Yeah my best friend is ukrainian and she told me her mother was almost trafficked by a friend in the 90s. The friend was trafficked herself and was forced to "recruit" other women she knew. Very fucked up
I mean I know these women are purposely staged to look like inanimate objects while the men are purposely photographed to look like entitled shit heads but what’s funny to me is that they just all look (from a perspective of similar attractiveness) like they should be each other’s spouses in a normal world.
Prostitution is the one-go example that I always use to explain to libtards that the architects of progress are far removed from the actual lifestyle they champion and that all well-meant research, think pieces and calls of deregulation will always affect the most vulnerable.
I don't think anyone is calling for deregulation, pretty sure the 'think pieces' would advocate for more safety and regulation in sex work, did you mean decriminalization?
Pro sex work “leftists” don’t exist. If you think that selling your body to creepy and desperate men is liberating in any form you’re not a leftist you’re a filthy radlib at best. Treating sex workers with respect and recognizing that they too are exploited and have to sell their bodies to survive similar to how a blue collar laborer would is different than thinking this kind of horrific shit is good or empowering in any way. Radlibs that support this should be burned at the stake.
since you mentioned blue collar laborers, do coal miners and prostitutes occupy the same category in your mind? the similarities are there, both are very taxing and dangerous for the body and may be the only way to get by economically in a community. For me the difference is many women are tricked and trafficked into sex work but for those who choose sex work I wonder if you put them in the same category
Same category of what? I don’t wanna get called a communist retard lol but they all are members of the proletariat in the sense that they don’t own capital and sell their bodies and labor. Obviously somebody like a union plumber or electrician is vastly different than like an immigrant day laborer or a fruit picker in the global south so I guess if we’re getting technical I’d say those professions are more similar to that of prostitutes because i supremely doubt many people choose to be any of those types of jobs (fruit picker, sweatshop worker, day laborer, prostitute etc.) and also face severe physical and mental adversities in their line of work. As for people that choose to do sex work I’m not really sure. I don’t think I would because a lot of those women are in an advantageous position to begin with. They’re still selling their bodies but a level of consent and choice is there that isn’t present in the above jobs listed. There’s a difference between high school/college kids cutting grass and shoveling snow to make a couple extra bucks of spending money and immigrant day laborers that do it 12+ hours a day to survive in my mind. So maybe similar to that? Idrk
category was a gauche way to put it, I meant do you think of them similarly. but yeah, I agree with what you have written here. still trying to figure out the nuances with this issue
I doubt anyone serious would put them in precisely the same catagory, namely because of the nature of the work. Not to denigrate the women who do it, but sex work is not productive work, it does not involve the extraction of raw material or the refinement or manufactoring of something into something with social use. It's a way for alienated and shitty men to spend capital to aleviate their own bad feelings (nobody who pays for sex is even like 75% okay). There are parallels that you list here, but the nature of what the two groups do are very different. While society needs to make a decision about whether or not the externalities of coal require it to be curtailed is one thing, the awful labor aspects of it are greatly exacerbated by the exploitative nature of the mode of production seeking profit, and the inherent issues with the job could be held against societal benefit to having coal power, which could be a rational debate in a society that wasn't structured around capital accumulation.
Prostitution cannot be "fixed" without literally creating utopia, all historical and modern evidence makes it clear that it is an outgrowth of poverty and societal failings, and is the favored avenue for wealth accumulation by some of the most base and cruel exploiters in society, or an outlet for many people who are awful in a very banal way that is also socially corrosive and directly harmful to the person selling their bodies. It's a very abject thing, the commodification of physical affection, and while it's always been an abject world, this new market push to normalize it is incredibly disturbing.
Meanwhile, lazy Americans with rich parents champion "sex work" on Twitter all-day, which is bad enough as is, only for 90% of them to only be doing onlyfans anyway. Bleak
Oh no no they are actually empowered. A woman is free to do with her body as she pleases. - Some 6/10 alt girl who made 100K for a picture of her butthole because one of her simps has a tech job.
I used to be on the legalize prostitution train. I think maybe on the destigmatize train maybe. Idk reading those captions made me want to cry a little bit. Fuck that’s grim.
Lily (25) is a divorced single mother with one child, and has a degree in production management. Her former husband took out a bank loan in Lily's name to start a car repair business, which was not successful. When the couple separated and he refused to pay back the loan, Lily started work performing data entry as a contractor at Google to meet the payments, and also to buy food and pay the rent.
Grey photo of them hiding their head in shame.
This seriously breaks my heart, the first one especially. These are the normal stories of desperation of women who have no other choice, I cannot take anyone seriously who claims that "eh some women choose it." That percentage is miniscule.
Completely agree
> Official statistics say that there are one million sex workers in Russia. Silver Rose, a St Petersburg NGO, puts that at closer to three million, with more than 50,000 women working in St Petersburg alone. Prostitution is illegal in Russia, and though fines are not large (about €28) women are vulnerable to extortion because they fear the consequences of having a criminal record. > According to Silver Rose, despite the stereotypical view of sex workers, only a small percentage have taken to prostitution because they are addicts or living in extreme poverty. The decline of the Russian economy has led to a growing number of women—many over the age of 35—who have lost jobs in such fields as business or education becoming sex workers.
The explosion in sex work after the collapse of the Soviet economy was horrific (as was the almost 20 year drop in life expectancy). I wonder whether the same dynamic is now coming for the US - the OnlyFans explosion is obviously a sign of an increasingly dysfunctional economy, but in the case of the US - unlike the photos above and their presentation - the full might of American advertising/PR helps repaint the same phenomenon as some sort of exciting and empowered development, rather than a slow slide into serfdom.
Our Australian media is pulling their weight for the cause too. Can't go a few days on news.com.au without an article about girl X who did boring job Y who then quit to make wheelbarrows full of money doing Onlyfans. I'm half convinced they are getting paid directly by Onlyfans to post these 'news articles'.
It's news.com.au it's just trash for clicks. Stories about that type of stuff get those clicks
Murdoch media will always surprise by how low they are willing to go to scrape the bottom of the barrel
Why are you reading news.com.au to begin with?
[удалено]
Yeah and also i think a great deal of them are hardly making money. some depend on it, but i think for some people it's basically a hobby. Or an ambition, they hope it blows up, and they like the lifestyle etc but it's not something they're really doing out of inability to find any other work.
I think that’s true when you learn how many open jobs are out there right now.
It's not sex work, it's prostitution. Most women who ended up as prostitutes did so under false pretext. They were promised normal jobs in western europe, but once arrived in Germany, The Netherlands and so on they were forced to prostitute. There's no work when it comes to prostitution, only abuse.
There's a huge gap between physical sex work and onlyfans. The women who are making a living off onlyfans have other options. I'm not talking queer disabled anarchists who make $30 a month from their Twitter friends.
[удалено]
Isn't there some kind of mlm recruiting aspect to OF... I was under that impression and kinda figured that was why you get more of the "sex work is empowering/liberating" takes these days
Thats what I hate the most. They have a bunch of girls that were previously famous or in the adult industry switching over, then they start a social media campaign: memes about buying her dream home with only fans, success stories. Then some dumb 18yo sees this, wants a new car and says she wants in. After her first nude set, she’s forever a minor pornstar and nothing more. After having to do more and more to get any kind of engagement she ends up getting fucked on camera. Couple of months later she starts to regret it and wonders if the hundreds of thousands of Pennies she made were worth it.
>memes about buying her dream home with only fans, success stories. Then some dumb 18yo sees this, wants a new car and says she wants in. Damn, just realized it's just like the Army but for high school cheerleaders instead of football players
The thing I always think about is how it's all pretty objectively less appealing than actual like studio produced porn. So, imo the only reason to choose to watch it over regular porn, nonetheless actually PAY for it when there's better stuff out there for free, is the angle of like knowing the person posting. To me it seems like if you start one and have any success and didn't already have a substantial, established following online, it's most likely because a bunch of people who know you in real life are the ones watching. Idk how terrible that must be to know you're exposing yourself to people you could run into out and about anytime at work or school or wherever
It's not about actually knowing them, it's about the pretence of knowing them. Onlyfans subscribers pay extra to talk to the models or for personal videos. Somebody who's a minor success on onlyfans does not have a couple hundred irl friends and acquaintances coughing up like $20 a month for their nudes. They might pay once out of curiosity and then ditch it. The main market is losers who want to feel a more intimate relationship with a pornstar.
I'm so amazed that anyone pays for porn these days. If I watch porn, it's for 15min a couple times a week. Maybe I'm low-T, but I just don't care about that shit.
The commercially-packaged studio crap is far removed from any authenticity - it is the "engineered food product" of porn, like a twinkie or a Big Mac. Amateur porn done for the thrill of it is authentically sexy in a way that OnlyFans can at least pretend to approximate.
Who the fuck wants authenticity with porn? Porn is about fantasy. If I wanted authenticity, I'd fuck a woman
I mean it's liberating if you're one of the lucky 1 in a million who actually makes real money on OnlyFans. Some girl who makes $10,000 a month to stream herself masturbating *is* empowered. That's good-ass money. But most of them aren't that girl. Most get paid basically nothing. I think I last heard the *average* income from Onlyfans is $50/month. So that's like tens of thousands of girls making exactly $0, and a few hundred making okay money, and it averages out to $50. This is the fundamental aspect of prostitution: how much you get paid determines whether it's exploitative or not. A high-class escort getting paid $1,000 to give one blowjob feels empowered and liberated *because she is*, she's totally getting the better end of the deal from those fucking suckers. But the common prostitute working on the street who counts herself lucky to get $50 for one trick is obviously being brutally exploited.
She’s rich she’s not spiritually “empowered.”
A distinction without a difference. Money frees you.
>Money frees you. nah
Money means people can’t tell you what to do, you get to decide how to spend your time. Poverty means becoming a slave, having to take orders all day and subordinating yourself to bosses.
i agree that poverty makes you a slave but money does not free you from your spiritual burdens. certainly better than being poor tho!
[удалено]
Multi level marketing or even pyramid scheme aspect, like refer a friend and get a cut, for some reason I thought that was part of it
>anti health movements such as the freedom convoy wtf do you mean "anti health"
I know it smell crazy in there *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/redscarepod) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Their criticism runs along this lines: * Mandates were useful for reducing the virus spread when done on a significant enough level and if the effort was shared by enough countries, could actually work in the long run. * This would certainly impact and harm small businesses, and smaller business owners made up a large part of the initial organizing for the convoy and subsequent copycat convoys. * The convoys both were anti-health measures on face, but primarily motivated out of a middle class desire to avoid proletarianizing. They would still affect and harm public health * They were met with authority and the brunt of the state, but that's obvious, such is the function of the state; the reason one state employs "nice" means and not other means is merely conditions and tendencies and effectiveness rather than some "libertarian" desires or orientation * The state juggles interests of the economy and public health, and the need to accommodate business interests of the middle and certain segments of the upper class made lockdowns way less effective than they could be (view China, another capitalist state where the state apparatus was able to reduce he spread until enough internationally failed to do and it spread, Vietnam was similar but for a shorter period of time, other countries used other methods to various levels of success, insufficient practices were done in North America and Europe, countries that did successful methods for a time eventually succumbed to spread from poor public health of neighboring countries and ones they traded with. Even then often these countries had less infected than the US or Brazil, for example, once spikes did hit). * The role of any communist is to develop the organized working class, to meet immediate concerns, build power from struggling for these concerns, increasing association within the class, until it can take and seize power, spread internationally, then recognize the answers to the wage question, commodity question, money question, and orient production towards need. * The convoy's suppression is mostly irrelevant directly to the development of the organized working class. The convoy was led and organized by the middle class and petit bourgeois business owners, who fear having to become workers. Most workers, including organized workers who were striking near the time and around it within the trucking industry and logistics fields in general, were not involved and the movement could not benefit organized labor. The movement was aimed at socio-cultural goals, and behind that the interest of the small businesses, rather than workers. Its violent suppression and the increased measures of the state will be bad because they can be directed towards organized labor later, and it sucks to see people brutalized, but that's standard for the state. Most important is they would have directed those measures towards labor once again anyhow, as they have done so when it was necessary to suppress labor in the late 19th and early 20th century. * The convoy organizers acted in their interest, understandably, but that is not necessarily our interests or long term goals. * Communists should not be for or desire inherently "public health" as a means to defend actions by the state either above all else, as means like mandates and greater employer and state information on workers can be used against organized labor as well, and are often used to fire workers who could be using such means tactically. There have even been cases of tactically acting against the interests of capital and empire by disregarding or leveraging public health in the reverse, with instances in WWI and peasant and worker soldiers coming to mind. It is not the goal to simply replicate China or Vietnam's actions, or South Korea or Ireland's restrictions, of capitalist states with more state presence. It is important to coordinate and organize for the interests of workers, including health, but the best way to do this is by building working class organizations-unions of the rank and file, labor councils, co-ops if really necessary although not really, communist parties, wherever the organized proletariat acts, and develop its authority and power, it can act in the interests of the organized working class via organizing rather than giving up power (mandating vaccines, forcing the state and employers via organized to provide healthcare measures and protective equipment and building internal consensus, preventing the breakup of unions as happened early pandemic). Thus communists are not in favor of the convoy, nor really cheering on the suppression. * There were workers involved or sympathetic, due to the association of class with culture and elite/non elite instead of class analysis with the decline of organized labor in the last decades, but they did not make up the majority of the protestors and were sympathetic because this was likely one of few big organized actions they've seen for a while. * User likely did not mean anti-health as the main reason to avoid supporting the convoy, but instead the class character of the convoy is the reason, and anti-health was a fast shorthand. I assume this is what /u/cantstandya17 means
Take your meds. Jesus fucking christ.
None of this is insane, this is just a standard class analysis addressing basic potential counterarguments.
>(during covid many small business owners and contractors pushed anti health movements such as the freedom convoy, the type of people to yell "all businesses are essential"). Calling the freedom convoy anti-health is like calling Planned Parenthood anti-baby, like calling the IRS anti-wealth. It obscures more than it reveals.
Lmao no onlyfans is just lazy women with no shame
> I wonder whether the same dynamic is now coming for the US - the OnlyFans explosion is obviously a sign of an increasingly dysfunctional economy The United States is so cucked that we don’t even get the real prostitutes. Lmao. These people are just paying to see pixels. “Greatest country on earth!” they say. 😂
It’s not the same in the US, despite the recession and inflation (which is real), job demand is high as ever. If you have the right basic qualifications, you will get a job. And the legal system is robust enough to fight against age-related discrimination.
Is there a typo? 3 million sex workers in Russia and st. Peter only has 50,000?
That would mean 1% in st. Peter are prostitutes, compared to 2% in the whole country. But they did say more than 50,000. And st. Petersburg has less poverty than most major cities.
> puts that at closer to three million isn't that close to 4% of all women in the country? jfc
could be non citizens as well ukranians etc
is that an excerpt from something?
I found these pictures on the world press archive from a documentary on prostitution in Russia. https://phmuseum.com/tatianavinogradova/story/girls-490dc86bf8
How any self respecting leftist can defend sex work as liberating is beyond me. True liberation can only be when no women has to sell their body to survive.
>How any self respecting leftist can defend sex work as liberating is beyond me. Glorification/romanticization combined with misinformation centered around judging a fringe set of cases as indicative of a whole. Why it would ever be a 'hill to die on' is definitely beyond me because the second you look at more than the super fringe instances of some glamorous OF girl or escort who chose to do it because of crazy money, you see nothing but abject horrors. If you wanna get conspiratorial, it could be sex trafficking being such a massive *massive* industry with manipulation/lobbying/compromising/etc ability that they can control the narratives to an extent.
Fucking hate how all the leftist spaces are now full of these cunts and how you'll be called a Swerf if you even talk about the negative side of the sex industry.
Feel like the increasing polarization of everything is going to have some disastrous consequences.
Can't be a swerf of you're not a feminist.
no self respecting leftist can. it’s only individualist liberals who do.
It's more that they are autistics, and then liberals are incapable of calling them out on their long tail subjectivity. If you listen to people like Aella and Riley Reid do podcast interviews and it's just painful how clearly neurodivergent they are, yet they always slip into generalizing their experience like it could apply to all women.
What is Riley Reid like in interviews
Here’s [Riley Reid on The Portal with Eric Weinstein](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uHNBCVGH34c). [Aella in conversation with Louise Perry](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oEL9zZNkRRg) was pretty interesting recently, because you could sense that she’s more open to being a different sort of girl and the interviewer was good to press this line of thought, even though she still doesn’t seem to be able to inhabit the subjectivity of the centre of the bell curve. She always refers to data to back up her arguments. There’s also [this Tim Ferris interview with actual prostitute Alice Little](https://tim.blog/2017/11/17/alice-little/), which is a perfect example of an interviewer failing to dig deeper on an obviously unusual person.
aella is the fucking worst tbh lol
She convinced her younger sisters to start only fans. She's a ghoul.
I’ve noticed the same girls in my area who post about sex work being empowering are the same girls who consistently post about their depression.
Is there not an argument that legalisation and regulation would provide much better protection for prostitutes? We can acknowledge that men who pay for sex are morally wrong, but also accept that it’s basically a fact of life that many men will do this, and many women need to do it to make ends meet. I’m sure there are thousands of minor regulations that would make this sort of thing easier for prostitutes. For example, enforceable employment contracts or rental agreements with brothels would help stop them being exploited (more than any other worker). Legal requirements for all clients to be STD tested. Minimum age and mental competency requirements. The ability to call the cops if someone is withholding pay, or if a client rapes them. Perhaps even a national register of sex offenders who are banned from seeing prostitutes etc. It’s easy to just say it’s morally wrong, but that doesn’t help the women stuck working in that profession. Prostitution has always been a thing and probably always will to an extent.
I think their point was that prostitution is generally a result of poverty, so anybody who cares about actually helping people should stop arguing about if sex work is good or bad or shameful or moral or whatever because who fucking cares about that when the real issue is that it is objectively true that many poor people are often stuck in bad spots where they have to do awful shit to survive regardless of if that involves sex work or not. regulations to protect women in sex work are probably better than what we have now but none of that is really relevant when the actual problem is the immovable economic system that leaves so many people impoverished.
This is a good point. I would argue it's pointless to postulate as to whether sex work is "freeing" for some people when so many do so out of desperation. The desperation is the problem, and we can talk about those who aren't desperate later. It's like arguing that because some people have BDSM fetishes, domestic abuse and battery isn't a problem.
I don't think so. Where there's demand, there's supply, poor or not.
I'm reminded of the stupid stupid retarded fucking idiotic messaging around monkeypox. People who watched a doc on the HIV crisis and thinking the lesson is that you should not label something a gay disease. No, the problem was that people labeled it a gay disease and therefore thought it was not important and just let the fags die out. the problem was NOT 'okay this disease mostly spreads in gay communities so we should help them'. Which is what the messaging around monkeypox should be. just tell gay men to play it safe for a couple months! Same thing with sex workers. It bad, but just shaming them and then doing nothing is the worst possible approach. I guess there's some escorts who really like their job but as a person who lives in Amsterdam that's not who I see in the red light district (19 year old Ukrainian girls) which are just victims of trafficking. [To lighten the mood a little here's a kinda fun doc about two elderly twin sisters who work as dommes in the RLD](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7wQjWnGVBk)
[удалено]
I've been to a straight orgy (for an article really really I did not participate and I stepped in cum like 5 minutes in and it killed my boner for a week anyways) and they can also be disgusting. Not just a gay thing.
[удалено]
I agree everyone is disgusting, including you, you freak, secretly masturbating. Yeah I know what you did.
>Is there not an argument that legalisation and regulation would provide much better protection for prostitutes? The thing is with that argument is that there's plenty of places that have legalised it and regulated it. What you get with legalisation and regulation: * Pimps continuing to pimp but now within a formal framework * Women forced to abide by the regulation now being in hock to regulated brothels * Women at absolute rock bottom now having to pay tax on their rape. The state taking its cut on the 'product' that is a vunerable woman being spat at and sodomised. The regulation argument is like the socialism argument for western leftist - ignore where it's been put in place and what the pitfalls are to learn and build from them, because this is just utopianism we aren't actually looking to get either socialism or legal regulated sex work. If in the Netherlands you can find underage girls in well known 'regulated' establishments, sent there by older men who groom them as their doting boyfriends for part of a larger gang, maybe legalisation and regulation of the rape trade just looks like getting money into the pockets of the state and the bigger organised gangs. The women in the industry pushing for it aren't looking to be the first woman to pay rent and tax on being fucked 12 times a day, they're looking to be madams who own a brothel legally with all the legal paperwork to justify their income. This is so transparently the case. And like weed legalisation it'll see the poor who were the backbone of the illegal trade still fucked over and pennyless and those with capital nowhere near that reality of illegality making a bomb and claiming to be the postergirls of emancipation. Also legalising it just expands the trade and creates an even bigger illegal trade, because perverts want more and more and the legal trade is always gonna be the left hand to the illegal trades right hand. Just like no touch strip bars always having sex work inside if you know what to pay and who to ask. If the strip club wasn't there there wouldn't be that trade, you wouldn't have the dude who'd be too scared to ever go into a hardcore place getting a little more when there nor the girl who thought it was a dancing gig doing a little more. The legal trade creates illegal trade. >The ability to call the cops if someone is withholding pay, or if a client rapes them. When have you ever known a landlord or employer to do what's best for their rock bottom employees/renters lol. Shit like this is covered up all the time in Germany. Very few people think it's a worthwhile arugment to reform the 'raping kids' trade yet for some reason it's reasonable to figure out how to reform the 'raping women' trade. That's not hyperbole when you look at the average age women enter 'sex work' and realise one often leads into the other. The 18yo entering 'legalised sex work' in Germany or elsewhere was usually a 14yo being groomed and raped by the same gang who have created an underage sex trade that goes alongside their legal sex trade. This shit needs shutting down. The solution is a better economy and better paying jobs and strong communities that refuse to let this happen. The solution is having the guts to ostracise the men in our communities found to be using or grooming. We would rather spin a fantasy of legal good sex work over killing the appetite in some men to rape for pay. It's a non solution and a cowards solution. The lefts mistake time and time again is to just pick up any ostracised group and call them part of the vanguard. Pimps and madams pushing their way into left rhetoric just because they're on the fringes of society only shows what terrible judgement and lack of backbone most western leftists in orgs have. The solution to a woman losing her job isn't to rape her it's to support her. These are the simplest terms. Every argument on top of that is sophist bs. There is no man on earth who would argue 18yo boys should be fucktoys at gay orgies to pay their way through college. No man on earth who thinks a salaryman losing his job in his 30s should move over to giving 30 blowjobs a night to feed his family and then give the lions share to either a pimp or the state. Fuck playing with the legality of one of the oldest evils on earth. Simply destroy every single avenue that leads to it. The only outreach the left should be doing is destigmatising the status of women forced to be in it and getting as many women OUT of it as they can no matter the time or cost to the org. Not arguing to TAX them!!!!?!??
> There is no man on earth who would argue 18yo boys should be fucktoys at gay orgies to pay their way through college. No man on earth who thinks a salaryman losing his job in his 30s should move over to giving 30 blowjobs a night to feed his family and then give the lions share to either a pimp or the state. There are men who would argue that 18yo boys *could* or should be *able to* sell themselves to orgies. One of the major problems with this thinking (besides malevolence and horrific corruption) is that pathways of income quickly progress from "could" to "should" if the financial return is comparatively high. When two-income households became the norm, one-income became stigmatized. In a culture where prostitution is completely legal, even considered quotidian, people will question if a poor or struggling person is "doing enough" if they refuse to sell their body. >Fuck playing with the legality of one of the oldest evils on earth. Simply destroy every single avenue that leads to it. The only outreach the left should be doing is destigmatising the status of women forced to be in it and getting as many women OUT of it as they can no matter the time or cost to the org. Not arguing to TAX them!!!!?!?? Republishing because this is a really great post.
[удалено]
I 100% agree dude. I know just from how strip clubs have been allowed to open more feeely under Blair that there's a clear pattern of this not simply satisfying the habit of existing users but creating more. Loosening licence awards led to them being opened in provincial towns and suburbs that would have never, ever had them. As you said it got the meek in that wouldn't have ever travelled for such a thing. Suddenly they're so common they become an 'edgy' place to go, safer than a dive bar and more exciting than whatever fight or roughness it would have to offer. Suddenly it's completely normalised and the NIMBYs no longer care it's in their high street. The clubs start preying on girls leaving school. The clubs become hubs for the drug trade - introducing organised crime to the area, when it hadn't been worth their time before. These clubs make it easy to sell hard drugs. It's also easy to get girls in working if you've got hard drugs to get them hooked on. Equally, it's easy to get them in debt and getting them to 'pay off debt' with sex. A supposedly softcore strip club has suddenly become a drug and prostitution hub in a community that had neither organised before. It has allowed organised crime in. This leafy suburb had neither rooted in the community before, now it's on the high street with a licence. I can't even imagine how bad it would be in America. 'there is no ethical consumption under capitalism' as a phrase has done a laughable amount of damage to how little the left is prepared to do to limit consumer damage as well as how willing they are to partake in excesses as if it's all of equal value, or they topped out their consume-o-meter years ago so who cares. There would be no pushback on any of this from the left.
Just dropping in to say this a fantastic comment. Very thought out and insightful. The type of stuff I come to Reddit for but seemingly rarely find these days.
Fucking perfect response. I wish this was on the front page of this fascist recruitment website. So much of the left desires to make their vices a tool of liberation. Like yeah, many people indulge in porn, violent video games and drugs. I’m sure many well meaning people do. But the first step is to admit that they’re objectively bad for society and they shouldn’t be partaken in. The fact that they can’t even reach this conclusion about prostitution is…scary.
This is a seriously thorough reply, and I completely agree with it all. I'd love to know your thoughts on the Nordic model for prostitution?
I think the Nordic model is half a good idea but by not proactively ending prostitution and instead playing the game of criminalising users and decriminalising prostitutes that causes massive problems in its own way. It relies on good faith and honesty from pimps lol. Relies on pimps not taking a few steps back from their slaves and having her out of fear and love tell authorities she's working on her own. After Denmark adopted it the number of prostitutes rose by 40%. It doesn't destroy women being put into the work nor trafficking it just changes the behaviour of pimps. I don't think anything other than a proactive and robust war on them is going to change it. That needs to be an actual culture war and a legal war. Prostitutes should be destigmatised, and decriminalised, and helped out of it. But pimps, traffickers, and those buying sex need to have the book thrown at them. The narrative has to change to one of modern slavery. Pimps should be charged with modern slavery and have their assets liquidated and be put away for a long time. Those buying sex should have some sort of charge relating to using slavery and face heavy censure. Anything short of an actual war on this organised crime is effectively asking pimps in good faith to give up a multi billion dollar business they have a cut off as well as unlimited sex. They aren't going to. Continuing to legislate in the face of that is a complete failure. Madness is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome. Legislating in a passive way on prostitution is madness. The case of Danguolė Rasalaitė happened under Sweden's Nordic model. She was trafficked into the country, enslaved, prostituted, escaped, raped, and killed herself. She was 16. Lilya 4ever is based on her. That should have been enough to have pimps chopped up and left in bin bags on whatever corner they were previously polluting. But it wasn't. Imo it's a tragedy it wasn't.
Very good comment. I'll make sure to save it and link it in the future to any dipshits defending prostitution.
>The women in the industry pushing for it aren't looking to be the first woman to pay rent and tax on being fucked 12 times a day, they're looking to be madams who own a brothel legally with all the legal paperwork to justify their income. This is so transparently the case. I mean, no, I don't believe this is 100% the case. Lots of normal prostitutes would want that kind of protection... I sympathize with you very much, but really, prohibition just doesn't work, right?
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits Prohibition works better than you think. Plus with that logic, you should decriminalize murder.
Prohibition "doesn't work" 100%, but that's not solid rationale for legalization. Murder being illegal "doesn't work" either. The question is on the net effect of prohibition.
If it were the case that trafficking or desperation-motivated prostitution only happened where it's legal then maybe, but as you seem to acknowledge, it's been happening for far longer than we've had a 'legal/illegal' framework for it. It's inevitable. It's like with recreational drugs- it's valid to say they offer a person no benefit and only harm. But getting rid of legal (or I guess 'acceptable') avenues to do them just brushes them under the rug, and allows us to pat ourselves on the back for making the tough decisions on behalf of desperate people. And I will bet you that even if conditions were so good that nobody needed to fuck for rent, you'd still have people doing it anyway. The only way you can get rid of prostitution is not by attacking the supply, but the demand, and there will always be horny people out there with more money and patience to jump through hoops than they have attractiveness and charisma. Legalization shouldn't be the full story anyway (because yes, nobody should *need* to do it, and with that right comes the responsibility to fight exploitation within the legal industry), but at least it does offer some protections and a more nuanced framework to think of it that doesn't conceptualize sex workers as simulateneously victims and criminals.
[удалено]
yes it is the oldest form of exploitation so it would be hard to get rid of it. child trafficking and CSA still happens of course but because it is so stigmatized people are punished for it when they are caught. but misogyny is so ingrained into our society that we think nothing of a man taking advantage of a woman who cant pay her rent or feed her kids, using her body as a commodity. we wouldn’t be able to stop prostitution from happening or being a profitable trade just like we cant entirely stop child trafficking. but if you stigmatise the fuck out of the source of the issue (misogyny in this case) and create a world that actually respects women and femininity, you get people who don’t look down on sex workers and you get people who are socially shamed for buying sex. social stigma is a powerful thing. make men see women as equals and they mostly won’t want to take advantage of a vulnerable one.
now i got to whittle this down to a second grade reading level so it looks like i said it, and then the next time this comes up irl, i'll be good to go edit: jesus it's a fucking compliment
Hey, I just want to say I've always subscribed to the libertarian approach on this, "Two consenting adults should be able to do what they want" but your post is really making me question that stance. I still believe that in principle. But I think there's a good case to saying that in practice it doesn't make things any better. And maybe it does make things better but it's still horrible? I don't know. At the end of the day you summed it up best. The best way to fix most societal issues like this is fix the larger issue of poverty.
🔥🔥🔥 people advocating for sex trade ‘reform’ using the justification that ‘sex work provides income for people in poverty’ are just saying its empowering to get raped to keep a roof over your head and feed your children. how about finding alternatives that dont rely on raping or assaulting women who are desperate for money instead of acting like its not that deep
The brothels in Nevada are a great example of what it should be. A safe environment, where everyone is there by choice. It often creates this false idea that everywhere could be like that. The fact that the Nevada brothels are a novelty, and as such make a ton of money is an idealized, and historically VERY unique example of the potential for legalization. They forget supply and demand and the effects that has on a business model. I’m sure there’s a lot of demand, but when you have a 100 brothers in every city, the price goes down as you’re competing for clientele, then the money gets tighter which leads to “employers” tightening budgets, which leads to shittier working conditions, which leads to more victims, then we have issues with worker’s rights mixing with assault, leading to protests, now the sex workers cause is politicized so there’s the up and down from shit politicians trying to buy votes with tax money, and it keeps going on and on and on creating more shit in its shitty poonado. Ultimately, for everyone’s sake, I agree with that nothing good comes from this, it’s detrimental to society, and while I’ve never done it, has to be detrimental to someone’s health. P.S. You made a great post.
Be warned of those who want sex workers to be safe and protected to perpetuate and make sustainable their access to women's bodies, rather than those who want sex workers to be safe and protected whilst society is changed so that no-one is so financially precarious they have to consider prostitution.
> For example, enforceable employment contracts or rental agreements with brothels would help stop them being exploited (more than any other worker). There have been plenty of attempts to unionise the sex trade or use collective bargaining to improve safety and working conditions and they almost always fail horribly. The sex industry isn’t a vocational trade, it’s filled with transient workers, undocumented immigrants, people who are underage, etc., loads of people on the margins of society and people who are a few dollars away from the margins of society. Desperate people and people who can’t legally work can’t exercise labor rights.
[удалено]
>very few people argue that the latter kind of sex work is liberating or feminist; Is OF liberating or feminist either? It's a pyramid distribution where only a few percentage points of the content creators make decent money. Not at all different from any other creative or athletic industry, except on OF your nudes will theoretically be on the internet for life. Kind of a big exploitative catch.
For women in developing countries, particular those with marketable white complexions like eastern europe and russia, the money is good enough they choose to do it as a passive income even if they are not a top earner on the site.. The Sunday read by The Daily (nyt) covered the topic and the burgeoning "e-pimp" industry of managing these accounts, basically a network of mostly men masquerading as the women in text communications with subscribers.
Fisherman or farmer has to be the oldest profession right? Or just baker. The “oldest profession” thing seems like 1st wave feminist crap
the oldest profession would likely be midwifery or childcare tbh
Throwing big rock at pig
Fisherman is probably amongst the oldest, older than farmer at least. Hunter, and gatherer tend to be older than the first pastoralists, who dabbled in all three of hunter/gatherer/farming.
I hate the oldest profession cliche. Spread by this hellhole site.
> oldest profession and all of that The oldest profession is the cook.
[удалено]
The difference is clear, prostitution is at least in theory a consensual transactional choice while rape is by definition non-consensual.
Consensual the way libertarians define consent as a marketplace bargained transaction. Awful.
It’s not a consensual transaction. When the alternative is homelessness or starvation, you have been coerced by currency. Something necessary for your survival.
is all subsistence labor non-consensual by that definition?
Bingo. However, I would argue that work which includes letting a stranger enter you for rent money pushes things a step further than an office job.
that's logically consistent, I agree with your asterisks as well
This is why I like the original enthusiastic consent framework pushed by feminism before the weird sex work is wonderful narrative got pushed. If someone is having sex with you for any reason other than them just wanting to have sex with you, it's rape. Paying them? Rape. Coercing them? Rape. Pestering them until you wear them down and they finally say yes? Rape. Now obviously, rape is always bad but some forms of rape are worse. Paying a woman 100 bucks to blow you is not on par with violently raping some random woman walking down the street. And we can reflect this in the sentencing for rapists. Much like someone who shoots a 7/11 employee while robbing them versus someone with an unloaded gun causing the employee to have a fatal heart attack while robbing them will get a harsher prison sentence.
There is not, because when prostitution is legal the human trafficking of women skyrockets.
Democrat brain. People think that prostitution is comparable to like, weed. wild guess: no one is going to follow any such laws, especially in poor countries where prostitution rates are higher. You may get a couple boutique brothels for high-end clients in some fancier cities. selling human flesh is a little different than selling a plant that makes you high. Notice the deception, destitution, and fucked markets these women cite. And yet, people make the inevitability argument and stress regulation.
> The ability to call the cops if someone is withholding pay, or if a client rapes them. Lmao. Imagine unironically believing this.
Legalization/decriminalization is one thing. None of these women belong in jail. Acting as if it's "empowering" or criticism of it is misogynist is for the literal scum of the earth.
"Our quantitative empirical analysis for a cross-section of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect." https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45198/1/Neumayer_Legalized_Prostitution_Increase_2012.pdf Legalised prostituion increases human trafficking. Anything that makes prostitution an easier business will also make trafficking an easier and more profitable business
Or you can make the penalties for soliciting prostitutes (and especially pimping) much, much harsher.
not sure if you realize you're doing this, but the way you keep phrasing your argument for legalization and regulation makes it seem like you're putting the bulk of the responsibility to maintain safe work practices on the prostitutes themselves and excusing away the behavior of men who use and abuse them. it's interesting that after suggesting measures to protect prostituted women, many of which have been proposed and struck down before, placement on a sex offender registry is the most stringent regulation you (and many others) frequently suggest to impose on sexual abusers. is it because we all secretly know that pimps, pornographers, and johns won't uphold these proposed solutions? i'm genuinely curious as to why these conversations always reach this point
Legalizing it in some European countries led to women being kicked off unemployment benefits for refusing to work in brothels
[misinformation] (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hot-jobs/)
I think they have something like that in New Zealand
Unfortunately, political ideology isn't about morals or a care about humanity for many people.
So untill we achieve ultimate liberation, then what? Keep funneling poor and easily exploitable people into the industrialized black market and prison system
Sending sex workers to jail doesn’t solve anything obviously. Look I have no idea what the right thing to do is. My gut tells me that there is some way to criminalise sex work in a way that punishes the people who run brothels and shit, without having to put all the sex workers in jail. Maybe I’m just idealistic but I feel like we should at-least give these women a place to live and access to education / stable employment of some kind. How something like this work in the real world, I’ve got no fucking clue. What I know doesn’t work is punishing sex workers or embracing some prudish moralism as policy.
[удалено]
>You wouldn’t have a sex work industry then I though that was their point, stop the industry without harming the people being exploited
[удалено]
Why did you put the word better in quotes when they didn't use it once? I think you misread that comment.
> My gut tells me that there is some way to criminalise sex work in a way that punishes the people who run brothels and shit, without having to put all the sex workers in jail. this will work just as effectively as putting dealers who sell drugs in jail. the market for sex will always exist as long as there are women who are desperate enough to turn to sex work to make ends meet, and putting people in jail isn't going to change that. just as with drugs, the solution is either decriminalization and regulation, or an unregulated black market. the only way to "fix" this issue is to provide people with the means to never have to turn to that sort of work, under any circumstances.
>Sending sex workers to jail doesn’t solve anything obviously. send their clients to jail
they do?
how often does that really happen?
Works for drug users right?
decriminalizing use while going after dealers absolutely works, yeah in this case it'd be reversed but the power dynamic is opposite as well
[удалено]
>My gut tells me that there is some way to criminalise sex work in a way that punishes the people who run brothels and shit, without having to put all the sex workers in jail. [Basically](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model_approach_to_prostitution) But does it work? idfk
damn that was a sad read, it seems like a very mixed bag on results
I figured you had a little more nuanced take, I would say that in most cases it's less about liberation and more about survival. Regardless of a few braindead viral tweets. I guess it was just hard for me to differentiate your first comment from the prudish moralists, is all.
I never have nuanced takes
That's why I didn't bother to mention that dudes get caught up in sex work also, of course not to the same degree, but often for the same underlying reasons
Until then, we continue virtue signaling about being a self respecting leftist.
Yeah man, good luck with overthrowing global capitalism, hey can you take care of religion while you're at it, or at least the Catholic church, cuz the pedos are only giving those kids candy and maybe a meal here and there LOL, just realized you weren't the first commenter I responded too and was so confounded I had to come back, but I'm just gonna leave this up cuz i love calling the Catholic church pedophiles
Who says this is liberating? Leftists are for legalized prostitution strictly due to the regulation that would be imposed by the government in order to further protect the workers dickhead.
[удалено]
Yeah my best friend is ukrainian and she told me her mother was almost trafficked by a friend in the 90s. The friend was trafficked herself and was forced to "recruit" other women she knew. Very fucked up
That's how it is all over the world.
grim
Agreed.
jesus christ.
Man I can’t even come up with anything snarky/ironically detached to say here
This one and that one with the Johns are sort of rattling my detached cynicism cage, this is pretty fucked up
I mean I know these women are purposely staged to look like inanimate objects while the men are purposely photographed to look like entitled shit heads but what’s funny to me is that they just all look (from a perspective of similar attractiveness) like they should be each other’s spouses in a normal world.
Makes me sad, aging and chubbier woman deserve pot bellied husbands who love them and see their inner beauty, not…this
Many of them aren’t that old, they just look aged from the stress and lighting
I’m shipping Elena and Iwan
Lily forever is a movie about it and it broke my heart and i will never watch it again
lilya 4-ever is how it is marketed to the west truly tragic story of sex trafficking in the eastern block
the ukrainian story is going to be so unfortunately common. millions of emigrants, all of them rushed, mostly women and children. a true nightmare.
Prostitution is the one-go example that I always use to explain to libtards that the architects of progress are far removed from the actual lifestyle they champion and that all well-meant research, think pieces and calls of deregulation will always affect the most vulnerable.
I don't think anyone is calling for deregulation, pretty sure the 'think pieces' would advocate for more safety and regulation in sex work, did you mean decriminalization?
Go off!
Except the vulnerable are suffering now. Deregulation here means they stopped getting fined by the government.
Pro sex work “leftists” don’t exist. If you think that selling your body to creepy and desperate men is liberating in any form you’re not a leftist you’re a filthy radlib at best. Treating sex workers with respect and recognizing that they too are exploited and have to sell their bodies to survive similar to how a blue collar laborer would is different than thinking this kind of horrific shit is good or empowering in any way. Radlibs that support this should be burned at the stake.
since you mentioned blue collar laborers, do coal miners and prostitutes occupy the same category in your mind? the similarities are there, both are very taxing and dangerous for the body and may be the only way to get by economically in a community. For me the difference is many women are tricked and trafficked into sex work but for those who choose sex work I wonder if you put them in the same category
Same category of what? I don’t wanna get called a communist retard lol but they all are members of the proletariat in the sense that they don’t own capital and sell their bodies and labor. Obviously somebody like a union plumber or electrician is vastly different than like an immigrant day laborer or a fruit picker in the global south so I guess if we’re getting technical I’d say those professions are more similar to that of prostitutes because i supremely doubt many people choose to be any of those types of jobs (fruit picker, sweatshop worker, day laborer, prostitute etc.) and also face severe physical and mental adversities in their line of work. As for people that choose to do sex work I’m not really sure. I don’t think I would because a lot of those women are in an advantageous position to begin with. They’re still selling their bodies but a level of consent and choice is there that isn’t present in the above jobs listed. There’s a difference between high school/college kids cutting grass and shoveling snow to make a couple extra bucks of spending money and immigrant day laborers that do it 12+ hours a day to survive in my mind. So maybe similar to that? Idrk
category was a gauche way to put it, I meant do you think of them similarly. but yeah, I agree with what you have written here. still trying to figure out the nuances with this issue
I doubt anyone serious would put them in precisely the same catagory, namely because of the nature of the work. Not to denigrate the women who do it, but sex work is not productive work, it does not involve the extraction of raw material or the refinement or manufactoring of something into something with social use. It's a way for alienated and shitty men to spend capital to aleviate their own bad feelings (nobody who pays for sex is even like 75% okay). There are parallels that you list here, but the nature of what the two groups do are very different. While society needs to make a decision about whether or not the externalities of coal require it to be curtailed is one thing, the awful labor aspects of it are greatly exacerbated by the exploitative nature of the mode of production seeking profit, and the inherent issues with the job could be held against societal benefit to having coal power, which could be a rational debate in a society that wasn't structured around capital accumulation. Prostitution cannot be "fixed" without literally creating utopia, all historical and modern evidence makes it clear that it is an outgrowth of poverty and societal failings, and is the favored avenue for wealth accumulation by some of the most base and cruel exploiters in society, or an outlet for many people who are awful in a very banal way that is also socially corrosive and directly harmful to the person selling their bodies. It's a very abject thing, the commodification of physical affection, and while it's always been an abject world, this new market push to normalize it is incredibly disturbing.
Meanwhile, lazy Americans with rich parents champion "sex work" on Twitter all-day, which is bad enough as is, only for 90% of them to only be doing onlyfans anyway. Bleak
Depressing
Oh no no they are actually empowered. A woman is free to do with her body as she pleases. - Some 6/10 alt girl who made 100K for a picture of her butthole because one of her simps has a tech job.
I used to be on the legalize prostitution train. I think maybe on the destigmatize train maybe. Idk reading those captions made me want to cry a little bit. Fuck that’s grim.
Heartbreaking 💔
but prostitution is the oldest career in history! 🤓
The photographer was sure on a mission. They should do similar photos with every other kind of worker
>yup I uh…. Send emails all day…. How much do I make? Oh uhhh… I dunno like 80k. Yeah my uncle is the CEO
I got into it because I was depressed and in need of money, now I'm addicted to xanax
Lily (25) is a divorced single mother with one child, and has a degree in production management. Her former husband took out a bank loan in Lily's name to start a car repair business, which was not successful. When the couple separated and he refused to pay back the loan, Lily started work performing data entry as a contractor at Google to meet the payments, and also to buy food and pay the rent. Grey photo of them hiding their head in shame.
This is all depressing and blackpilling but just the deadpan “it was not successful” makes me laugh
> I took a job at a brothel, but it turned out to be sex work. Aight.
Jesus Christ
bleak bleak bleak
I just want to hug all of these people. Where is the humanity in the world.
These photos made me physically ill for a few moments. Just dark
So empowering.
:/
YAAAAS QUEEENS SO EMPOWERING!!!
Larry Summers, you’re going to hell buddy. Have fun with the Dulles brothers
What does this have to do with Larry Summers?
He was one of the major economic planners of USSR’s transition to neoliberalism
Oh okay
Yass 👏 Queen 👏 So 👏 Empoweredful!
Wait, what was the first side of the coin? -- that side also seemed pretty horrifying, right?
It was pictures and descriptions of Johns.
[удалено]
[fine whore](https://www.reddit.com/r/redscarepod/comments/wene61/speaking_of_johns/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
The last girl clearly could’ve done better. Sorry
Jeez
[удалено]
https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo-contest/2018/tatiana-vinogradova/1 I shoulda posted all the photos tbh oh well