Should paying for sex be a crime?

I'd say no. It's wage labour as any other. As long as we're going to be under capitalism, people should have all the means to legally sell their labour in order to subsist. Illegalize it and it won't just magically go away.

Well i assumed that was true but i didn't care enough to check it compared to the greater crime

Gee missy, you sure showed me.

Yes, prostitution is one of the most heinous forms of capitalist exploitation that exists. I don't want to go harshly over prostitutes because so many are forced into the position they are in. The only way to stop it is to brutally punish Johns.

Legalize it 2bh.

Or end capitalism, but I'm sure that your psychofeminist solution is the best way to increase the prison population while leaving capitalism intact.

We'll no fucking shit that ending capitalism would be the ideal way to defeat prostitution, but that isn't that the OP was suggesting.

Go to /r9k/ if you're this mad about women not wanting to fuck you outside of a financial transaction.

Lol, I'm sure a fine will be enough to deter Johns from buying sex. Said fine money can then be used to help people get out of prostitution.

Nothing wrong with sex, nothing prostitution. If it were legalized it could then be strictly regulated to prevent violence and STI transfers. Keeping it illegal is no different than the war on drugs, it's the forbiddeness that gives it a stigma and makes it harmful.

But ideally prostitution wouldn't exist not because of some stupid moral outrage against it, but because it would be an outdated form of "work"; in a communist society there would be no need to sell sex, as one would have their needs met.

Are prostitutes proles or no?

Why should prostitution, granted that it is a form of exploitation, be abolished before other forms of exploitation? What makes it so uniquely exploitative?

Is it because it involves naughty bits?

Technically yes

Are their bodies means of production?

Where are the links, OP?

Bitches aint shit, y'na mean?

no because sumptuary laws are moral laws enforced for the sake of the State and the Owner classes. Men should not be punished for seeking sexual arrangements with women that involve direct, agreed upon compensation

It is legal for a swedish model to by de facto whore herself to a sugar daddy in all but writing. She will give him different sexual favors for different levels of gifts, she dresses skimpy IF he buys her a whole new lingerie wardrobe.

Prostitutuon should be looked down upon and framed as pathetic for both parties. This is obviously just incel shaming from beta feminist women who are upset about men not having to submit to the dominatrix/sissyfying/cuckholding sex olympics that are being materialized by hook-up culture and tindr

Dang, most people on here really live in some fantasy world when it comes to knowledge about how prostitution works in countries that have legalized and regulated it.

In Germany, the majority of all prostitutes in have their profession recognized, pay taxes and are covered by healthcare, they even receive free check-ups.

Most prostitutes work on their own and rent rooms in big brothels payed from their earnings that are more like hotels with security guards in the lobby and stuff like this.

This is completely fucking nonsense. Most prostituted women in Germany are poor women from immigrant women, of which up to 90% were trafficked/forced into prostitution.

*immigrant backgrounds

If you use an anfem flag on this board your posts will automatically be regarded as shitposts, regardless of content, just fyi

Genuinely fascinating how this board turns full liberal 'just legalize and regulate it :D' when talking about prostitution. If exploitation can be abolished then it should be, no matter its nature.

No, it won't abolish capitalism, but it will limit suffering in the world, which is what leftism should be about in the end.

stirner posters and people countersignalling against moral fags are the one's who support prostitution along with porn ardently and won't back down from that support. you're not going to easily convert them when all your arguments are based in morality

Lumpen and unproductive labourers (parasites)

We have this thread every week and these recurring threads generally tend to decay with time.

Do you care to back up these numbers?

What do you mean by bringing up trafficking and them being immigrants? Sure,a lot are immigrants and trafficking happens in the minority of cases but they are immigrants from European member states which means that they are taking advantage of the 4 Freedoms of the EU which regular working conditions, there are not illegal immigrants and there is no fucking passport to take away.

It's a simple truth that you are making way more money from being a prostitute in Germany than in a regular profession at home.

You know who the biggest trafficking buster is in Germany? It's the fucking German finance ministry because they are ruthless when it comes to tax evasion and illegal prostitution is a huge loss to the German state.

stirnerfags aren't even leftists, they shouldn't be on this board. Start /ego/ or something.

My arguments are about as based on morality as a standard leftist argument against capitalism, namely that it is exploitative and instable. Prostitution is a particularly exploitative form of capitalism.

You mean what they already do? Did you not know that they already do that?

Why? Why is it more exploitative than say factory work? Factory work has (in the West mostly had) slave labour, human trafficking, child labour, people being kept at the factory overnight, wages being stolen, etc. etc.

What is so particularly heinous about prostitution that regulation couldn't mend, as it has for factory work?

Why? Because it involves sex? What makes it different from picking strawberries?

The coked out whores

Still silence.

Do you guys even read anything sex workers' unions say and advocate for?

Because it usually involves direct coercion by pimps, because you cannot leave and choose to do another job (I'm aware that choice is limited in capitalism, but it is nowhere near the level of prostitution) and yes, it is different because it involves sex (again, I'm not defending capitalist wage labor), sex as a coerced prostitute is by definition rape and it has horrifying effects, as evidenced by the extremely high rates of PTSD and drug addiction.

I live in oh so liberal holland, where prostitution is 'legal and regulated'™ and abuse and human trafficking are still rife here. It's great how a supposed leftist devolves into a liberal when somebosy threatens to take away his cummies.

picking strawberries = selling the labor your body produces
taking dick = selling your body

Prostutution occured much earlier than capitalism. But yeah, it is a consequence of private property and traditional family. Prostitutes aren't exploited like another proles are. It is kinda slavery because of criminal nature of prostitution nowadays. And only if they "work" under souteneurs. Prostitute without a souteneur is just a kind of private entrepreneur

You mean when sexists like you try to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

No. Feudalism and so on are all primitive capitalism

every woman is free to do with their body what they want and can go fuck who they want, the economic aspect is the problem

The sources are literally in the images you mongoloid

The vast majority of prostitutes work under pimps

It's good to see more Dutchbros here who understand what the problem is.

Lolwut? Slavery and feudalism differ from capitalism and capitalist workers are a bit freer than peasants under feodalism and much freer then slaves.

The number this poster used doesn't even match the post in the OP. lmao

They differ from capitalism because they are primitive modes of capitalist production and not fully refined yet. Slave societies and feudalism both introduce private property, monetary exchange and so on

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history

Coercion, abuse and trafficking is already illegal. To point out that it still occurs only tells you the limits of criminalization.

OP' info graph is a re-post.
Here is a re-post of a reply from last time:
>What turbo retard is responsible for the country "info graph"? The number of dead people is not set in relation to the population size. Take a guess how many people live in Sweden and Germany. One number is about what happened in five years and another about three decades. Here is how normal crime statistics are presented: number of annual cases among, say, 100 000 people (it doesn't matter what specific number you use here, what matters is that it is the same number for the regions you compare). But thanks for telling me where Spain is…

You guys realize that using fudged statistics and uninformed, even outrageaous claims are hurting your cause even with people that would otherwise symphasize with you, right?

Bullshit. You still have your body after you have sex.

do you feel shame when you're acting intentionally retarded or is that a feeling you're too numb to experience by now

Goddamnit, that is not what the article you linked to says. Where did you get that absurd concept of historical materialism?

How do I have sex under socialism if I can only fuck whores for money and normal girls don't want to have sex with me?

you don't

Go gay or start lifting and stop being a faggot.

Sex bureaucrats.

Are you really so stupid that you cannot understand the distinction between selling something and using it? A prostitute does not sell her body, because she never loses it. She sells her labor and her time, which is exactly what every other prole does.

Why do even the supposedly biggest socialist resort to porky rhetoric when it comes to this issue?

Why do you think that you would not be able to exercise, eat well, or practice proper hygeine?

Should I become anticommunist then lol?

People can't cange their genders, can they? Btw what if i'm too ugly and autistic to have sex with a normal girl?

Do you mean that state will provide me free pussies? Thats cool

mental dysfunction and dysgenic neurology aren't curable user

Then you either suck at reading or the article is incomplete. I'm not sure, I haven't read the Wikipedia article, I have read Marx. Slave society, feudalism and capitalism share the existence of private property, monetary exchange, markets and so on. What they do differ in is how the classes relate to each other, the degree to which the law of value operates and capital is refined as well as how far along primitive accumulation of capital has proceeded.

considering most commies on this board regularly shame men like you and seem to be hostile towards your grievances with society i would suggest you take a very measured approach towards commies

...

let me double down for maximum spergtists like you:

The prostitute in the act of prostitution temporarily gives up her right to self-determination and control over her body, thereby renting out parts of her body, mainly those necessary or useful to sexual function, to the consumer. In this relation she provides a service where she both not only is the laborer, but also the tool, intensifying the alienation that the laborer feels under the capitalist system even further in that they not only need to relinquish control over their labor, but now also over their body which serves as the temporary means of production. This can be understood as an unusually severe exploitation as it penetrates the autonomy of the subject even more than usual, where a laborer usually would only have to sell their labor and the means of production are provided for him by the capitalist.

You are a retard that puts sex on a pedestal. Factory workers don't just sell their labour, they have their every move regulated while they work. They can't shit when they want, can't eat or drink, can't sit down, are tied to their post and not allowed to walk freely, etc. A workers, if he wants to keep his job, has no more bodily autonomy than a prostitute during work hours.

They don't have things put in them though - though we do start seeing workers getting microchips implanted.

Then don't cite it.

Yes, capital exists in pre-capitalist societies. Feudalism and slave societies are not primative modes of capitalist production any more than capitalism is a primative form of socialist production. You are falling into that same trap that ancaps always fall into when they claim that capitalism has been around for thousands of years.

Just like every other prole.

Holla Forums is evidence of the veracity of this statement.

MOM'S GONNA FREAK

How are you not getting this? Let's take a construction worker as the example, he strains his body while working and so on but the tools he uses are not actually his bodily functions, they are hammers and nails, while the prostitute uses their body as the tool. You're in denial if you can't accept this difference.

He is not using his arms and legs as a tool when he is carrying things around? Are you trolling?

Just like every other prole.

No you

Stfu swedish proddie. Either it's legal or illegal for both.

...

Stellar argument, comrade.

Surely every action we take in our lives requires the usage of our bodies, and so does every work we do as well. The common prole does not literally sell their body however, what the construction worker is employed to to do is to perform their labor in the form of construction work whereas the prostitute is payed in that she opposed to this does in fact sell her body, the act of selling her labor penetrates her very being. This is not a situation of "one is exploited and the other is not", it is one where one laborer (the prostitute) is exploited even more than the usual laborer.

Holla Forums is just a byproduct of capitalism. There will be less of such guys under socialism because children will be educated in in the canons of collectivism but I think there will be some amount of autistic guys. How socialism going to deal with it? inb4: gulag them all

Spooky shit, mate.

What's spooky about it? Please explain.

You just keep repeating the same pap without ever explaining why it is worse. Is it the penetration? Is that what's getting you so worked up? The boy part going in the girl part?

Come out and say it, you think sex is special in a way that nothing else is.

But you don't, because you know it makes you sound like a child. So you obscure it by blurting out platitudes like "her very being".

What the fuck does that even mean? What is a 'very being' bwahaha.

I have explained the difference multiple times now, you're simply refusing to understand the argument and retort with "it's the same". Can you actually refer to the argument for once in which I lay out why the degree to which the worker is exploited differs instead of resorting to fantasies about why I hold whatever position you ascribe to me?

How is going to a public gym and eating better under socialism the same as telling someone to shit out capital in capitalism. Yes it's hard work but it's something you're going to have to do yourself because nowhere can daddy give you a small loan of 20 pounds of muscle or commisar neet to redistribute chad's biceps.

They already do.

Then don't go for a normal girl, get some weeb bitch or something.

It's called English

No, she doesn't. She sells her labor and her labor time, but the fact that she does not need a wrench or a computer to do her job does not mean that she is selling any more than any other prole does. The construction worker's body is no more his own during work hours than is that of the prostitute.

It's not spooky, but it is fallacious.

I don't know man. Believing that performing sex for money that is damaging to some essence or 'very being' sounds very close to spiritual concepts of female purity and shit like this.

The construction worker retains bodily autonomy in that if the capitalist were to walk up and stick his finger up the laborers pooper that certainly wouldn't fly. He can't get physical with the prole and so on, while with the prostitute she relinquishes the control over her body for whatever sexual acts are being performed. She is selling more. It is more extreme, more intimate, more alienating. I wonder why all of you seem to want to deny this state of things.

No you.

I was describing in abstract terms how it does not just penetrate her body but also her psyche. It was a play on words

under capitalism, they should be well regulated and probably have high taxes and price controls.

wouldn't exist or would be marginal under socialism

Sex is not a right, if you want sex you ought to make yourself more attraxtive to others or lower your standards.

Many prostitutes have rules, like no kissing and no anal.

Okay?

What she is saying is that, since we are our bodies the direct use of our bodies represents a higher degree of exploitation. What she fails to recognize is that it does not matter whether the worker's hand is holding a hammer or a dick. It is still performing an activity that benefits someone else in exchange for a wage. It is exactly like saying that a vocalist is more exploited than a guitarist, because the vocalist is utilizing his own body while the guitarist has an instrument to play.

And the prostitute is not expected to install plumbing. They clearly have different jobs. That does not in itself make the prostitute's job more exploitative.

You haven't, you just blurt out "no tools" and "her very being". Here's a fucking tool a prostitute could use. Now explain how using your hand to jerk someone off differs from using your hand to lay a brick.

Depends on what you use for measurement. It is more extreme in that it is more sexual, but not so in that it takes less physical exertion. Also takes a lot less time. 8h of hauling shit is more extreme than 20 minutes of fucking.
Granted, that's the only thing it is more of. That and sexual.
Only if you value intimacy and sex over and above all other things. That's what you don't seem to get. Intimacy or sex is not some kind of superior thing that should deserve special protection while other things should not. If you think it does, you have to develop arguments as to why, not just your own subjective valuation.

Sex is a basic need like food and drink

It is not, you can live to old age without ever having had sex, unlike food or water.

Perhaps, but not having sex has the effect of turning a person into a pathetic failure of a human being.

See: Holla Forums

But you'll be stuck on a first level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Maslow is a meme, but that doesn't change that you can't forced people to like you. If you want a satisfying social life then you have to put in work.

You have to be a fag to pay for sex in the first place, but no anal? Fuck that shit.

It should be obvious by now that when talking about the extremities of prostitution I am referring to exploitative sexual acts, such as penetration and so on. I see no difference between a woman who exclusively makes use of say whips as a domina and a prole of any other profession, as the domina would not be (I hate to use this word but it applies here) literally selling her body in that case.

Extreme in the sense that it asks more of the prole than usual.

It is more alienating due to the aforementioned extreme circumstances, as all labor as described by Marx is alienating under the capitalist mode of production and we can see even greater alienation here in that the laborer is further removed by relinquishing control over their labor and over their own body in the most literal sense. Please stop trying to assume I have some kind of sexual hangups by the way, I hate to do this because it is not proper argumentation, but since you insist: I'm sexually very open and experienced, I have no hangups when it comes to sex work and this argument is nothing personal for me, on the contrary it appears to me as there seems to be personal motivation to deny the special circumstances of the prostitute on the other side of the argument.

I'm male.

I'd rather have polyps then mass sexual exploitation. What's the alternative? A state bureau for mandated gfs for the prevention of school shootings?

If Holla Forums had their way any guy above 5/10 would be shot for being a chad and all women would be forced to fuck greasy "white" slobs.

...

I don't care about your sex life. Explain why it is more alienating, why penetration is special. You keep asserting this out of hand over and over and over again.

Why is having a dick in you so horribly, inherently alienating in a way that other things are not? Is it the very fact of having something in you, is that it?

But i'm kinda working for for people's sake on a factory or something so why couldn't state provide me some free pussy?

I keep asserting it because I assume you have read Marx. Alienation is understood to be the process of estranging yourself from your humanity, which can be found in capitalist mode of production due to the labor and market conditions present. Prostitution goes beyond the normal "amount" of alienation in that the laborer is further removed from their humanity by giving up even more control (the control over their own body).

Let's move away from prostitution for a second here, since you still seem to insist it is about sexuality for me. If we were to assume that we would live in a society in which humans could offer themselves up to be used for medical experiments, whereby you relinquish bodily autonomy, such as doctors operating on you, poking needles into your body, experimenting on your anal & oral cavity and all other sorts of entrances then this too would be a comparable situation where the laborer would be exploited to a higher degree than usual. It is not due to the fact of having something in you per se, but rather because you need to relinquish direct control over your body, which you usually retain while performing usual labor, such as the already mentioned example of construction work.

Ah, so your argument is basically "Good Ol Christian Morals"… That or you have no idea what's a really shit job

What makes them exploitative in a way that swinging a hammer is not?

Again with this nonsense. She never at any point in her work loses her body.

Ah, Young Marx stuff, huh? There is a reason that he renounced the concept of alienation later.

Every prole does that.

An ally, huh?

Because you are working in the factory for your own sake. Actually benefitting from your own labor is the point of socialism.

We do. That is actually a thing. They advertise for it on busses.

Plenty of people myself included have had lots of sex and are failures

I've worked pretty shit jobs in my life, not once did I have to give up control over my own body.

Not who you're responding to and I'm fine with legalization but to play devil's advocate:

Sex is psychologically more traumatic because we've simply evolved to find it so. Sex is (naturally) inherent to reproduction and its within an organisms best reproductive interest to only breed with those it wants to, to ensure the best survival of its offspring and not for immediate material needs like money, food, etc. If you are reduced to having sex for basic survival then you aren't in a position to be going through pregnancy + raising a child.

In what sense? Obviously you could not have done whatever you wanted with your body. In fact, you were always expected to utilize your body to perform certain tasks, weren't you?

A human nature argument? Come on. Sex is not inherently traumatic.

I'm working for people and people work for me. Nobody is exploiting nobody, everyone is just working for the common goal.It is a division of labour. So why couldn't state create some instance by hiring prostitutes and give lone guys tickets for free pussy?

I never claimed it was. The topic is about prostitution and I was replying to someone who was arguing about sex as a survival necessity vs other forms of labor.

Ah yes, I forgot that humans were born out of nothing and our minds are tabula rasa and 4 billion years of evolution has instilled no instincts or common psychology within a species whatsoever.

Fucking monkey have been observed for trading favors, resources and food for sex.

Shit argument.

maybe for you, but I believe many job can be as bad for various reasons (health&hazard risk, physically tiring, harsh environment, constant moral harassment…). Killing and butchering cows in industrial settings for example, both tiring, dangerous, disgusting, and harsh on the psyche.

no, it is. you're naive and a romanticist. sex isn't just an secondaru biological function that can be hijacked for pleasure, its not just bonding between two people, its not just a status ritual. the reductionist hedonistic a-moral view of sex is as psychotic as the utilitarian, solemn view of sex that christfags have. sex is dangerous, deconstructive, ever so slightly deranged and ultimately traumatic and unnerving. In any species but homo sapiens its usually extremely sudden, traumatic, often involuntary and usually painful

Prostitution is not exclusive in that, many jobs ask more than usual.

So, in summary of this thread, the only thing the anti-prostitution side has going for them are gravely misleading statistics, some spooky concepts about the sanctity of sex and (even wrong) naturallastic appeals? Do I read that right?

Because providing luxuries is not what the state (what state?) is for.

Oh, it's genetic, is it? Then show me which genes make prostitution a traumatic experience.

Wow. Good thing you don't get any then, huh?

Can you recommend any literature on the topic of sex being inherently traumatic and us humans having constructed plenty of delusions and coping mechanisms to deny this? I'm genuinely interested.

No, you're not. In fact I have to doubt you're even capable of reading if you came to that conclusion.

Why is double spacing poster so horrible.

They also have the concept of alienation that Marx abandoned.

Marx never abandoned it. I'm pretty tired of your bullshit by now, but just do a bit of research.

You go do that research, kid.

Already went over this: so do workers. Yes, they can walk of the job when the boss puts the finger in their ass. So can a prostitute! You keep going on like prostitutes are sex slaves - they are not. We are talking about regulated, individual prostitution. They determine fully what they will and will not do.

Just because you view penetration as some higher form of relinquishing bodily autonomy don't make it so Joe. You are operating like these things exist on a determined scale, while they do not. Why is dick in ass more alienating than working a job that ruins your back, say? You don't get to decide what is worse. If a prostitute doesn't object to have people fuck him or her in stead of working an 8h shift, who are you to lecture them about alienation?

You are making a subjective moralistic argument and coating it in Marxist jargon.

Yes, I think it is about sexuality for you: namely, that you have a romantic view of sexuality that elevates it above and beyond other forms of human activity.

You have terrible sex, don't take it out on us.

Proletarian state
Is sex a luxury? Its a basic need. State can not provide me home the same way then. Home is luxury, climate is fine for being homeless.

You're pretty disgusting on a personal level, you know that, right?

Explicitly stated or tacitly assumed, the notion of alienation remained central to Marx's social and economic analysis. In an alienated society, the whole mind-set of men, their consciousness, is to a large extent only the reflection of the conditions in which they find themselves and of the position in the process of production in which they are variously placed. This is the subject matter of Marx's sociology of knowledge, to which we now turn.

Try reformulating that argument with the scenario I described of medical experiments and you will surely realize how absurd you sound. You have some serious sexual complexes.

Yes.
However, paying for all labour should be a crime. Sex isn't a special category. All wage-labour is fundamentally demeaning and establishing a special hierarchy, especially one that (in the popular imagination or in fact) splits heavily down gender lines is a distraction that leads to the general "make capitalism less shit!" line of thinking, instead of the "capitalism will fundamentally make you eat shit if there's a dollar in it. make capitalism itself eat fucking mercury instead."

I'll humor you, because I seem to have hit a nerve. People might decide that having doctors poke around for an hour is less alienating than working themselves to death for eight hours. It takes less time, so it is less alienating. If you disagree, be so kind as to define a quantum of alienation, or we won't be able to rank alienation of various shitty hypotheticals you might yet come up with.

Your valuation is 101% subjective, yet you seem blind to this.

Unsourced greentext. I am humbled. Commodity fetishism shares similarities with alienation, but it is not the same thing. Capital is three gigantic volumns of exhaustive analysis. If he had wanted to put alienation in there he would have. He didn't. Instead he used commodity fetshism.

Prostitution is capitalism, because women own their capital here, being their bodies.

Which is evil.

A more righteous system would be for all women to turn themselves in for assignment to prostitution duties, with funds going into the righteous worker's party coffers for redistribution.

You could also distribute free sex to workers who are not getting enough. Ultimately, all sex would need to be controlled too so you could ensure fair distribution, but that would have to come after regulating actual prostitution.

Lurk moar.

yup sex is just stuff you can whenever you want with whoever, and women control the concept of consent after the fact, also its totally not related to the functioning of your biological clock, hormonal balance and perception of the opposite sex and socializing, it has no long term effect on the subconscious mind, especially not impacting learning, dreams, aversions, impulses or drives; sex is totally fragmented and auxillary its just a tacked on DLC mini-game you get to play endlessly, and there are no winners and losers (except for icky dry dick virgins) and its awesome and harmless especially because if you get an STD it can be medicated; also micro-chimerism and gene transfer aren't real, sharing microbial strains isn't real, attachment isn't real, affinities between past partners aren't real and sex is a spectacle that you have a right to exclusivize or integrate with others at will, also more attractive people are better than you but not because of any biological qualities associated with sex, also eugenics is bad, but biotech sex tech is good and its ok to genetically engineer literal organic sex toy waifus, and all of this isn't in contradiction with anything else i believe. like everyone being equal and materialism

im a rational communist materialist, i know what's up with sex

That's not how genetics work. Specific gene or set of genes does not necessarily equate to very a specific behavior. You also do not need to identify specific genes to come to the conclusion that a behavior has a genetic role. I can't point out that a gene that causes hunger, but the aggregate affect of genes that build and maintain the structure involving hunger (vagus nerve, part of the brain that sends and receives signals to the vagus nerve, various processes that measure blood sugar and nutrition, the parts of the brain associated with blood content etc.). Also, I never said genetics anywhere in my post anyways.

The fact that humans universally have negative reactions (both immediate and long term) to unwanted sex (either forced or heavily coerced due to lack of resources) should be evidence enough of a larger underlying universal psychology in the human species, whether due to a specific set of genes or as an emergent state of the brain that results in internal and external behavior (ie an emotion) due to complex interactions of neurons that was selected for over the years. Unless you're arguing that child (whose otherwise never had a sexual encounter) being forcibly made to have intercourse and reacting more strongly than if they were made to write in cursive or clean up their room is somehow a taught behavior, then it must be nature.

If you don't believe that humans would have naturally evolved to protect sensitive organs in a manner they wouldn't protect other parts of their body, and have a stronger reaction to direct forcible abuse of them rather than a more abstract long term abuse over years of labor through payment-work interactions I'm all ears.

Why are you so hellbent on dictating women what they can do with their bodies?

You realize that Sex has been successively sold to you by material conditions and become a wanking machine. You achieve transcendence.
The fundamental thing you should learn to pick apart in capitalism is that you don't really want things you think you want.

because i am not interested in feel good idpol retardation or a-moral deranged hedonism

biology>your retarded muh vagina/muh dick
psychology>your muh vagina/muh dick
spirit>le spooky spook but its ok for me to breed bioengineered sex toys and have torture fetish sex with them

What is this incoherent non-sense?

no i don't, you have no idea what my sex life is like. you're just lashing out at me because i disapprove of and am arguing against your deranged world view of total base hedonistic sociopathy. nod an argument, invalid and unsound, discarded. also trash rhetoric and low level bantz

nothing about it is incoherent

...

Like pretty much 90% of the stuff you ranted about in your wall of text isn't even applicable in countries where sex work is legal and regulated. You have never read about what the actually affected people like sex workers union want. You are just shitting out a huge pile red herings based on some unfounded caricatures.

You're goddamn right it's not.

You do have to identify what genes serve what function to say that they do have a particular effect. You cannot rightly just assume that a particular effect is attributable to genetics without identifying the precise genetic mechanism to which you can attribute the effect. They way that you used it was a hand-wave. It's magic; I ain't gotta explain shit.

Don't be disingenuous. If you are going to talk about evolution, then the subject is genetics.

People have negative reactions to everything that they don't want. That's circular logic.

It always comes back to this assumption that sex is abuse.

can we get that anti-sex field thing from half-life 2?

breen did nothing wrong

Prostitutes exist in Sweden, they are not just called that way.
And they still get murdered but they don't appear in your statistics, because they are not called that way,

I can offer advice on how women can get out of prostitution. How about closing their fucking legs and quit being whores.

I know I'm brilliant thank you.

peak Kwa

Genuinely curious now as to what the statistics are for - say - shopkeepers murdered by customers or whatever.

It's going to sound remarkably shitty, but I mean even the Netherlands' murder figure seems relatively insignificant when you tally it up against all the other shit that can kill you. Why gouge off attention for one specific type of employment?

Yes, yes you can. According to you Mendel couldn't say that his pea plant height was genetic because he never found the mutation that caused the height. There's actually a term geneticists use when they don't know a particular mutation or gene but have observed obvious genetic association: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability

No it's not because I my whole post was explaining why sexual labor is different than other forms of labor which some posters here deny. You're loosing sight of the forest for a gotcha tree.

You seem to not have any antecedent comprehension. We're talking about prostitution, which is sex for resources. Someone who has sex because they have no other means of acquiring basic needs is forcing them to, and continual force of something someone otherwise doesn't want for exploitation is abuse. If you don't find it to be so guess you're a libertarian then. :^)

Forcing someone to labour in any form is also abuse. (Which I would assume is the key point of the S.S. Liberty image.)

but being paid for taking part in medical / psychological experiment is pretty standard practice…
you can sell your blood (well not in my country, but in most capitalistic ones)
being a model in art school you have to stand naked in awkward position in front of lots of people.
also, not who your respond to, but going all personal "you have sexual complexes" is pretty pathetic, you're the one putting sex on a pedestral here…

so among all your strawmen it still boils down to "sex is very special thing"

and you still haven't convinced me, because your only argument is "it's sex !", and "sex is special because evolution !", which I fail to see how it's relevant and kinda disagree (I'd argue the emphasis on sex is mostly born out of social constructs, see how the romans or many other previous cultures treated the thing for example)

Marx refuted you before Lincoln freed the slaves, bruv

no i argued cogently and using counter-arguments. you all made appeals to nihilistic, hedonist ethics and muh dicc-vagina logic. the only people that agree with you are degenerate liberals. evolutionarily you're on the wrong side of the fence

You're still treating sex like it's some kind of special case, as though non-sexual wage labour isn't also both physically and mentally destructive. (which then turns things into a matter of degree.)

~Sexual politics are bourgeois~

I fucking hate how Leftists go full Libertarian "hurrr it's their voluntary choice on the free market" only when you talk about prostitution.

People who pay for sex are scum, almost as bad as rapists, and should be jailed.

Prostitutes are the victims, and being a prostitute should not be a crime. The State can step in and regulate prostitution by giving out free STD checks, free counselling and mental health support, and should establish systems to prevent people becoming prostitutes in the first place.

But allowing porkies to establish brothels and allowing men to rape women for a fee? No, this should be illegal.

It should all be illegal. Why are we drawing an arbitrary line around sex?

Labourers are the victims, and being a labourer should not be a crime. The state can step in and regulate labour by giving out free healthcare, running a full-employment economic policy, ensuring appropriate health-and-safety and work-time-regulation are in place, and should establish systems to prevent people becoming wage-labourers in the first place.

But allowing porkies to establish businesses and allowing bosses to extract surplus value for a fee? No, this should be illegal.

I paid for a prostitute once, it was with a transsexual.

Is that better anfem?

Leftists don't do that (of any ideology), generally only Holla Forums does.

The idea that there's no separation between manual labor and sex work if you remove "moralism" is simply fallacious.

There's a reason we view rape (non-consensual sexual penetration) as worse than regular assault (being punched). It's a violation of bodily integrity that runs deeper than the extraction of surplus value. Perhaps you could use prostitution as an example to liberals of how labor can be coercive, but being a prostitute, coerced by porky into letting men rape you on the daily for cash is worse than being a laborer.

You lot should be ashamed, especially considering we got a hooker who posts here.

I know better than to be dragged down into an argument about apathy and the nature of consent.
Suffice to say, the problem is always coercion by Porky.

You talking about Hoochie?

This kind of porn makes me sad. She's just doing that for money.

Pure exploitation.

These days I try to get off to Reddit's Gone Wild board because it's voluntary erotica without commercial reward.

I'd rather do that for money than work a regular job, tbh. Even for equal compensation.
The worst part of it is having your face associated with your nude body.

Nigga no one would pay to fuck hoochie.

I don't give a fuck, a lot of sub grills are into bondage and it turns me on to watch or do it when I can.

Fuck off.

Call yourself a Leftist but you don't care about exploitation. Okay, I guess. "a lot" = at least one. "A lot of sweatshop laborers like working in sweatshops" Okay, I guess.

But what about the majority of workers? You sound like a Libertarian right now

I'm not sure exactly what point you're making.
(I'm not saying they should enjoy it or such, just that the dynamics of capitalism if anything skew things even more since the people who'd "voluntarily" do such things aren't doing them, and the ones who are doing them would consider it exploitative drudgery.)

No idea where you got that from. Should I give up food, clothes, shelter, and all material posessions because they are also made by exploited proles?

The sexual kinks of submissives has fuck all to do with sweatshop labor. Kys vanillafag.

You can consume it I guess, but "I don't care the proles actually like it lol" is reactionary as fuck.

I think it's more that he gets off on the idea of them enjoying it.
i.e. even if the girl in the film isn't enjoying it, some girls do, and you can imagine she's enjoying it, which makes the material enjoyable to consume.

Sure, I get that.

I wish I could guarantee when I watch porn that they actually like it though

Whatever point you're trying to make you're failing to. Porn is a fantasy, I'm sure under socialism we'd see more people doing what they liked as opposed to what to what sells, but we don't have that. I don't see why I should give up watching bdsm porn, I don't pay for it and vanillashit bores the fuck out of me so other there's no reason for me not to.

Yeah. I like sub grills and kink, bondage is fun if you know what you're doing. But I don't have a gf right now and most grills I get matched with are vanilla, so I hamshank to bdsm porn with bondage. No idea why this is hard for some faggots to grasp.

Maybe, the pic looks like a screenshot from a studio-quality vid, but not all of them get paid. Believe it or not sex is something people do for fun sometimes.

Like amateur porn?

Get educated porky.

That's capitalist talk.

I agree. We should start by imprisoning anyone who buys clothes and slowly expand our prohibition to cover all capitalist-produced goods. I'm sure that will solve the ethical problems of capitalism. True socialism starts by locking the proles in cages.

How can you have prostitution in Communism without money? It would never be a part of a planned economy. So would people just barter goods for sex?

Just like every other kind of waged labor.

There is a lot of undeclared Holla Forums in this thread.

I don't know. Take a poll of all of them.

You are really bad at pretending to be one of us.

That is probably how it would work. Who knows? We haven't even achieved socialism yet let alone communism.

Even in Rome forced sex was especially humiliating:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporus#After_Nero_and_death

Only to an adult man. Don't forget that part.

The two positions on the topic are essentially "allow it because it's wage labour" (such as: ) and "prohibit it because it's exploitative" (such as: ).

Legal prohibition of anything under any economic system means jack shit, since the dynanmics of this economic base are what determines what happens at society level. A good example are illegal drugs. They're illegal pretty much worldwide, yet there's also a huge narc industry racking in millions of dollars for the people that finally profit from the production of drugs (i.e. the capitalists or petit-bourgs that own the means of production used to make drugs and their ingredients).

Prohibiting prostitution, on the basis that it's exploitative, would just relegate it to an illegal position, which might possibly mean even worse conditions for sex workers. The only way to effectively abolish prostitution (in it's most exploitative form at least) would be by changing society's economic structure to one where wage labour is abolished, production is done collectively, and thus there is no reason to exploit one's own body (because you're guaranteed a real job and decent living conditions).

In short: keep it legal on short term; under socialism there is no need for prostitution.

That is the way it already is in most places. In that sense, the people who want to ban it are just reenforcing the status quo.

People don't appreciate how much of a boss Vitellius was in his short reign. Favorite usurper.

Prostitution is not exploitation. Prostitutes are part of a labor aristocracy. I paid a whore $60 and she kicked me out after 10 minutes. 10 minutes of half-assed labour for $60 sounds like a labour aristocracy to me. How many jobs out there pay you $60 for 10 minutes of shitty work?

OP is an idiot who made a shitty thread. There is NO POINT in talking about the laws enacted in a Bourgeois state. The exploitation and suffering that befalls sex workers(and literally every other kind of worker) will always continue so long as the current mode of production prevails. OP you're a fucking goober that is agonizing over which particular box of band-aids that we should buy in order to treat a fatal disease. You're asking which laws should be enacted when neither Sweden or Germany or the Netherlands or the USA are democracies that we have any kind of control over.

You're gonna go far kid

Get rid of wage labour and the only problem with prostitution is STDs and stuff

Banning prostitution along the lines of the Nordic model will limit the number of women in prostitution, and give those in it a way out.

Of course trafficking is banned here, but making prostitution legal makes it extremely easy to do and difficult to prove. Trying to combat trafficking while prostitution is like mopping with the faucets open.

Why shouldn't we combat a form of exploitation if we can because we can't abolish others.

What even is molymeme's 🍀🍀🍀argument🍀🍀🍀 here? That anyone who expects certain exclusive rights in an intimate relationship can't really be against monopolies, because that kinda sorta vaguely sounds like a monopoly, because they both involve some element of exclusivity? Damn. So any belief in private property or exclusive rights through contract at all is incompatible with opposition to monopolies.
This hack isn't even a decent libertarian thinker.

The last time that shit was posted, I did some basic research.

Forget that Germany have a much bigger population, which alone would put the numbers much closer. Turns out there are also many less prostitutes per capita in Sweden (about 2000 in total compared to 400000 in Germany), possibly for reasons stated. So what the data actually say is that a Swedish prostitute is three times more likely to be murdered than a German one.

The other charts just say "prostitution gives means of subsistence to poor underclasses, while causing them to suffer the same problems that befall other workers in capitalist society".

So you're saying that a labor inspector somehow cannot enter a legal, registered prostitution business and check whether it conforms to all the safety and worker rights regulations, much less whether they were kidnapped and forced to slavery work against their will. Okay.

Full and complete legalization is the only way to stop sex trafficking. Anything else merely forces the businesses and clients underground, which takes away their incentive to follow any law at all.

He doesn't have one and doesn't understand relationships.

READ THIS FUCKING POST, THE CORE OF THE ISSUE IS IN IT

There are financial transactions involved in regular relationships, too. In fact there are many more of them, and additional legal risk is incurred as well. Prostitution, on the other hand, offers sex for a one-time exchange. The selling point of a long-term relationship is supposed to be the emotional intimacy and support, but modern Western women can't be relied on to provide that. They need to keep prostitution outlawed because prostitutes provide a better deal.

I honestly can't believe that people still don't understand this simple fact.
Whenever something is made illegal, unethical black markets will spring up to provide it. The same thing has happened with drugs and it has happened with prostitution.

So as long as women reject socially awkward autistic men and so as long as normie men want to have sex with women above their league, there will always be demand for prostitution. And not every woman who is a prostitute is one because she has no options in life. Some women are prostitutes because they prefer the lifestyle to wagecucking.

In my area, if you're starting out as a backpage girl, you can make $60 just from giving a guy a blowjob in his car. Assuming that the guy isn't dangerous and hygiene is in order, I would suck a dick and let him cum in my mouth or on my face for $60. That's an easy $60 for very little work. Only reason why I wouldn't do it is because men who see male escorts are probably even more creepy and dangerous than the ones who see female escorts. It's far easier for a gay guy to get a free blowjob from a guy on Grindr than it is for a straight guy to get a free blowjob from a woman on Tinder. So this is why I would never do gay for pay (male escorts also make less money despite the heightened risk). Whereas if I was a girl, I would seriously consider it because the risk to reward ratio is much better.

First you make sure everyone is free from exploitation and doesn't need to sell their body (like their labor) to live. Only then can you be sure prostitution is a legitimate profession.