Why do so many so-called leftists so vociferously defend so-called "sex work?"

Why do so many so-called leftists so vociferously defend so-called "sex work?"

It clearly falls under the category of non-productive labor, and under communism it would not exist at all, along with job titles like "day trader" or "claims adjuster," yet so many red liberals are tripping over themselves to legitimize and institutionalize the exploitation of women. Why is this?

you should be banned

Most jobs under capitalism are exploitative and will disappear under communism.

prostitution existed long before capitalism was born and it will exist long after capitalism is dead

Eating my own poop is also not productive labour, but if you try to take that away from me I'll kill you, commisar.

Not an argument

please tell me more about how we'll be fucking people we don't want to fuck once the financial incentive vanishes

Because you aren't going to make prostitution disappear under our current economic conditions so it would benefit sex workers to have legal protections that allowed them to organize and to not fear seeking legal recourse in cases of rape or abuse. Or do you think it's better that they fly under the radar outside of the law where they are abused on a daily basis and are at the whims of some sleazeball pimp? Deal with reality as it is not how you think it would look after your moral crusade.

Legalize prostitution.
Make it illegal to buy sex.
It's not rocket surgery. Sweden did it and human trafficking plummeted. Much better than the bullshit liberal solution that other countries went with.

Nice digits
Also what are you gonna do OP, tell women they can't sell themselves? Under socialism prostitution will likely still exist but will take different forms depending on how labor is paid. Perhaps prostitution just becomes sexual favors. Under higher stage of currrncy no longer exists prostitution will be a lot different as there won't be money, it would have to be done under different circumstances.
Al in all though this is a slippery slope op. Regardless of whether or not it exploitative I'm not comfortable commanding that women not do this, I think they have the right to make that choice.

I am pessimistic about post-scarcity and the total eradication of black markets

you should move back to tumblr

1. Very few, if any leftist defends sex labor, just sex worker's rights
2. By your logic schools and hospitals should be abolished since they're "non-productive", labor and work are a lot more than the specific production of goods and commodities.

This is the level of intelligence leftypol attracts in 2017

He did say 'by your logic'.

Which is still retarded

Is it really that hard trying to read and comprehend entire posts before writing a reply?

Reading people's posts in full is basically cucking your brain
I only read every 5th word and reply right away

Nice strawmanning

That was my entire point. While neither hospitals nor hookers directly produce goods, they reproduce the worker through satisfying his needs. The hospital satisfies his medical needs, the hooker his emotional and sexual needs, and commodity production like the food industry his dietary needs. All in all they reproduce the worker and thus his labor power, ensuring the continued cycle of capitalist production.


They are not, same as eating an ice cream and receiving heart surgery aren't. But they reproduce you and your labor power.

A hand can replace a hooker. Or maybe one of those wacky sex robots they're producing nowadays. A hooker's time is better spent working literally any other job, because prostitution contributes literally nothing to society.

you are a stupid piece of shit and are helping ruin Holla Forums

Shh this is leftypol. Never question a man's right to get off, even if it means using somebody else against their consent.

That's true, I don't think sexual labor would exist under an egalitarian system, at least not under current forms.
Satisfying needs does contribute to society, whether you like it or not

It doesn't. Prostitution is the act of providing sex as a service, it is as productive as manufacturing a dildo — both produce commodities. The only distinction is that with prostitution, the commodity is basically yourself as a sexual subject rather than something distinct from your own body.

Under approaching-100% employment the number of productive/dignified jobs tends to dwindle. Lefties call sex work "survival sex" because the practitioners often do not pursue it idealistically. In reality under communism survival sex serves the muh privileged classes and loud mouth "progressives" are always assured that they will end up in the muh privileged classes. Just ask any Silicone Valley pervert.

Sex shouldn't be something you buy and sell, not to mention the normalisation and promotion of satisfying base, animal desires only serves to cheapen the individual and stunt his or her spiritual fulfilment.

Prostitutes should be arrested, however the "punishment" ought to be giving them a stable job. If they then go ahead and sell themselves "on the side" then they should get prison time as a deterrent.

Let people do what they want to do. You're not the arbiter of what makes people fulfilled, plenty of sex worker enjoy their job because it helps bring fulfilment to others. The only issue is that sex workers do not have the protection they need

also it is a form of rape as long as the means of subsistence in society are withed by force

Non-productive work is actually much more likely to survive much longer into socialism than any productive job will.

We're not under communism, when talking about sex work it's usually within the context of capitalism or reforming capitalism. Prostituion makes no sense under communism.

Maybe painting pictures.
Probably not fucking people you don't want to fuck.
As the guy with the Lenin hat eluded to, that's simply rape.

It clearly falls under the category of non-productive labor, and under communism it would not exist at all, along with job titles like "day trader" or "claims adjuster," yet so many red liberals are tripping over themselves to legitimize and institutionalize the exploitation of women. Why is this?
Because we don't let live under communism, and in the meantime, we may as well try to keep working class women safe as best we can.


by allowing men to continue raping them?

Sex work is basically the "child labor" of the 21st century. Until it is completely abolished (not just banned) socialism will be impossible. Women must be forced to think of thesmeleves solely as wage laborers. Essentialized petite bourgeoisie professions must be cut off from them.


I'm way more permissive of it than most tankies/MLs but honestly its more or less going to become obsolete with the advent of VR and sex robots.

Sex work is just a job. Also "Non-productive labor". Many workers today work for redundant jobs or jobs that have no mass benefit like fast food joints.

prostitution isn't rape

yeah being raped is just a job

It's at least coercion

what if the child consents tho

By that logic every sale is a theft. Under capitalism we do a thousand things we don't really want to simply to ensure we have enough of the money form for our own reproduction, yet when this thing is sex, suddenly people flip their shit.

can always buy your own child

when did I fucking say that retard? do you really wanna compare paying taxes to have your orifices fucked by 10 man in a single day because you have to pay bills or feed your child or feed your drug addiction which may be or may be not caused by the very "profession" you are doing?

nvm the taxes thing I'm just very tired

I think it could be compared to "regular" jobs where the prole has to suffer bodily harm, of which there are plenty. The more extreme cases would be the unhealthy or very unsafe ones like mining, logging, fishing. You expect people to literally risk their lives and health for etc.? Apparently, we do.

Why do you pathologize production, are you a communist?

Give me one thing wrong with it other than "muh morality"

difference is that mining, logging, fishing, etc actually give results that benefit a lot of people and productivity, opposed to coercing someone to fuck with you, when your hand could do just fine.

read the thread retard


Your drawing is incorrect: no one chooses to be a street cleaner in a sane society but it is job that needs doing.

When you on the one hand consider having sex with strangers a very traumatic thing, but on the other say that masturbation is a sufficient substitute for sex, I question your intellectual integrity. Sex does not compare to masturbation, and for people who would otherwise not get any, sex work provides high use value.

what makes you think a mentally healthy and adjusted person needs to use sex work in order to acquire sex?

What makes you think only the "mentally healthy and adjusted person[s]" have sexual needs? Stop dehumanizing people just because you think they are weird, it's unbecoming.

what does this bullshit mean? if there's a demand for the product, it's productive labor.



Keywork is product, as commodity.
Unproductive labor is supposed to be work unrelated to commodity production, something that could apply to services by example.
Altough nowadays the delimitation is blurred because capitalism tend to organize every domain of life according to the model of commodity production because it's easier to squeeze profits out of it

I don't mean shitty pointless jobs, I mean tasks that do not have an actual product but are still important for production itself. Things like making actual decisions on what to do are still far beyond the reach of AI because we don't know how to teach AI "why" we want things done.

Prostitution is something that will exist no matter what you do. It exists even in the most fascist/theocratic/ancient regimes. Its just something that will always exist. Might as well make it legal so women can be safer and get std tested while doing it.
The real divide here is between people who are sex negative and sex positive. The sex negative people just hate sex and want to ban people from enjoying it much like right wingers. But they present it in a way like its helping women. If its consensual and legal why do you care?

Mining, logging, fishing are socially necessary labor.

If we were to draw a 2D axis of labor under capital, "sex work" would be one of the few professions that falls in the quadrant of "dangerous && unnecessary"


This is nonsense. The refusal to commodify something implies an inherent hatred? You're spouting pure liberal drivel. Contracts and exchange of currency in no way imply consent.

Can we still make and play video games?

A community could decide that they consider it meaningful and valid work and could allow individuals to do so as their contribution to society.

Get the fuck back to wherever you crawled out of.


Sure you're in the right thread sweetie?

Getting men to cum is not socially necessary. Deal with it.

Yes it is. Read:

Hospitals provide specialty care that people cannot provide themselves.
Men are perfectly capable of reaching orgasm with their partner or their own hand.

That's like saying farming isn't socially necessary because people can grow their own potatoes

Rearing the level of food necessary to sustain a household is a full task unto itself, and if every family were expected to do it, there would be time/energy left for other required tasks. It's incredibly inefficient to decentralize food production like this.

Orgasms can be produced recreationally with little effort.

little time/energy*

The entire fucking thread has been calling you out on your reactionary bullshit. Fuck off and never return.

All of you faggots need to read a fucking book

So? That doesn't make sex work non socially necessary labour.

It kind of does.
It's like saying candlemaking is socially necessary because people need light.
The light problem was solved with electricity. The sex problem was solved by you getting a girlfriend already.

Candles are still being made you know. But I guess candle factories are "non productive" and not socially necessary because you don't like them


You don't say!
Candles are an artisanal luxury and don't have much utility unless you run an Italian restaurant.
If candlemaking were dangerous and degrading I would probably willing to see it banned as well.

That's wrong. Read Marx Theories of Surplus Value

many homeless people do not want to change their situation, should we do nothing about it? In fact, most sex workers "enjoy" their jobs because it's easy way to get food and drugs. We can go even further and say that most people around the world "enjoy" being employed, does it mean that there is nothing wrong with capitalism?


You're dense as shit comrade.
If Y fulfills all of the use values of X, and at a greater level of efficiency, and with less of a human/environmental toll, then it absolutely behooves us to switch to Y over X.

It's really amazing how would-be leftists break out the liberal vernacular of "rewarding career options that make a difference in the lives of others" the moment you question a man's right to buy women.

Yes, but that was not what we where discussing

let X = prostitution
let Y = you getting a girlfriend


Which means that X has a use value, meaning it's socially necessary and that sex work is socially necessary labor. Which leads us to conclude that I was right the entire time.

You know what else has use value? Asbestos. Go play in some.


Scented candles can be used for aroma therapy though
They're gud

Reddit needs to leave.

If sex work is non-productive, then so is literally every other entertainment and leisure industry.

Can we talk about how clowns and fiction should be banned after communism?


So when are you going to see yourself to the door?

Interesting. I wonder how much of the anti-sex worker position is taken up by people who resent the idea of men being sexually satisfied

Candles are very useful in situations where you have no power.

You have to go back.

They are either that or beta oribitors who think women will fuck them if they act woke enough. I personally don't like whoring but I'm not naive enough to think banning it will make it go away, so the whores need as much legal protection as they can get.

Ah but if you reform prostitution laws and liberalize it, you neutralize the revolutionary potential. Sex workers tend to lean pretty left but if you legitimize the work, don't you solidify it within capitalism instead of allowing it to act as one of many pressure points destabilizing the system? The better solution is for the sex workers to be organized together and supported, ideally in a union or syndicate (off the books).

In communism of course, there would be no exchange so the people who enjoy sex and are good at it will just seek out people who want sex and there will be no coercion involved in the people who have sex as a major occupation.

Puritans go in the gulag.

Orgasms are part of human needs.

This definitely isn't a tired joke that has been made since the 70s. Congratulations on inventing it.

Except the defining feature of performative male wokeness is a complete lack of theoretical conviction in favor of deference to the nebulous notion of "agency" in which sex workers are slayqueens whose entrepreneurial prowess musn't be questioned.

I'm in a normal, monogamous relationship with a girl btw. She doesn't even have dyed hair or anything like that either.

Then give yourself one, faggot.

t. never had a prostate orgasm

I wanna be spit-roasted by two dildoes, though.

Hey there's this thing where if something is true, people are likely to notice and point it out. And if you keep hearing something a lot, it may be worth considering whether there's merit to it.

As if there's one version of male wokeness.

I've presented a thoroughly socialist critique of prostitution in this thread. Either address it or fuck off. Trying to label me a nu male by proxy won't cut it.

I never called you a nu male. For all I know you're female. Your argument hinges on sexual satisfaction not being a social need and not refreshing a worker, does it not? Because that's facile and would apply to literally any recreational activity.

Look comrade even a virgin as I that will probably not fuck someone else and doesn't want to can see that there is a significant difference between the two, and for the majority of people Rosie Palms just ain't gonna cut it, otherwise we wouldn't have hookers in any society, even this one
(replying to you in general, not that reply specifically)

My argument hinges upon sexual satisfaction being obtainable here and now under capitalism without commodifying another human being. Just meet someone you like.

Just meet someone you like.

Am I commodifying another human being if I pay for a massage?

Yes actuality
Massagers are exploited just as sex workers are

First of all when it comes to whores we're getting beat by lolberts while pornstars are mostly liberals. After that I disagree, the revolutionary potential sex workers have comes from being a worker, not the sex part or legal difficulties. Their revolutionary potential would not be dampened by legalization any more than a minimum wage laborer's would be by an increase in minimum wage.

You're a woke ally orbiting a radfem and think she'll let you stick it in her if you take a stand on whores.

Cleaners and sex workers - pointless work tbqh

What makes prostitution unique is its complete and utter social redundancy + the level of danger/degradation involved. You can't give yourself a backrub.

I show my gf all my leftypol posts. If I get enough (you)s she lets me take off the chastity belt for the night.

Yeah I was curious what your thoughts were on that. It's not my position but I wanted to present it as if it were.

I could just get my SO to rub my back, so a masseuse is redundant too by your logic. The danger is a product of illegality and the notion of degradation is the fucking purity spook. It could be violating but that falls under danger and the current conditions of the practice. Sex work has had wildly varying incarnations throughout global history including veneration.

A therapeutic massage requires a trained specialist.

The danger of sex work doesn't stem from illegality. In countries where it is liberalized women are still heavily trafficked and misled with dubious offers. People are stalked and threatened. It breeds a culture of contempt and entitlement.

shit quads

Good sex requires someone good at sex too.
And that would be illegal forms of sex work. All workers are mistreated under capitalism. That's the real root of the problem, but when something is illegal that makes it worse because then there's no recourse for mistreatment. If sex work is legal then it's at least possible for there to be institutions that support the people involved. Also I should point out that sex work isn't exclusive to women.
That's true of all capitalism. Anyone who has ever had a service job can attest to this.

Well I'm sure your valiant efforts to get pegged have been paying off.

I think that decriminalization is a long ways off but we should advocate for it along with any other improvements for the working class as long as revolutionary potential is insignifigant. Even if we don't succeed we have some inroads with workers who were fucked over by liberalism which will make organizing a revolutionary organization easier.

I doubt it's a guy.

This. Even the guys with the best luck get rejected frequently. It takes either the lack of experience or willful ignorance to think relationships and sex are as easy as meeting someone you like (for men).

prostitutes have no revolutionary potential

that's why


Only after your retarded ass gets banned topkek


I can understand rejection because it happens but frequently? Well what do you actually want with usually people if you're asking them to date and such?

By the way, these questions are rhetorical for all the brainlets out there.

Stop telling people to kys every time you fall on your face.

I'm tired of arguing with thirsty tankies that defend sex work because they would "benefit" from it. Stop masturbating and read a book. Try not thinking with the head of your dick for once.

It's coercion if the person who pays makes the first offer otherwise it's under duress.



The refusal to recognize that making prostitution illegal allows some of the poorest and most vulnerable women in the world to have their minds, bodies and families torn to shreds by the state and criminal gangs implies a hatred of poor prole women.

You're perfectly comfortable with it because it doesn't effect you, and you still want to selfishly cling onto the first world ability of women to discipline by withholding sex.

Please take your flag off and crawl back to whatever liberal feminist cesspool you came from.


MLs are against sex work though.

And when capitalism is abolished people will still find meaning in work, sex work is no different. They provide a service, providing this service brings fulfilment to both parties, not hard to figure out

Why have 3DPD whores when sexbots come out?

Sex is like breathing for humans. It's not something non-alienated people need to pay for.

I don't know how many times I need to tell people to read the fucking thread.

Eat shit.

A spectre is haunting leftypol. The ghost of Elliot Rodger

what do you even mean by this? Are you saying that once as people don't feel alienated orgies will fill the streets?

Not against sex work in capitalism but when it's fully abolished it would literally be impossible. Sex work is only made possible by an exchange based economy, in a moneyless, classless society where production happens for use anything that would otherwise be "sex work" simply becomes "sex". The idea that prostitutes would exist in communism is totally absurd.

Don't agree with that guy on a lot, but I think he means that once alienation stops being endemic to society the ability and drive to love or connect with someone will be not-as-suppressed as now, and there won't be a need to use money for sex as there would be less of a shortage of sex and/or human connection as now, at least, I assume that's what he meant

that's the impression I got but I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt as that is kinda missing the point.

but that's just arguing semantics. Assuming we're not talking about fully automated communism people would still need to perform labour to help society run. There will in all likelihood be some people will want to have sex with people in return for societies support. To not call this 'sex work' because we're not having monetary exchange is just silly.
Say we live in a communist world, we'll still need someone to do the plumbing. Is the person who does the plumbing not a plumber? This seems kinda obvious to me so I'm confused as to what I'm missing

Financial incentive won't vanish under socialism at all, it will simply be redistributed in a more optimal and just way.

Neoliberals do, what neoliberals do. Except from that - prostitution was always in a grey area: not banned, but heavily shunned and unsupported.

And somebody will probably want to be a state-sanctioned ice cream taster too. Doesn't mean that society should establish such a position.

Sex is recreational/procreative. It is not productive labor.

And non-productive labor must be automated as much as possible. :^)

Maybe I’m an idiot to the semantics but what is “Legalizing prostitution but making buying sex illegal” in practice?

Do nothing to street walkers. Allow them to operate guilt-free and report crimes as necessary.
Arrest Johns and charge them with soliciting sex.

Demand side rather than supply side policing.

That's like trying to eliminate child labor by punishing the children who take jobs and not the people who try to employ them.


You're retarded. It's the precise opposite.

because the popular meme for a long time has been that left and right are opposite and that left=free-er, so degenerates flock to the left wanting to be "free" and run from the right because it is "wholesome"
none of these things they think are true mind you, but its the same reason you get the libertarian party being all "gay weed lmao" instead of actually libertarian

Nobody would join your incel community in the first place. You'd have to settle for jerking each other off.

prostitution would be the perfect job for someone with that disorder under communism


Prostitutes are petty bourgeoisie.

Prostitution isn't labor and having sex with men shouldn't earn one labor vouchers.

but it still provides a valuable service to the community at large

yugo market fags can't help themself but cry out how reactionary they are, huh?

I don't believe a word of it. Some people will still be ugly, unlikable, and even unlovable after capitalism has expired. Unless you have some kind of sex workers, their sexual needs will go unfulfilled. You might not care because they are unlikable so fuck them, but that does not disappear these people.


But that's retarded. People are not and should not support people to have sex as a career when it's not themselves they're having sex with. This is why sex-work is entirely contingent on an exchange based economy, it becomes totally vestigial in the economic framework of socialism. As much as sex-workers should be empowered now within the framework of capitalism there is simply about as much of a place in the future of socialism for sex work as there is for bankers. It would be obsolete.

In any kind of democratic, worker-run society I do not understand how you imagine this going down.

Yet it happens anyway, just like bootleg DVDs are sold in North Korea.

All jobs are exploitatitive. You're ignoring the point OP made that sex work is unproductive, which is not the case with most jobs under capitalism (though it is the case with many)

Not to mention you miss the point, it's not that it would be forbidden yet would happen anyway. It's that it would be an economic absurdity, like being a Runemaster when your culture has abandoned runestones. By very nature sex-work is an exchange based economic relationship, it cannot exist in a non exchange-based economy. When you're not having sex for compensation it ceases to be sex work and becomes having recreational sex with strangers.

That's an absurd amount of personal freedom for the likes of OP, who will probably demand the state form People's Thot Patrol.

No, you end up trading sex for food, clothes or a place to stay.

Notice how I avoided the word "money" there and instead said "compensation". This is what I mean when I say sex-work is necessarily an exchange-based economic relationship, the "work" quality of it is contingent on there being some quid pro quo transaction. This is not a feature of socialism. If you need to trade sex for food, clothes or shelter in a socialist society then it is no socialist society at all by the same token that it necessarily cannot have wage labour or commodity production. The economic fineries that distinguish "sex work" from "sex" are erased when capitalism is superseded, what had once made it a viable career is no longer the case.

I don't know what kind of socialism you imagine that has barter markets in it.

Why wouldn't people have access to those things under Socialism?

How exactly does prostitution contribute to society?