Sexual exploitation and feminist biggotry

"If concentration camps were legal, people inside could work in better conditions".

That's how modern liberal feminists, and, sadly, probably most of today's anarchists and other leftie kids, seem to think, when they speak unisono "legalize sex work!".

I don't know how to talk to this people to change their opinions more to Marxist perspective and make them aware of the existence of a class conflict, that what is good for bosses and capital can not be good for employees. Yes, I know it's probably impossible, becasue most of them are 1st world petty bourgeoise with no real class conflict with capitalist system.
But still, it's pretty shitty when they can takeover anarcho-syndicalist canals of communication.

Other urls found in this thread:

If you're going to have a capitalist society banning prostitution doesn't make sense. I can understand being against sex work if you are against capitalism as you should be against all work but most of these "leftists" you're describing want capitalism with government doing things.

It makes very good sense. Like, why fight fascism in capitalist system when we could simply legalize it? xd

"Sex work" is the child labor of the 21st century. It needs to be abolished in order to liberate females.

the vast majority of sex workers are also being brutally exploited by pimps, brothel-owners, or traffickers. the ones who don't have to deal with harsh conditions are usually high-class (petite bourg) courtesan/escort types.

I wouldn't pay to fuck any of those things.

That said, "banning" prostitution obviously doesn't work in capitalism (or for that matter in proletarian states when there are shortages or major economic problems). Communists' primary strategy for eliminating prostitution should simply be to offer better careers to women outside of prostitution, and to make sure that everyone has guaranteed access to their basic necessities.

But ban on prostitution still would be no harm, woudn't it?

Daily reminder that the Puritans carried out the only sucessful revolution in Britain. They cut of the King’s head and put the fear of God into the exploiting classes. They acted with determination against a licentious, debauched and corrupt aristocracy – all to the good. When liberals use the word puritan as a slur they are betraying the actual origins of liberalism and adopting the language of the old Tory opponents of the Puritans.

If it forces prostitutes underground it can backfire and make them more vulnerable.

No if law is enforced really and not exist only in paper.

Look at what happens when you ban drugs. Look at the prohibition. Look at what happens when you ban abortions. Sex work isn't going to go away just because you ban it. If anything it's going to make the conditions worse for those involved.

it is much better to punish the buyer than the seller, as they buyer is never coerced into buying by violence or total and immediate wage dependence

It's because it was only facade ban, aimed at consumers but ignoring the actual capital. In Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries prohibition was effective, alcohol production has been limited, illegal production destroyed. There have been huge reductions in social alcoholism, which was born again in a huge degree when capitalism came and people began to flood the sorrows in vodka.

So naive to think that crime never happens and police are omnipotent omniscent benevolent deities.


Again, all of this would go away under communism. Sex work only exists because capitalism exists. You're treating a symptom not the disease.

Prostitution is already illegal in the US yet it flourishes in the form of escorts, with trafficking being rarer except around NFL games for some reason. Now while there is some effort to help trafficking victims, those who "voluntarily" fuck for money choose to do it because it pays better than the shit jobs that are there for proles in the US. It will go away with the abolition of capitalism, but if we wanted to reduce it decriminalization for soliciting, better wages for all jobs, free higher education and healthcare, and more benefits for proles in general would work by creating an alternative for prostitution they can live off of. The issue is that partcipation doesn't work, and because some dumbfuck feminists hookers are laregly lolberts anyways.

BTW I apologize for the mistake in the title, I'm not good at foregin languages and English spelling is a nightmare for me.

What you're describing, trying to ban things you don't personally like, is fascistic.

You mean banning gulags? I don't want to ban gulags! ;_;

But, honestly by ban on prostitution I literally want to ban gulags for 3rd world women in capitalist world.

Part of the problem is the cops themselves. When prostitution is illegal, it gives the cops more power to rape the prostitutes or force them to give up their money.

This still forces prostitutes underground.

I see. So it means we should reform the law enforcement too, eliminate the Police and let this task to people's millitias.

It's not fighting with capital forces prostitutes underground, it's capital that forces them.

Male prostitution.

feminists would rather make "sex work" legitimate or socially accepted than end the fundamental cause of it, i.e. the need to make money in order to survive. negating the economic need for women to sell their bodies is "misogynistic" and "oppression"

basically "muh vagina" and deifying the female cunt is more important than improving peoples' lives. feminists are particularly insidious anticommunists and should be crushed with the utmost ferocity


Obviously that doesn't exist because I'm a heteronormative heterosexual male and don't have the ability to imagine men (or boys) being used sexually, and I will fucking fight you over the FACT that men and boys don't get exploited for sex work. Also trans people are just gross icky men who want to rape women and trans men are a talking point invented to try to discredit proper feminists.

How to abolish sex work: abolish the conditions that force people into sex work.

Until that point in time, we ought to accept that sex work is here to stay and work to provide rights and protections to sex workers.

Fucking this.

No material need for sex work > sex work being legal, regulated, destigmatized, and transparent > sex work being illegal and extremely prone to abuse

What does that even mean?

they don't want to abolish it

lel I really would like to hate trans when I see how they sometimes act and how topic of transsness is used in the discourse if I wasn't trans myself, unfortunately

The view that heterosexuality is the norm or most "natural" sexual orientation and everything else is an aberration.

It's a buzzword that means "supports traditional gender roles" basically.

That post was a parody of that behavior, my dude.

And to abolish conditions, we need to abolish this capital, and to abolish this capital we need to abolish sex-industry, and to do this we need to ban prostitution.. Tada.

Well, it is the only one that leads to biological success.

Oh, stupid me.

Y'kno my 90 year old Oma knows the answer to this better then you lot.
"If there was NO demand then there would be NO work"
The theory behind legalization is that there will always be a demand for prostitution as long as humans derive pleasure from sex.
The greater the risk to the pimp the greater the reward; but a greater risk to the sex worker does not equate to greater reward unless the work is protected by the public.

Why the fuck does the sex industry need to be abolished in order to abolish capital?

And capitalism is simply system of meeting consumers needs. We all get what we want.

Well, because it produces it by employment and circulation?

Here's some words of advice, on what you wake up to every day. What you are every day. And when you wake up and talk to people with conceptions already made.

They all say you've crossed the line
But the sad fact is you've lost your mind

Cause you're just getting started, let you offend
The devil's got nothing on you my friend
All you want is to be left alone
And tact from you is like blood from a stone

Specifically why does prostitution have to be banned in order to abolish capitalism? Abolishing an industry and banning it are not the same thing. See: prohibition. or, you know, the fucking sex work industry


Abolition and banning are not the same things. Why is a ban necessary?

How you want to abolish something without baning it?


How does banning something help abolish it? This is the real question, since you're the one advancing the plan here.

I don't understand why we need to make some "special protection" of so called "sex workers" while letting them stay in the relationship of dependence and exploitation? Doesn't it just make us private security guards working to protect the means of employment that brings profit to the pimp?

Well, if it's impossible to do somthing, because community punishes it, and it does it effectively, it usually let to reducing of this behavior. Of course, the inevitability of the punishment and its general social dimension is more important than strictness.

OK then how about sex work co-ops?

That has never ever worked. It has just made the thing that got banned invisible to simpletons like you.

Because most sex workers are in it because they have no choice. Give them economic security and options and they will stop being sex workers. Until the time comes that you are able to offer them these things, they are vulnerable and require protection.

"Capitalism with a human face?"
Using terms form beautiful workers traditions to wash the worst exploitation of organized crime? Who would want to do such a terrible thing? :o

So then the issue isn't the pimps. So why bring that up here?
Get to the fucking point instead of beating around the bush. And if sex work is legalized it's not organized crime. Sex work has been legal through much of history. It's not inherently criminal. You're not even achieving basic coherence here.

It is and it isn't. Of course it'll be exploitation also without the pimps, but it don't mean that in real practice they're present.
Scientific data says contrary to this claim. Actually, it's still class conflic so facilitating capital development and doing legal business is not improving but only worsens the working conditions of employees. Those who have good conditions are just the tip of the iceberg, that is shown to naïve kids from the first world to support the mafia in their activism, in the name of anarchism and feminism, and feel that they are changing the world for the better.
And TBH I think that instead lobbying for legalization of organized crime business it's better to drink latte in Starbucks and listen to punk rock songs - it's at least doing nothing.
If concentration camps were legal, does it improve working conditions?

No shit, but at least those people have it better than if the practice were banned.
Do you have the same opinion about the legalization of alcohol or drugs in general or do you strictly apply this logic to sex work?
Victims of concentration camps aren't workers. What is the parallel you're trying to draw with this?

Yes, it's a far better to have 1% of wealthy individualists and 99% of slaves raped everyday in labour camps, and growing, thant to have only 2% slaves and going to reduce this number to zero.

That's how liberalism (pseudo-anarchism and pseudo-feminism) looks like in ad 2017…


Exploatation can't be magically less exploatative when state officialy accepts it, because it's raison d'être is to enslave people.

What are you even arguing?
What are you trying to represent with these two scenarios? How are they supposed to related to banning sex work vs. legalizing it?

Those free self-consoius sex workers women we're talking about usually have 11-15 years old, so yes.

That's incorrect for one. The execution of something can vary. The other important point is that it's not just about the state's acceptance (which is a weird thing to focus on since you were the one arguing for a ban); the point is that society doesn't scorn these people and force them into the shadows. Banning it (what you want to do) makes this worse, just like banning anything makes it worse than it otherwise would be.

In scenario of legalization, when we claim that what is good for the capital and the bosses, is ultimately, always, good also for workers, this sector of market grows. Sex industry stops being mafia margin and becomes an official, legal and taxed business. People can change, but capital becomes huge and controls the increasing masses of people.
More and more women become employed in prostitution, but the popularity of slave children is not diminishing, because the rich bourgeois still have the same whims.

You create hell on Earth, United States of Sex industry where enormous fortunes are built on massive sexual exploitation of people. Some individuas can manage to do something to keep their petty bourgeos businesses or so called cooperatives, and they say in the newspapers that hard work makes money.

There is no point abolishing child labour until we abolish capitalism. The conditions will push it underground. Child work is work! Unionise the tykes, provide a working wage, nap times and diaper changes (stupid women can do this part). Ask the kids and they will tell you they choose to be down the pits as it pays better than playing with toys.

We need to accept that some kids LIKE to work and The Left needs to LISTEN to child workers, HIRE child works and SUPPORT child workers.

In scenario of delegalization and actual, criminal fight against this business, capital can not develop and dies. working conditions are still terrible but it is increasingly difficult to force a women to work, which causes that they are looking for another job, and few women become prostitutes.
In the end, all this industry dies and there is no prostitution at all, or it is a marginal and individual phenomenon of small scope.

His whole point was that the comparison is bad, and your rebuttal is to extend it further?

What is any of this based on? It comes across as fantastical conjecture.

A friend of mine, Jemima 101, is a sex worker, blogger and prolific tweeter. She is also a wife, mother and former teacher. She agreed to discuss the issues and how they will affect sex workers in Scotland and Northern Ireland with me.

What kind of sex work do you do? Do you enjoy it?I’ve been independent escort for just over two years. I love it, I enjoy sex, I like meeting people and it combines the two. I am free to work when I want and have got to meet some really interesting people.

I also often feel I have done a service, if that is not an over the top way to put it. I have met a number of older clients who crave human contact. They are often widowers who without sex workers would have no opportunity to be intimate. Leaving them with a smile on their face is incredibly rewarding.

You’re a sex positive campaigner. Can you define what being sex positive means to you?For me sex positive means seeing sex, in all its forms as normal, provided there is enthusiastic and informed consent, and natural.

The comparison only seems bad if you are a liberal and don't understand the concept of "material conditions." Liberals were making the same dumb arguments about the supposed "choice" of the child worker and necessity of child labor that sex work proponents currently use to defend their "occupation."

He missed the whole point if he thought we were saying women = children.

This shit makes me so fucking angry holy shit. The west needs to be destroyed completely.

For better perspective what's we're fighting, what's source of wealth of people you want to legalize:

B-but muh pretty white girls make mint selling themselves in the west so it's OK and not exploitative at all.

Wow, since when is Holla Forums in favour of abolishing the sex trade? A few months ago all you guys could talk about was "muh cummies."

Btw, do you have any literature you could recommend on this topic? I'm currently reading Rachel Moran's Paid For.

Banning prostitution doesn't stop this, as you can tell by the fact that it goes on in spite of a ban.

That study had tentative conclusions that in no way support the apocalyptic scenario you described.

This study concludes that decriminalizing selling and criminalizing purchasing of sex work is the most effective, which is not what you claim.

Legalizing sex work =/= legalizing child sex work. Part of the point of legalization is regulation and the ability to investigate the people doing this shit. Why do you trust the government to dutifully enforce a ban but don't trust it to dutifully investigate and regulate the same industry? And there's also human trafficking that involves slave labor in general (not just sex work), but you don't want to ban labor do you? Nobody talks about all the people who are trafficked for non-sex work but that's part of this system too.

Who said that labor in capitalism isn't exploitative at all? The argument has been that legalized prostitution is less exploitative than black market prostitution, and if we aren't going to have communism tomorrow then at least this could be a less shitty alternative.

This and a lot of other content looks like consensus cracking that waits for lull hours to make large threads with little disagreement.
And this is simply false.

It's true user, only a handful of people here were genuinely critical of the inherent harms of prostitution, most seemed to be okay with it.

Legalize then unionize. Make sure to focus especially hard on the latter.

Watch this please.

This too.

Makes you wonder why they didn't just unionise child laborers.

and finally this one.

Forget proofs, where are the arguments?

This is talking about "acting out pedophilic fantasies" with an adult who looks young. What is the relevance? They're not talking about trafficked children here. They're just saying certain kinds of sexuality is gross.

This doesn't just apply to sex work. It applies to being an internet persona in general, and it applies to getting involved in any scenario where you have unresolved past trauma. And this is also exactly the kind of thing that legalization would help fix. If someone's blackmailing you, that's a crime. If they're blackmailing you over something illegal you're doing, then you have no recourse while if you did nothing illegal then in theory you would have some protection.

There's a whole big topic to discuss here but you guys arguing for bans are making a lot of noise without saying much of anything.

OP is a retard

why can't I hold all these spooks

sex workers make no contribution in a society of collective, for use production and can only exist in production for exchange. All those screeching about it being the oldest job are wrong. It has existed only as long as the first class relations have existed, either under the subjugation of men due to superior physical strength or in slavering contracts.
most women in prostitution if given the option wouldn't be.
B-but sex work is work too
you try telling an economist that you fucking your fat wife for an hour or two is work, he will fucking laugh at you. In fact most people with common sense will.
Am I working too when I fuck the hooker? is she exploiting my surplus value? lmfao

Liberalism is a brain tumor.

It's called yellow unions - make a union which serves only to make exploitation looking more civilized than using it as a tool for fighting against employer.

TBH It's special, and mostly women engage in so called "sex work" (I hate this description) - it looks like this for centuries. It's because it's completely unnecessary, non-productive labor which aim is only to to provide bourgeois possibility to have sex with women if otherwise it would be without consent.
It's sexual domination of the bourgeois, in the shortest words possible.

It's not non productive, it provides use value to one party, which is why they exchange money to receive it. And the users of sex workers are overwhelmingly working class, with certain professions like truckers, sailors, and migrant workers being notorious for their whoring (because they are separated from their regular wives, gf, etc. for long periods of time). I don't see where you got the idea that it's to the benefit of the bourgeois.

That is a really bad analogy. Criminalizing prostitution doesn't mean you prevent people from having sex, it means you prevent people from buying and selling it. Honestly, involving money in sex and porn alike should be illegal. A better comparison would be bans against athletes throwing games for bribes, or professional sports as a whole.

Your entire mindset reminds me of lolbert arguments against anti-RMT/Pay2Win in vidya, or network neutrality, attempting to characterize such laws as "censorship" or "anti-innovation", when they're simply restrictions on money.

True, ruling class need prostutution only to make money, they don't consume this kind of cheap sex because thay already have thousands of women to their disposition.

Wonderful. What's her name? I didn't know her before.

If you make prostitution a co-op thing, or make them all public servants, you solve that issue though.

If you make capitalism co-op, does it make exploitation less captialist?

ITT: Shitty feminists that have contempt for poor people and threaten by prostitution because it will take away her pussy past tries to rationalize the continued prosecution of women and their families by the state and criminal gangs.

You’re the type that hates sex dolls to lol. You just want a monopoly on pussy and couldn’t give a fuck less about who that hurts

Capped & saved

That would still allow the perverse incentive of money directly into sex. Amateur cooperative public bordellos only.

I wonder how progressive, green, feminist and anarchist cooperative sex-labour industry would like in Third World. xD

Nice, emancipatory, sex-positive prostitution for 1st world bourgeois feminist, slavery for the rest.

She has internalized muhsogyny.
Or something.

Dunno what it means, I'm not feminist and don't know feminist rhetoric.

Its an avoidance tactic. They dont have to back up anything they say with facts or reason because any criticism of feminism is muhsoginy.

But since shes a woman its internalized muhsoginy.

Nice spooks nerd.
Meanwhile the abuse, tourture, kiddnaping and murder of sex workers and their families all due to it being illegal is very real.

If you’re against making prostitution legal then you need to making dating illegal too. And jail any woman that receives money for either the implicit or explicit promise of sex, i.e. dating.

That is not the case. Even you admit that both slavery and feudal mode of production allow existence of workers.

And that is up to society to decide, not you. Otherwise any and all jobs that deal with recreation will be abolished.

If it doesn't cost you anything to do, why?

It's far better to their owners do it legally, I guess.

What are you even talking about?

Correction it doesn’t cost WOMEN anything in terms of dollars
Compulsory schooling is fucking indoctrination, we had higher literacy rates without it, take off your flag you liberal.

Well not being persecuted by the state and gangs is better yes?

The only thing dumber than the "sex 'worker'" movement to spring from feminism is the idea of wages for housework and "emotional labor".


It's ultimate statement of bourgeois anarchism.

As in manifesto:


Are you autistic?

It's obviously if your employer is not persecuted by state, you'll profit on it. There's no classes and class conflit, our bosses are our friends . *_*


Catharine MacKinnon.



Not "sex workers" but ordinary prostitutes.

Goldman, Marx, Bakunin - all hyporcites, becuase they didn't see how capitalim benefot workers.

It's obvious that more free is capital, the more free are people.

let everyone start a company, the proletariat will cease to exist!!!11

To anarchy through self-employment in prostitution!
I can't believe what I'm fucking reading now.

Well, enjo-kōsai is a little different from "dating" as a whole. If there were some way to crack down on sugar daddies, I'd be right behind that.

Take that flag off and kys.

Yes they all advocated dogmatic adherence to their praxis. They always said never midigste capitalist exploitation ever ever. Lol

Prostitutions litterally own the means of production

How is it different. It’s litteraly exchanging sex for money. Unless the woman gives the sexual for absolutely free and always pays her own way. Even a single time not doing that would be an exchange of capital from one party to the other.

No. Means of production include everything necessary for creation of final product.

For example, pimp's connections to hotel staff can also function as MoP.

I’ve worked for a company for a long time. I’ve never been human trafficked or raped. Being legal comes with a lot of protections. You’re probably a reganite that was for weed prohibition too.

Split the bill, it's not the '50s anymore.

You don’t need a pimp if prostitution is legal. You can call the cops if a John doesn’t pay, or reck that johns reputation among all hookers. Plenty of hookers today work with out pimps all due to the internet

So read about how it's working in Third World. It changes perspective. And yes, women are raped and trafficed also in legal industry, and men are also slaves working in slavery conditions in legal industry.

If the bills not split at any point it’s prostitution is what I’m getting at. At least by your absolute spooks lol

You’re a fuckimg cunt that rather see poor sex workers get raped, beaten, trafficed, their kids molested and murder them give one iota of privilege you’re pussy pass and monopoly on pussy gives you. I’m done with you, hope your ass gets black bagged one day and you get to experience first had the life of a sex slave.

It's not prohibition, it's abolition.


Which is impossible in the capitalist system. Trafficking is already illegal yet it still happens because there is profit involved and trafficking organizations have the reasources to circumvent the law.

Yeah, it's being great anarchist progressive perspective to help their bosses make legal buissness easrier and accumulate more capital. It'l obvioulsy make working conditions of people better. What idiot would think about class struggle? Anarchocapitalism FTW!

Actually, you don't have any. It's typical rhetoric of some mafia agitators like you to attack, riddicule and discredit anyone who's trying to say that 1st world self-employed entrepreneur can't be a representant of the proletariat's interest in the 3rd world.

You’re a fucking cunt that would rather see poor sex workers get raped, beaten, trafficed, their kids molested and murdered then to give one iota of privilege you’re pussy pass and monopoly on pussy gives you. I’m done with you, hope your ass gets black bagged one day and you get to experience first hand the life of a sex slave.

Yes. My point is different.

I repreat: typical rhetoric of mafia agitator. Only people that want to fight mafia nad sex-industrial cartels want to "workers get raped, beaten, trafficed, their kids molested and murdered". Their bosses want the best for them. Capitalists want only make legal money, that's all. Don't force them to enslave the workers, let them employ them legally and they'll not enslave.

I'm sorry, but if that is your position, than not arguing for blowing up factories to stop exploitation would make you a hypocrite.

Actually working conditions would be great if working unions and state would not opress capitalists and make them operate easier, without regulation. xD
Anarchism is capitalism! I found new feminist, sex-positive ideology. xD

The difference is that factories produce commodities, and they're necessary for the production process. Prostitutes produce nothing, their reason of being is pure subjugation.

What about hairdressers? Singers? Actors?

I've already expressed opinion on this:

Production without production system (ie. factories) would be impossible. But what would be impossible without prostitution? Cheap sex labour of children in 3rd world for wealthy bourgeois travellers? Or what?

Friedrich Engels - Condition of the Working Class in England, 1845

Yeah, it's really good to be prostitute in capitalism. All w need is more prostitutes.

That's what you call recreation?

Their reason for being is to satisfy a demand and this is true of both trafficked and "voluntary" prostitutes. Making this illegal, as it already is in many places, does not abolish prostitution as it continues as a black market. This leads to issues such as pimps threatening to turn in hookers if they try to stop and hookers getting raped without anything happening to the rapist. Decriminalization and sucdem is a far better short-term option to advocate under capitalism as it allows current and would-be prostitutes a viable alternative to prostitution. Of course this should be abolished with capitalism, but even if all leftists were able to unify we do not have the resources to do that at this time.

Even if, when it's in black market is smaller and weakier capital than in legalized market. Then, it's easier to destroy completely.

That's what I'll call strawmanning.

Your arguments are applicable to a wide spectrum of human activity and are not limited to sex. I.e. you are either trying to shut down any and all entertainment, or you do not support your own arguments.

Which is it?

In the easiest way: society needs entertainment, don't needs prostitution? Could I state it simplier?

There’s more sex slaves now than at any point in history. It’s nice that your something concerned with the well being of current sex worker said that you’re willing to table their liberation from brutal violence until after the revolution.

Of courrse, becuase we don't do nothing to sotp this capital, only to legalize it.

You’re the Mafia agitator you dumb cunt. Mafiaos WANT illegal prostitution you fuckimg sheltered cunt.
Gangs make money on ILLEGAL crimes, so if something is made legal THEY CANT MAKE MONEY ON IT.


Radical Muslims think that society doesn't need music and chess. Too exciting.

Where should I draw the line between "reasonable" and "batshit crazy"?

On this I agree to be perfectly honest. There's nothing wrong with regulated, protected legal prostitution. Prostitutes get some protection like the rest of the proles, the government can tax it and criminal organizations have their funds cut. A win-win for me.

That’s what im saying ya basic bitch. They only persecute the sex workers because they are the most vulnerable. A vulnerability they wouldn’t have if it were legal.
Even amensty international agrees.

Except prostitution is still widely illegal, with trafficking being almost universally illegal, and it has persisted for a very long time regardless. Trafficking is difficult to crack down on but if victims could go to the popo without fear of being arrested then it is a slight improvement over being in fear of both the trafficker and the police. This would also help the voluntary prostitutes, those evil first world white girls like pic related, by removing legal threat and combined with some socdem half-measures could give them a viable alternative to prostitution.


Pretty sure it's just instrumental music. Simple percussion and vocals are permitted, which is what the majority of music was before the advent of recording and the widespread proliferation of instrumental knowledge.
I've got no idea where this idea comes from. The Middle East is filled with all manner of games.

We could legslize it so these sex workers could work outside the criminal underground. And their children wouldn’t be roped into the trade in a endless cycle of sexual exploitation. But you know better all seeing first world white woman, they should just wait for the revoultion! Tee hee

Not really. The buisness which grows up on this conditions is largely legal. It's usually legal forms of entrproses like agencies, massage salons, hotels, etc. Sex industry is mostly legal and lobbying in the left political side is to make it even more legal.

The grand mufti is a senile old man. He said that Israel was a Muslim country.

It's bullshit because their employers will be still the same. It's not like slaves could not be slaves if their employers would be legal emplorers, for fucks sake. Legalizing of sex industry is alternative only for people that were not slaves before. It makes only incease of number of prostitution but not decrease in trafficing. There're solid scientific data that supports this claim and I don't know why we're still discussing it.

Not sure troll or idiot?

Iraqi Shias:

If they are that able to find legal workarounds, then they will do so to almost any law passed. In the off chance you do manage to pass a law that makes a dent, they will go underground and thrive just like the drug trade.

Hey dumb cunt that thinks prostitution prohibition will let her keep her pussy pass power.
Sexbots are coming next year and will absolutely destroy the demand for all forms of casual sex be it from hookers or girlfriends.
Your disgusting bootlicking for criminal violence and state prosecution of some of the poorest women in the world will net you nothing and you and your feminist brethren will go down in history as being oevery bit as bigoted and ugly as slavers, and segregationists. Mark my words.

Amnesty isn't class struggle organization and it's wrong. Legalization and deregulation of employers never work well for employees.


1) Not female and 2) not 1st world.

But making it illegal does lol. Compare the working conditions to legal and illegal brothels before opening your ignorant mouth.

Really makes you think.

Damn so you’re more spooked than I thought. You’re dumber than a Nazi, at least Nazis are white

I heard all this dumb social media arguments before, you dumb broads wore that “you hate women if you disagree with me” bullshit long ago.

Lol and you wonder why everyone hates the left


I thought you had all this fucking concern for sex workers. If sex bots destroy all the demand for sex workers then women and children all around the world will cease being trafficked.
That rekts your pussy pass, better outlaw sex bots. Lol cause it will cause men to rape, better to have an underground sex slave economy instead.

uh, sweetie : )

Hey dumb cunt I'm just worried about you, dumb cunt, I want to just fuck sex dolls dumb cunt

I look after women dumb cunt

What fucking scientific data have you produced. I cited the amnesty international study, and Germany has had legal prostitution for decades and it’s woking pretty much as expected.

Is basic bitch better, come on she’s trolling like crazy. Inserting her feels into everything instead you know arguments.


I won’t use the c word the. :(


That's not an acceptable way to talk about these bitches.

Women is a spook. Prostitution prohibition creates sex slaves and child sex slaves. Full stop.
Making it legal would end this. Full stop

Kroptokin relied on it quite a bit for his geographocal and writing Mutual Aid.

It is in my best interest to see both adult sex slaves and child sex slaves from being full stop.

I agree that sex work is pretty fucking old and banning it is pointless, it just makes a market for all sorts of shady shit to make it possible. I just popped by to talk about how everyone is saying what's best for women's self interest while saying
>"You hysterical bitches, you don't understand, you mother of cunts, I swear to you"

I did that because she was walking all over anyone that’s was polite.

And she called me a mafia apologist, that triggered me.

Real talk, does anyone disagree that sophisticated sexbots coming out next year will destroy not only demand for sex workers but sex with women outside of marriage in gereral. And all those expolitation wrapped around sex will resolve itself.
Should we be advocating the use purchase as use of sex bots? Maybe creating open source sex bots to keep the money from being commodities?
If you don’t thin sex bots will solve this problem, why not?
I personally do.

It won't destroy the need for prostitutes because it simply cannot replicate the types of responses human beings are capable of yet, and the technology won't have the investment necessary to ever get to that point.

People will always fuck people because people are warm, and are capable of minutia we aren't capable of recreating. Nails light scratching or digging into your back, legs buckling under pressure, the smell of cigarette smoke lightly on the breath, flipping someone over, getting flipped over, nothing really is capable of being recreated.

Not only will these be expensive, but nobody is interested in the market except for people who are virgins who think the most sex is, amounts to thrusting your pelvis randomly until climax.

No, it will simply further the divide between the sexual proletariat and sexual bourgeoisie, as the skyrocketing SNLT (Socially Necessary Lewdness Threshold) forces the quest for ever more exotic and expensive realistic shittingdicknipples sexbots.

From Holla Forums with love:
Armed Ninja Hacks In And Steals $5000 Sex Doll

ITT: People who have never interacted with sex workers before confusing forced human trafficking with prostitution and arguing that workers should be punished because their job offends puritanical morality
under capitalism almost no one has a choice in what job they do. Singling out prostitution makes you a hypocrite.

What do you say when SEX WORKERS THEMSELVES talk of enjoying their careers and that prostitution shouldn't be shamed.

I think the warmth is already being worked on, and the nail scratching and other stuff where the doll would need to move on it’s own aren’t far away.
I made the distinction to exclude sex within a marriage which yes I agree a emotionally intimate sex session a doll would never be able to simulate, but I’m talking about casual sex.
Which right now casual non committed sex is the majority of sex happening right now. Married couples don’t really have sex generally.

Have you been with a hooker, most hookers don’t do that. It’s called the girlfriend experience and only the best hookers can do it convincingly. It just Donne day on me sex bot will make even high end escorts work harder.

The first footman of the beta uprising.

And we're not at a point where these things are less expensive than prostitutes. This just sounds like a terrible kick starter like, fucking Juiceroo

Maybe there would be a brief period where this would be popular but all this shit brings up other taboos. Would it just be straight? What about a gay or a lesbian sex bot?

Just how is the market for this going to advance, and just how will it not make human trafficking to poorer regions who can't afford these things worse

A lot of you are being naive, Instead of relying on Silicon Valley for your sexual appetites why not just legalize prostitution because it's had value since the dawn of time. And you're making the world probably more dangerous for prostitutes even if this were possible in the near future, which defeats the purpose of it trying to make them more safe.

Finally, someone sane.

Wow, yeah, no jobs should be illegal, no matter how unpleasant or completely unnecessary being allowed to pay somebody for it is, especially if it's something most people do for free, all jobs are just the same. No perverse incentives there. Certainly nothing wrong with people being forced to do those certain jobs in tight labor markets.


If it has value, it has value, it has labor value. You really think you can just ban prostitution and it'll be chill. Everything will be alright.

It has never worked out that way.

Plus like I've said, because of their position in relation to class, sex workers are some of the most class conscious people I've ever met.

How would sex bots make being a hooker more dangerous?
This is demonstrably false. You can find ads right now for sex doll rentals on Craigslist and they are half the price of a real escort.
China and Brazil have already tried setting up sex doll brothels and they were shut down by angry sex workers.
Economies of scale.


Why do you think sex bots are bullshit. You sound like someone in the 90s Thinking Internet shoppimg is bullshit. “Why would I buy something I can’t see in real life” lol

We should bring back sacred prostitution from Babylonian times

Because if the rich can simply buy a sex bot to fuck, that crashes the market for prostitutes pretty fucking heavily. And nothing about this would be as shady as it is if, you know, it was understood it has a Value.

We just have a moral taboo on sex. And sex bots would also create even more of a tabboo because everyone has different needs, wants, kinks. Lesbian sex bots, gay sex bots, fuck futa sex bots.

The list of interests goes on, and all of this would be prohibitively expensive, cutting off sex workers from clients they might rely on. This assumes the technology is actually as functional as you claim it will be. And I have serious doubts about that. Whenever you expect something in the future to form, it's best to have the lowest expectations

I just don't see it. I see this as being more trouble than its worth. Worsening the problems illegal sex work has, creating a more dangerous environment for them, defeating the purpose of a highly expensive sex bot as a "safe solution to prostitution".

We need to focus on the labor of sex workers before we jump dick first into potential consequences that are being overlooked.

Not quite, while there are some like that asian girl who pulled endnotes out of a gucci box or the hooker anfem, libertarians have been far more successful making inroads with hookers and as such they are more likely to be lolberts than comrades. Porn stars seem to be largely liberal, probably because they are legally protected in their main occupation than hookers, though a good number of pornstars escort on the side. To me this is the result of a failure of the left to reach a segment ripe for radicalization, but the left has been atrocious at this since before i was born.

Do not speak fucking ill of comrade Tai-Jin

The rich won’t have a monopoly on sex bots, economies of scale and China will see Tom that

Economics of scale won't cover the mechanics involved in something you think would be as intricate as it is. Cars may be needed, but they are still expensive.

Something this jam packed with motors and heaters and cooling systems and computing, responding, all of this would be extremely expensive regardless.


How would people more widely indulging in these kinks create more of a taboo. Maybe it would for deadenders but for everyone else no.
Why are you only concerned with the interests of sex workers? What sex workers are selling is a scam, a put on, the simulacra of a sexually intimate experience, when it’s really just letting someone masterbait inside of you. What about what’s in the best interest of men. If your going to form a bond with someone or something that cant or won’t care for you back, it’s best that it’s on your terms. And for every high end escort that gets put out of business many sex slaves will be liberated when the market they serve dries up.

Now this I would pay money to see

Wouldn't legalization shift them straight from lumpen to petite-bourg? Literally the two second most counterrevolutionary classes.

Maybe not in Europe, but elsewhere? America? I mean television can't even show gay relationships out of fear of international and intranational controversy.

Because they have labor value? I'm going to defend a worker, regardless of their job, more than I am going to defend an automated replacement.

Something this jam packed with motors and heaters and cooling systems and computing, responding, all of this would be extremely expensive regardless.
Cars are litterally this though. And no that’s not true. Sophisticated robots aren’t prohibitive because of engineering limitations, they’re prohibitively expense because of capitalism. If scores of men are willing to make these robotics profitable then porky will see to it that the needed engineering challenges are over come.

I think it is not relevant to anything.

Even if your magic sexbots will arrive (which they will not; and not for affordable prices for a decade), then proletariat will simply find another employment to wageslave - or die starving.

Nothing had changed.

Not any more than an artist that sells for high demand. It's murky, and they technically aren't. I mean, the need would be to eliminate pimps out of the equation

Snake oil takes labor to create too, but it never had value even if consumers and the market said it did. Some with hookers, the value they produced is dubious at best. And if sex bots aren’t a viable alternative then what the harm of letting men choose.

Prostitution has had a market for over a thousand years.

Petit-Bourgeoisie is inherently endangered by progress.

To put it more simply: someone will start centralizing hookers one way or another. Once individuals will no longer be competitive with the organized service, they will become Proletariat - employed to work for wage.

What will have changed isn’t the de facto end of human sex trafficing. Sex industries have lead the way in the development of critical technologies. Porn companies pinoneered online payment systems and video streaming. Sex not industries will ultimately pioneer woker bots that can do human labor. You laugh but look up the history of videos streaming and online credit card payments.

*what will have changed is the

More than that, doesn’t mean they produced value. Or much value. Mud pies anyone?

There's a demand for sex, not for mud pies

Sex has value. Sex is labor.

*sex bot industries

No one says sex work is work, the thing is there'd be no prostitutes if you feminists actually put out for average and below average men.

That's why feminist prostitutes are the most annoying thing ever. You are complaining about a problem you are causing.

How does sex work have value. You’re just using someone’s own sex drive against them for money. Paid sex isn’t nourishing in anyway for either party. Paid sexy is equivalent to junk food, of very little value, just fleeting satiating of human drives intending to keep you commg back.

How are you going to centralize away indie ass? It's literally what everybody's mama gave 'em!

I don't know, ask the centuries upon centuries upon centuries upon centuries of it having value.

Congratulations to this user, for being awarded the golden shit, for expressing the worst opinion in the thread.

There’s a demand for intimacy not the simulacrum that paid sex provides. Just like there’s demand for real pies, but immature children can make real pies so they settle for a vulgar simulacrum.

I wasn't, I was merely pointing out that commie hookers are outnumbered by lolbert hookers. She seems alright, but from what I've seen the lebansese escort is hotter.

Private property has had centuries of value, you think that legitimate too?

*cant make real pies

Yes, but there's also demand for simply getting your dick wet, whether or not it's healthy or good has nothing to do with whether or not a commodity or a service has value

The value is completely different, you would argue better if you said Pimps were more akin to this.

Read Marx

People want to get their dick wet because they’d are so alienated from real intimacy with a woman. Is there any John alive that would continue frequenting hookers if he had the opportunity to be in a marriage with a loving beautiful woman?
This whole guys just want their dick wet is feminist “all men are rapist”#metoo horseshit.

Fusion reactors? Nanotubes? Genetic engineering?

Yeah. Sure. Capitalists had been promising fully automated capitalism REAL SOON since the 1950s, but not sex bots will change everything.

Pardon for being unimpressed.

Is it though, you’re renting both ie pussy or land.

Consumerism like this puts tech in the hands of proles. See personal computers, yes it will be a struggle but a struggle that can ultimately be one, see the open source movement, but the tech has to be in people homes privately owned first.

Explain to me how property value )which is worked for by no one) is similar to prostitution where said prostitute has labor value stolen by a boss. Really go ahead I'm interested in hearing how this works.

Because Marx has a complete different understanding of value-form than you do.

Consumerism over the safety of labor, the great wonders of capitalism.

But not access to clients.

Also, you might require expensive licences, for example. I.e. bribe someone to make independent prostitution illegal.

I want my FoxConn expensive fuckbot that endangers sex workers because it cuts them off from sources of income for their boss, and I want it now.

Give me it Silicon Valley, Give me it Capitalism

I miss the old board vollunteers, the old ones were actually anti-feminist

In theory what you say isn’t true, but in practice nuh uh.
All prostitution take s to two people with gentians and cash. You can’t realistically control that dynamic, and no state has successfully done it to any degree.

*what you say is true

Capitalism will save us in the end!!

Which prove what?

I'm sorry, are you seriously arguing for some sort of AnCapism?

Damn straight, better that a few hot courtesans get off their ass and get real jobs then have an entire underground sex economy filled with sex slaves both adult and children.("Give me expensive consumer tech products, Silicon Valley" is not really the best way to win favor here. For future reference)

Humans are creative. So far most professions became organized (socialized, in Marxist terms),

I see no reason for paid sex to be an exception. Worst case scenario: aforementioned sex bots will industrialize it.

all the old volunteers are still there.

How is the pussy not personal property?

Computers were restricted for use by porky until they we’re liberalized by the personal computer revolution.
The internet has been around since at least the 70s. Banks have been wiring money on a packet internet like network since then.
But you and I didn’t get to use this powerful tool until now.
Same with robots, sex bots will be stupid profitable, so porky won’t be able to resist liberalizing robotic tech, once that happens the real value this tech can produce will be harnessed by proles. Please read a history book.>>2300982

I think Marx and Engels said some shit about automation of the work force……

If only the true spirit of socialism were to triumph, and the whole exploitative industry were scabbed away by heroic amateur volunteers!

Do you want to go to gulag that badly?

Because you’re making money off of it.


Read Marx and you'll understand what the argument is about.

Quit being spooked, they lived before the era of modern consumerism.
There’s ton of scientific breakthrough we could litteral collectively leverage right now, nothing not even porky stopping us. It was freakin impossible to source industrial equipment in their day.

Lol no

Larpers… Larpers never change.

I'm sorry, it's hard to take this as some great revelation.

Which would require Revolution, not a visit to a shop.

You can't rent your pussy because it's not alienable from your body. You are providing a service, not renting yourself out.

Lmao are you virgin?

Larpers… Larpers never change.

As a matter of fact I am!

That doesn't make their commentary any less valid.

You can’t pull this tech out of your ass. Once it’s there in front of you then you can struggle for control over it. Dumbasses like your shit all over Linux because, “lol private property laws will never allow it”and now look, 99% of the internet is run by a de facto collectively owned property. Desktop and just locally run oss are irrelevant, honestly when the last time you ran an app that wouldn’t lose all it’s practically use with aleast a connect to a cloud service. You get all your patches mailed to you?

It makes it incomplete though

Not really? Marx goes in depth about both Automation and Value, Market Value, Labor Value

All of it fits still today. Surprisingly so actually.

Private property renter don’t produce value. A landlord doesn’t produce value but still gets rent because they own property.
A hooker doesn’t produce value but can still get rent for her pussy. It’s just that a hookers ownership of her pussy isn’t an abstraction upheld by the state.
You just don’t want to see it because of muh oppressed proletariat

*Private property rentier class

Did he ever talk about liberalization of technology? How were the Viet Cong able to defeat the US Army, but the US Army BTFOd the Native Americans. Wasn’t because one was smarter than the other.

Yes because turning prostitutes into criminals is an amazing cure to human trafficking. You're a moron.

Banning private property is fascist?

Because Vietnam, for all its horrors, was about subduing the country. The Indian Wars were about exterminating it.

Guerilla tactics don't work very well when the populace you hide amongst is being marched into mass graves and replaced.

Sexbots are proof that sex workers don’t produce anything of value. If your industry is threatened by a clumsy marionette you never had an industry to begin with. The prostitution industry is right there along side the gambling industry and fast food industry in terms of enterprises that’s produce no value.

Bullshit, they were going to colonize it, which is why they modernized South Vietnam, look up “The construction miracle”modernization of south Vietnam was litterally the largest construction project ever until
The 3 gorges damn in China.
They couldn’t use nukes because of the USSR, and got BTFOd because the USSR gave them AKs, which were actually surpior riflescope to what the army had until the M16.

Read Marx, faggot

I have read Marx, sex workers don’t fulfill a need. Like junk food doesn’t fulfill hunger.

I hope you aren't pretending that the US (or any post-WWII imperialist power) intended to perform a full ethnic replacement?

Nukes are hardly necessary to wipe out an entire country, the old-fashioned way works just as well. Look at something like modern wars in Central Africa, where the Geneva Convention isn't even given symbolic respect.

How is producing s product that’s designed to keep you returning back to the market something of value. Do casinos produce value according to Marx? What value are they producing, it’s not entertainment. No body is entertained by being in a building with flashing lights.

Did you read what I wrote? All you've done is gloriously support my point.

Why are they getting paid then, Einstein?

The intention isn’t realavant, they WOULD have nuked Vietnam and therefore caused a geniocide if they could have gotten away with it. The US Air Force practically did cause a genocide in Korea during the Korean War. And no the old ways don’t work as well as nukes.
You know my father was actually a part of a backpack nuke team. Meaning he was trained to carry a nuke the size of a backpack and set it off behind enemy lines. Basically a suicide bomber because that’s nuke was set to go off whether he got away or not. You telling me weapons platforms like that weren’t intended to create holocosts.

Why the shit sellers getting paid? Why university philosophers and sysadmins? If you don't produce it means only your work is social fiction used to mask unemployment, not that everything you do have material value for satisfying someone's needs.

I thought price and value weren’t the same thing. Like I said people used to pay for snake oil.

Except if you'd read Marx you'd know that utility is a precondition for exchange value. Sex is only commodifiable because it fulfills a need.
And this is besides the point. Class conflict isn't the struggle between the "true" workers and everyone else, i's the struggle between the unpropertied class (the proletariat) against the propertied classes (capitalists and landowners), and prostitues are just as unpropertied as the rest of the proletariat. They are literally selling their bodies.

I'm sorry, who are you replying to? Because your post has nothing to do with what I said. Try reading what Marx means by value

You were saying hurr durr you’re a capitalist apologist if you think consumerism is good in anyway.
All I said is that in the past it’s helped liberalize tech and one liberalized the tech became collectively owned and I cited Linux as an example. You’re the one that’s strawmanning people that booty bother you as anti Marxist if they hurt your fee fees,

You're right and this user misses the existence of atrificialy constructed, unproductive labor - popular especially in the modern West.

Yes, but capitalism not only fulfulls a need, but also construct new needs. And this kind of needs, need to buy commodified sex, differs in it's nature from natural sexual impulse common to all living things.
What you write makes sense only if we we assume that sex in prostitution is generally the same as sex as such - which I disagree. sex in prostitution is a form of organized abuse and sex as such is not.

Okay look do you agree that snake oil is bullshit? That it had not medicinal value? So what NEED did it ever furfill. People were FOOLED into thinking it fulfilled a need but it did not.
People don’t NEED to be fooled god damn, some commodities aren’t commodities at all and are just bullshit sheesh, paid sex is one of those, just like junk food.

100% right, user. It's just like if people in US eat tons of sugar in bread it don't means they need to do it and that they somehow have need to be obese after excess of calories.
Saying that we want to stop producing mischievous bread is not saying that we want people stop eating bread or even eating at all. And saying that we want to stop prostitution is not saying we want to stop people from having sex FFS

Wow you really swallowed the kool aid concerning that didn't you

No, not really. Sex with prostitutes is different than sex with a partner, or even casual sex, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it does fulfil a need for sex, otherwise no one would pay for it. Since we have now established that sex is a commodity under capitalism, and will likely always be so, now comes the question of how we support the workers who produce this commodity and are exploited, and the obvious answer is to legalise or at least decriminalise sex work so that they can be unionised and get legal support.

Without prostitution how do you keep the ugly section of society sexually satisfied?

Again, I think a better analogy for prostitution is pro sports. If you take the money out of it, how does that hurt the consumers or the producers?

My arguing that sex workers don’t produce value isn’t intended to be seeds being for making sex work illegal.
I’m very pro making sex work legal, the pros outweigh the cons and the only people it truly hurts are feminist s that’s we’re crypto commodifying heir own sexuality (which is a Nice bonus for me).
Regardless it is valueless, much like junk food. Our sex drive is a primal drive that’s hardwired into humans (yes human nature) and sex workers exploit that.
In the same way junk food makers said exploit our hardwired seeking out of sugar and salt because those are both needed nutrients and very rare to find in nature.

Careful there's a feminist mod roaming about, don't say anything naughty guyz

I can't speak for the moral fiber of prostitutes, but camgirls are literally demons

Something exploiting your primal urges doesn't make it valueless, it just exacerbates and reproduces the demand for the commodity. Exploitative? Kinda. Valueless? No.

I agree that prostitutes can be on the left, but only if they openly admit to exploiting men in the way that you mentioned

You’re not furfilling a need or even a want, you’re fooling someone into THINKING your product or service has.
If you want a gold ring and I sell you a fake one that’s not furfilling a need.

It’s valueless because you were purposefully fooled into thinking it fulfills a want or need.
Let’s tske Casinos, what want or need are they furfilling, you telling me people would pay several dollars a minute to stare at a screen or roll plastic dice?

Oh dish!

Famalams, how the fuck are the prostitutes exploiting the men. It's not their fault people feel the need to buy sex, they have no involvement in their lives beyond the commodity they produce. Blaming sex workers for the sex industry existing is like blaming farmers for the tobacco industry existing.
As for "muh valueless", fucking read Marx. Utility is a precondition for exchange value. If you want to blame someone for people "being fooled" into thinking they need sex, blame the sex industry, not its workers.
Now fuck off with your /r9k/ shit

True, I was wrong, but feminist prostitutes… feminists are not entirely, but very responsibe for the shortage of women willing to fuck below average men or average men

That's not an r9k opinion

incels deserve a place on leftypol see image

some prostitutes do fulfill a need-they provide emotional labor for their clients ie they act like a shoulder to cry on.

I can't even afford prostitutes where I live, so I generally don't care about prostitutes until they lower their exploitative, petit-bourgie prices down from $400 per hour to $20-40 per hour

Nigga no one care about your bullshit spooks, you facilitate something your culpable, I don’t give a fuck if capitalism made you do it, don’t think that that rationalization is a spook just replace the word capitalism with “the devil”and it’s the same excuses.
Fuck yes tobacco farmer are responsible for the tobacco industry, where the fuck does the tobacco come from?
So if I stab your ass and jack your shit I’m sure you’ll feel the same way right. I have to pay rent don’t you know, I couldn’t pay it so I had to victimize you but I’m not really at fault the devil err I men’s porky made me do it!

So again what fucking utility doesn’t snake oil furfill, because people sure as shit paid for it.
Fuck off back to Reddit your cucked feminist liberal. See I can’t cast baseless asspersions too. Take your weak ass shit outta my face.


The ground, and literally everyone can grow it if they got the right ground. The problem isn't the people who grow the tobacco, it's the companies that buy it and the companies that own the land. Do you really think some farmer in a 3rd world country is complicit in whatever it is some billion dollar tobacco cartel does? They're just labour, and if you don't get that I suggest you read Marx.

People pay for snake oil because they are made to believe it has utility. You can argue that prostitution is "valueless" all day but it's not gonna stop people from seeking the services of a prostitute. So long as there is a demand for something it will be produced and commodified to fulfil that demand. That's not gonna change any time soon. As socialist we should work to support and organise the workers who produce the commodity and are exploited in its production.

They may not be the majority, but they are the ones the social media left is recruiting, and you can see it on leftbook.

How,do I,join leftbook

there's an entire FB group dedicated to defending sex "workers".

Have a feminist virtue signaling ball

also protip, half of the feminist hooker openly admit to hating men and johns

my love for jeremy corbyn increases day by day

I sometimes can't tell the difference btw tories and tumblerinas

Who needs prostitutes where we are going we have jetpacks!

All communists agree that prostitution will be abolished with capitalism, I don't think that is controversial unless you're a retarded marksuc. The issue becomes what to do during capitalism, which is the debate we're having and where things stop being so clear cut. Prostitution is already illegal in much of the world, yet it continues on in the form of trafficking and "voluntary" hookers, like the anfem and Tai-Jin mentioned here. If banning prostitution doesn't work, and I think the evidence shows that it doesn't, the question becomes what measures will curtail trafficking and which will help make things better for the "voluntary" hookers. I'd say decriminalization of soliciting is one solution, it could allow trafficking victims to go the police without fear of being jailed, though relying on the police to do something right isn't a good idea, and it would help the "voluntary" ones not get harassed by popo. Unfortunately decriminalization doesn't go far enough, trafficking will still happen because it makes money and criminal organizations have the resources to deal with legal issues and "voluntary" hookers will still take dick because it pays significantly better than the shit jobs available for 20-somethings. I don't have any idea how to deal with criminal organizations beyond abolishing capitalism, trusting the police to deal with them is foolish because pigs are willing to be paid off and they've got a lot of resources anyways. When it comes to the "voluntary" hookers, I think socdem polices could help and most of this board seems comfortable pushing some degree of socdem when revolution is improbable and it coincides with self-interest, if berniecrat polices were implemented, the reasons why a lot of young people turn to prostitution would be gone so we'd see them get normal shit jobs. This of course doesn't solve it completely, you will see some who prefer to prostitute to pay for drugs or because it's better compensation than a decent paying job, but it would make a dent in it.

With the above in mind, I'm going to disagree with Paul here, we should be focusing on decriminalization along with pushing for socdem reforms where appropriate instead of advocating for banning. This serves two purposes, the first is that it seems to work better for prostitutes and the proletariat in general than advocating for banning, especially when you consider playing bourgeois politics for banning would almost certainly require allying with conservative liberals who would be hostile to socdem polices and instead favor lolbert polices that have been disastrous in yuropoor. The second is because while it is unlikely the left will have much impact in a national election in almost any country, we can use the visibility to target people for radicalization similar to targeting disaffected berniebros after the democratic primary or how Corbyn is doing in the UK. Specifically I'm talking about the 15% of college students that at least consider prostitution, there is a very good chance that most of the collegefags here know someone in that 15%, a number that high shouldn't be ignored and we should make it clear that we care about the economic situation putting them in the position to prostitute and that we are interested in creating alternatives to that choice while supporting those that are in it. If we say that it needs to be banned we risk pissing off that 15%, those sympathetic to them, former "voluntary" prostitutes, and those former "voluntary" hookers' friends and family who know about it. Now while banning could earn us some goodwill with others, I think it isn't a bet worth hedging seeing as social conservatives hate commies and will be the ones most likely to take the banning position outside of certain sects of feminists.


except it existed before capitalism. And in bonobos.

You'd need re-socialization programs

in communism to achieve that.

No you need to end the conditions that give rise to prostitution, namely class hierarchy and money. Since socialism will abolish that, it will be abolished with capitalism in the same way advertising or banking will be.

bonobos don't have money either

also you'd have to abolish social hierarchy, which is acheivable in socialism, but not necessarily a part of socialism

Then it's not prostitution as we understand it.
Class hierarchy is indeed abolished with socialism.

This man is a hero.

Trading goods for pussy is prostitution. If it weren't whores would do like japs do with pachinko and get paid in trinkets which the clients would have to purchase from their pimp.

By this logic, a girl fucking me after I buy her a drink is prostitution. It's absurd to compare prostitution to bonobos sharing sugar after sex.

Bit that is prostitution, she wouldn’t have slept with you had you not purchased her a commodity. Honestly this really needed to be faced, dating the way we do it is prostitution. To truly foster intimacy both parties need to be peers, and that means paying for everything yourself.

Why do we seem to have this same retarded thread monthly? Why is it always sex-work, why isn't some other equally or more shitty job brought up? Why do the arguments seem to amount to: "sex-work is bad, therefor we shouldn't try to make it better, we should try to do the impossible and abolish under capitalism"? It seems like moralism about sex being sold than it being a genuine concern for the worker.

If it was one drink she's cheap, if it were plenty that's rape user.


No it isn't, otherwise bars and restaurants are actually brothels. Buying a woman a drink or taking her to dinner is a mating ritual so to speak, it isn't prostitution as we understand it and expanding prostitution to encompass dating strains the concept to having no meaning.

Spooks, thirst, and the hooker anfem.

I don't want to brag but she would have fucked me anyways, she just wanted to do something after work and it was either drink or go to a movie and nothing good was out.

read feminist circles on twitter and tumblr and you'll get the picture

You are beginning to take the leftypill, yes it is prostitution in that case

: D

When it involves bartering or money for sex, yea that's prostitution dude. And no realizing that 99.9% of sexual encounters with women with prostitution doesn't weaken the definition of prostitution, it just weakens your view of women.

Welcome to the matrix user

No it isn't and stretching prostitution to that length renders it meaningless.

nah it just means you are realizing that all interactions with women is prostitution

you are learning my trainee

cuz the mods started anchoring any other sexuality threads, they come up all the time but are anchored

Buying someone a drink is basically foreplay. If you give someone a back rub before they fuck you, is that prostitution? Picking apart the fine details of reciprocal human interaction and comparing that to people who fuck for a job is honestly an insult to prostitutes.

only if they wouldn't have sex with you without the backrub, think man

That implies the other person wouldn't fuck you without the drink, movie, dinner, or whatever else is part of the date. Dates cost money because in our capitalist system doing anything costs money, by your retarded logic the only sex that isn't prostitution is if a couple stay home and fuck, and even then that doesn't count id someone pays more of the bills.

Yea a lot of women want you to get past some kind of barrier to have sex with her, usually exchanging a service in exchange for sex. Bascially prostitution.

We don't live in a polymorphous woodstock festival of sex. IT's usually just men exchanging stuff for sex.

But if she's not in the mood to have sex she won't have sex. Like, a prostitute will fuck me if I pay, but the same person also might fuck me in a non-prostitute capacity if we started dating.

what's your point?

Yeah and men also expect women to cross a given barrier. It's just not the same one (gib stuf pl huehuehue) - women are expected to doll themselves up with makeup and clothes to be sexy for men. There are expectations that cost money for both parties. And we're not even mentioning non-straight people.

That the presence of reciprocal transaction in proximity to sex doesn't = prostitution. People engage in transactions of all kinds all the time, and that is not the same thing as buying/selling.

I mean yeah bars are kinda brothels. They’ve been referred to meats markets since forever, that comes from some recognition of that. Why does courtship require commodity exchange from the man to the woman. Unless you unironically think men buy things for women to just be friends lol

Wanting to go on a date or get a drink before fucking isn't the same thing as prostitution, it's a mating ritual. When we speak of prostitution, we specifically mean exchanging sex for money because that's what current legal issues and questions of trafficking are about, stretching it to make most interactions prostitution is useless pedantry.

They aren't though, they're much closer to a social hall.
Sounds like you're a shit friend. I buy my friends booze or food all the time and they do the same, even the women.

If you find a woman that isn’t like this and you aren’t a Chad you cling to her like death!
It’s not the money that’s the problem, it’s the commodity exchange, if you went on a date that didn’t cost money, like a walk, or each party paid for themselves everything then no, but that just doesn’t happen.

Yeah but purchasing them food or booze isn’t a prerequisite, also when you first got to know them was there’s an expectation on you to pay for their food and drinks while you got to know them.

That's broadly true. Even though men no longer need to provide for women the idea is still very concretely there in US culture where the man should exchange something in order to get sex/relationship. Sex/relationships are one of the few things commodified under Capitalism that was never free in the first place. It's a bit disturbing to see many, possible most relationships, especially traditional ones, are heavily infused with a sense of prostitution even though it's no longer strictly necessary. Not to go robot-tier, but it seems like women in modern society have turned an aspect heavily disadvantageous to them (needing a man to survive at all) into a privilege.

This is also a good point. There's not just a buyer, there's also a seller. It's not necessarily as one-sided as it might look.

We're not just talking about one drink at the bar, straight relationships in general heavily involve the man buying and paying for stuff for the woman. In my limited experience, there's never any kind of economic equality, there is the very real assumption that both parties know that the man pays.

Sounds like you still expect reciprocity from your friends. If you take a woman on a few date and she decides you’re not the one does she pay the dude back?

The difference between prostitution and sex within a healthy relationship is that prostitution commodifies sex while relationship sex does not.
In a healthy relationship sex is from each according to their ability (which includes consent) to each according to their needs. Sex is "produced" for use, not for exchange. A superficial exchange might happen but this is usually also production for use, specifically to help reproduce the partner's ability to provide sex (getting them in the mood). Fucked up relationships don't work like this, but that's kind of beyond the scope of the discussion about whether sexual relationships are inherently prostitution.

It’s still one sided. Makeup can be used later to leverage more free meals, you can’t reuse the money spent on a date on courting another woman.

It still takes effort to engage with people. Women courting men generally don't just lie there like dead fish (they save that for sex).

Uh no their more like brothels or markets. Bars and clubs have always been jokingly refered to as meat markets.
It’s really competitive in these places, it’s not like socializing at all.

I looked at this thread once and knew it would be cancer but hey - my dude - your redtext caught my eye

all sex is commodified under liberalism - our use of sex as innate value to ourselves drives us to commodify ourselves for sexual consumption on a regular basis, else the likes of dating services would not exist

I’m sorry but fake up is nothing but a leveraging tactic to make yourself appear younger and healthier and increase your market value.
Putting more effort into socializing would be doing something like cooking for someone you’re interested or attempting to learn about their interests not making yourself appear like someone you are not.

If you're gonna reply you should reply to the content of a post instead of posting a talking point that the post has already made an argument against.

I don't think anyone is saying that sex is always like prostitution, just that it often is, especially in relationships.

Makeup can't be reused my dude, unless you're implying a woman will go on two dates on the same night. The cost of makeup might be less than the cost of the date, but that's not factoring in the labor cost of the woman selling herself.

Everyone is trying to appear like someone they're not, this isn't somehow special to women. Makeup is deceptive, but that's because the thing being exchanged by women is their body for the man's money, not solely their actual self for the man's self.

Uh no sorry, I’m not, and a minority of women don’t wear makeup at all.
This is dysfunctional, but also prostitution, you said it yourself she’s offering her body, so she should trying to make her body appear my sexually appealing.
The same thing happens under prostitution there just no pretense. I mean can you really say it’s not prostitution just because the woman can unilaterally opt out at anytime and is not expected to reciprocate at all?

I didn't mean literally everyone.

The same thing happens under prostitution there just no pretense. I mean can you really say it’s not prostitution just because the woman can unilaterally opt out at anytime and is not expected to reciprocate at all?
I'm not the only ancom poster. I do agree that certain relationships are prostitute-like.

What I’m saying is that all of dating at least modern dating is prostitution with more steps. If commodities are being exchanged even when no sex occurs it is prostitution. You are exchanging commodities for some form of intimacy from a woman. Unless both parties make it a point to make sure no commodities change hands. Honestly doing it this way would be best for both parties. There would be no bitterness or anxiety as to what was expected, whatever happens both parties would be assured was happening freely.

wage worker:

sex worker:

Please tell me how one is somehow more outrageous, less acceptable or less dignified than the other, without claiming that sex is sacred and precious.

I make this point to highlight the hypocrisy of feminist that are against making prostitution legal. If you really feel that way then there should be laws to persecute women that receive any material payment when there is the implied or explicit promise of sex involved. Hey you can to jail for soliciting prostitution so there’s president.

That's most women in long-term relationships bucko.
It is exactly money that is the issue, because doing almost anything in our capitalist system costs money. Even going for a walk can cost money once you factor in any transportation costs.

That's because people generally meet in places that cost money to be in. It's pedantic to conflate dates to prostitution.

No, what kind of dumb shit is that.

I understand they're competitive, however it is better to think of them as a paid social hall because sex isn't guaranteed with anyone you may buy a drink for as it is with a prostitute. With a brothel you go in, pay, and sex is ten guaranteed which makes it different. If you're going to be pedantic prostitution is the explicit exchange of commodities for sex while dating where one party pays is an implicit exchange of commodities for company that may lead to sex sometime in the future. The issue with expanding prostitution to encompass meeting a girl at a bar is that it obfuscates the issue concerning sex workers to an insane degree that makes discussion over prostitution impossible.

It’s also true that costs, even transportation costs, can be split evenly. Thinking this way is just going against social norms, norms established when women could not work.
So if you continued to insist on splitimg all costs evenly she’d still sleep with you. Sorry but s woman like that is rare. Most women in LTRs are dating a man making more money than them 66 percent of the time. If you think a woman dating a man making more money then her won’t expect him to pay then I can’t help you.

It’s not dumb, it just goes against your spooks regarding courtship. Paying the guy back makes him whole and allows him to more easily to date another woman. I don’t allow my male friendships to become unbalanced when it come to reprocity, why allow it in courtship

This makes it worse, modern dating is like a hybrid of prostitution and gambling where your expected to pay for sex but there’s no guarantee of it. No wonder this way of courtship breeds so much discontent.
And dating is not done this way everywhere. It wasn’t even done this way in Germany when I was there. I went out in a date and the woman paid for herself every time. She didn’t want to “owe” me. And yes we had sex, sex that was in her terms completely.

Such as leasing out part of your anatomy
The entrepreneur who wants to lease you usage of a bicycle or a lawnmower is not exploited and socialists (rightly) would not support them. People renting out usage of their genitalia are no different to people renting out lawnmowers or bicycles.



A porky is someone who makes money through exploiting surplus value. A prole selling their labor is by definition not a porky. A prostitute at best is self-employed, they're still not exploiting anyone or living off of property.

You're acting extremely retarded and should immediately stop.

Circular logic. You are trying to prove that there is no production by stating that there is no production.

I am talking in Marxist terms. And there is no "value". There is use-value and exchange-value. Since people are voluntarily paying for sex, it clearly has exchange-value.

Wrong analogy. Snake oil selling is is based on false assumptions. When you go to buy sex you don't expect to get magic powers or family with three kids.

All labour power comes from workers selling the use of their minds and bodies for a wage. If you sell your labour, you are by extension renting out your body. It makes no difference whether the worker sells the use of their hands or the use of their genitals, they are still exploited for the appropriation of surplus value

A prostitute is not selling their labour any more than a drug dealer, a bicycle renter or a burglar. None of those people are proles. The prostitute is making a living from property; said property is an anatomical object. You are a brainlet incapable of recognizing economic parasites and should desist immediately.

So, you would agree that pimping is wrong?


Prostitution is unproductive labour - no surplus to extract unless they give a portion to a pimp or brothel keeper who make up a lot of the pro-prostitution lobby.

They make money. People appropriate that money. Thus their surplus value is being extracted
Arguing whether labour is "productive" or not is pointless, especially since most of you faggots don't even know what you mean by that word. Many workers are stuck doing jobs that only make sense in the context of capitalism and which are "unproductive", but that doesn't matter. Class conflict isn't the "true" workers vs. everyone else, it's the propertied classes vs the unpropertied classes.

Ill throw my Theories of Surplus-Value in the bin then

Does Marx say that we should only support "productive" workers? No he doesn't. Kill yourself

kek the entire western civilization and culture is p much based on forced sexual partner scarcity
no way they'd ever legalize prostitution when they can have it be illegal for the poors and 'legal' for the rich

He don't, but it don't change the fact.

Never change, Holla Forums, never change.


Actually, over definition of value.

And it is not Marxist. It is Marxists versus crypto-Technocrats.

I've been talking about legalisation for the entire thread. It's not my fault some vulgar marxists use their shit takes on value to justify their idiocy.

It's either that, or a woman playing a little boy.

What do you think a prostitute does, just lay there like an onahole? By defining one's body is this retarded way you play into the ancap's argument that everyone has property to live off of.
People selling something that triggers your spooks isn't parasitism. A prostitute cannot be proprietor simply because they would have to exploit whoever economically uses their property in order for them to make money. Capital doesn't self-replicate.

I told you to stop being retarded yet you keep continuing.

Lol Marxists

People selling something that preys on human need while not fur filling that need is though. That’s what prostitution does, and in turn puts an external cost onto me in the form of capital going to unproductive ends.
If you don’t agree that labor can be unproductive then declare yourself a kensyian and start advocating for jobs programs were one worker digs a hole then another fills it. Or for more wars.

Keep in mind that prostitution comes from a place of desperation and women that are desperate for money will get themselves in sex trafficing rings, child exploitation and a life full of crime and abuse. Unless the capitalist system is removed women will not search for such paths to go by. Of course you cannot stop it to the core, but as user said, it needs to be abolished in order to liberate females.

Okay, you have just confirmed what an utter cabbage you are by stating this. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your nonsense. Capital does self-replicate. What do you think fractional reserve banking does? Haven't you heard of hedge funds using leverage? How do you assume the derivatives markets grew to dwarf the productive sections of the global economy?

What the fuck is this brainlet tier Marxism? Exploitation has an actual meaning, you know. It isn't just whatever you want it to be.

*these terms have actual meanings
Seriously fam. If you dislike prostitutes, stop fucking them. Problem solved.

I’m not going to stop pointing out that sex workers don’t produce value, anymore than im going to stop saying junk food makers don’t produce value.
We have a bunch of fat kids and alienated men due to both.

What’s it’s meaning? State it so I can Beatles you silly with your own spooks.

*beat you silly

as an insult

It's time to stop

lol I love how you guys use marxism as a shield to engage in the same bitter women-shaming as halfchan

Apple doesn't fall far from the tree…

Meanwhile still no (you)s on my on-topic post (>>2301750) and the thread degenerated to a weird abstract tangent about relationships. SMH.

I love how feminists ignore the plight of poor women’s while simultaneously demanding solidarity from all women

It’s not a tangent though. Modern Relationships and courtship have the same elements of prostitution (ie commodities exchange for intimacy) if that’s legal then the o5her should be as well, or both forms should be prohibited.

Exploitation in the Marxist sense is the appropriation of unpaid labour. You are being exploited when you are not fully paid for the work you actually contribute. You are not being exploited when a hooker doesn't give you a satisfying blowjob

Okay, so you have to sell your labor to get money right? So if I sell you a bag of magic beans with money you LABORED to earn how is that not appropriation of unpaid labor. I get labor or commodities that required labor to produce while not laboring in return.

Last I checked, prostitutes do actually have sex with you after you pay them. I don't see the problem

It’s not labor it’s renting out an orfice.
It’s not producing value, it’s a scam, it’s the illusion of intimacy governed by a third party with a vested interest in keeping Johns addicted. Sex bots are a much better solution.

Vice industries don’t produce value. Junk food, alcohol, sex work, and gambling are all black holes of value. Which is why under capitalism they are so heavily regulated, if these industries were left unregulated they’d quick subsume everything else in the same way capital does now.

Will monsieur Technocrat explain the basis of this idea?


If you have a industry that people buy for one reason then said reason is not furfilled then it’s a scam and doesn’t provide value. Gambling is the easiest one to understand. People gamble to obtain more capital, no adult is legitimately entertained by rolling plastic dice around on their own.
Casinos do not give money to gamblers, they take it. Therefore they are a net negative on the production of value.

I'm reasonably certain most people get exactly what they expect from prostitutes.

People gamble for a thrill.

I'm just gonna reply to you guys as if you are the same person, because you might as well be
Just as you are renting out the use of your body when you sell your labour to a boss. There's little difference whether the specific part is your hands or your genitals. Prostitution is commodified sex. Prostitutes produce that commodity in the form of sexual services.
You don't even know what value is. You've misused the term for the entire thread. Even if it were true that prostitution is valueless, it isn't relevant to the discussion. Plenty of people are stuck working "useless" jobs, but that doesn't mean they aren't proles

Marxist love this excuse. I’m not wrong, you just don’t understand.
What is value then, and yes I read some of marx dam ore than just the Manifesto.
It’s use right? People use it? People buy food for money then eat it. The price is the exchange value and the full belly isn’t the use value?

*full belly is the use value?

It’s not though. Productive labor produces something. Renting doesn’t. Labor produces something that didn’t exist before, the vagina exists before and after sex, getting access to it is what you are paying for.

They are not Marxists, but Technocrats (though, there is some branch of American Trots that uses this approach too; Cockshott, IIRC). Their value is simply different - they prefer to define it as some arbitrary "utility" that gets determined by specialists, not through real world interactions, as Marxists.

You are using different meaning of value without admitting it. That's no different from lying.

Capital, first chapter:
> A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.

> Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.)

Basically, anything you desire (which is expressed through your actions) has use-value for you.

You barely got use value right. Your idea of exchange value is just wrong. Exchange value is the relative purchasing power between any two commodities, not just between a commodity and money (which is just another kind of commodity). It's plain to see that prostitutes provide use value, since they're literally providing you with sex. The sex may be awesome or shitty, just as you may drink pure spring-water or muddy sewage, but it's still sex.
And prostitutes produce something: Sex. Even if they just lie flat while you jerk off in her vagina she is still selling the use of her body for a certain unit of time for a certain price, just like any other labourer.

What if said commodity doesn’t satisfy a want? I cited snake oil, which people bought to cure cancer. Snake oil doesn’t treat cancer, but according to you it’s still a commodity because they wanted it lol.
What about a Ponzi scheme? Stocks? Are lottery tickets commodities, you’re litterally getting nothing in return.

So does jerking off. What if I jerk off my friend, if I don’t charge him is it no longer a commodity? What if I do? Then jerking him off is a commodity’s now? Lol you Marxists can’t explain use value vs exchange value because it’s inconsistant.

It’s not arbitrary, it just asking the question did the customer get what they wanted. You definition of commodity is just “if they want it” but what did they want? Commodities are a means to an end, if the end isn’t to met you go to ripped off. If I buy a car and it’s a lemon it’s not a car. I didn’t purposely buy a car that doesn’t run. But according To you it’s still a commodity, you are more of a capitalist apologist then I am.

*if the end isn’t met you got ripped off

But isn’t everything denominated in money so the relative exchange value would be determined by price. 1 Ferrari is worth 10 Toyotas. But if Toyota had a sale a Ferrari wouldn’t be worth 20 Toyotas

*a Ferrari would be worth 20 Toyotas

By that argument, rentiers such as landlords also produce something. Which is patent nonsense.

Then it's communism

Economy does not concern itself with crimes or anything that does not relate to economy. What is so hard to get?

Also, you've still to prove that people are not getting sex - or whatever it is that is the basis of your argument.

As I've said: economy does not concern itself with the confidence tricks or whatever. Also, I'm reasonably certain people get from prostitutes what they expect.

No, it isn't. x2

It's not mine (it's Marxist), and it's not the definition.

Existential questions are out of purview of economy.

Maybe. But this has nothing to do with economy.

According to Marx car functioned as commodity at the moment of transaction. If you intend to argue otherwise - substantiate your opinion with something beyond butthurt,

Except you don't know what Capitalism is.

It is police that produces (restricted access to property) and landlords sell it.

Well no. Landlords don't produce anything, they put something that is already there and usable for everyone, land and real estate, behind a paywall, without giving you anything for it but the "right" to use it. Unless you actually believe you are entitled to a stranger's vagina, a sex worker isn't extracting rent.

legalize sex work, but make it illegal to buy sex. works great it scandinavia

If your mother is a sex worker, you may as may aswell just drink yourself to an early grave.

Uh yes it does, anyone with a brain does. And this isn’t a moralist judgement. Meat with e.coli that makes you sick is not a commodity in anyone’s eyes. Either Marxism is more retarded than I first imagined-or it’s just you.

In economic terms, consent aside? Yes, people don't normally charge money for that.

that was plain retarded and invalid

Pimps enforce the private property of a hooker with violence. All criminals are police without state endorsement of their violence.
Even if a hooker works without a pimp if you don’t pay her her rent she will cease sleeping with you.

t. man hating feminist

*for anyone with a brain it does

This. Prostitution exerts an external cost onto others that prostitutes themselves do not pay.
I want it legalized but I’m under no illusions that it’s benign.

I'm reasonably certain there will be some sort of resistance if you'll attempt to expropriate the vagina of female that is not being pimped.

Are you high?

And your point is?

There is no fixing that post. It needs to be put down.


That she’s extracting rent from her property so not labor.

How do you criminals make money. It’s through rackets, which function exactly like corporations.

I’m reasonably certain most women don’t sleep with strangers for money.

I agree completely.
让面包车里那些臭婊子 我们今晚卖豆腐

adult wage worker:
child wage worker:
Please tell me how one is somehow more outrageous, less acceptable or less dignified than the other, without claiming that "childhood" (which like sex, is a total spook) is somehow sacred and precious. We trying to organize child laborers instead of making abolishing child labor.

They aren't equivalent. Wow, that was easy.

there is nothing special about childhood except for moral spooks so child labour should really be legal

Post more sey Kizuna AI armpits!

How the fuck are you supposed to permanently fulfill a need like sex?
Whether their labor is productive or not has zero to do with whether they're a prole.

Capital doesn't self-replicate on its own. It obviously reproduces itself, but it has to do that through exploitation. $10 in a drawer won't suddenly become $20 if I wait long enough.


That's not the fucking definition of private property. Your argument works for literally any laborer selling their labor. All laborers rent out a certain part of their body or all of it. By definition they are a prole precisely because they sell their labor and not property.

This is a horrible false-equivalency. Child labor isn't a specific occupation like prostitution. If you outlaw child labor that means children no longer have to work, if you outlaw prostitution that means prostitutes now have to find a different, possibly worse job, if there is one at all.

It's not acceptable, fuck sake. No one ITT says that sex work is good, we all know it's very shitty for the vast majority of sex-workers, the point is criminalizing it doesn't fucking fix the problem. We also know that sex-work isn't intrinsically worse than many other jobs, jobs that no one wants to criminalize now because they don't upset their spooks. We want to create a world where the standard isn't work or starve, but until then we have to work with the current world we have.

IDK but commodifying it sure as shit isn’t the answer
So a doctor providing critical medical treatment is the same as a charlatan purposefully selling rancid meat and getting people killed are both Proles and deserve the same consideration.
Are Marxists really this retarded?

Not really, I work in IT from home. My body is not required to be anywhere because I’m not renting my body. I’m selling my skills, or labor.
With sex work I’m literally paying for my penis to be in a place that it would not be if I didn’t pay rent.

t. someone who never had kids or foolishly believes they really yield to his authority

t. someone who grew up in a broken home

Dysfunctional people need to stop projecting their own fractured view of the world and human behaviour onto others.

Dysfunctional people need to stop projecting their own fractured view of the world and human behaviour onto others.
lol nope, but I’m not s dork like you so I had friends that would frankly disclose things to me, and yes knew plenty of women that hooked.

It’s not like in the past where you stand on a street corner. And fundamental Christians hooked the most IMO. You gotta be pretty poor and ignorant to be a fundy and those two things lead to hooking.

lol nope, but I’m not s dork like you so I had friends that would frankly disclose things to me, and yes knew plenty of women that hooked.
It’s not like in the past where you stand on a street corner. And fundamental Christians hooked the most IMO. You gotta be pretty poor and ignorant to be a fundy and those two things lead to hooking.

Not all prostitution derives from an essential need to survive.

yea it does, the man's need to have sex or kill himself

I think his point wasn't that prostitution is merely a used to temporarily fulfill a permanent need (sex), but that is used to inadequately fulfill a need (human intimacy) it is inherently unsuited for.

Laborers rent out their skill or talent, not their body. Even somebody like a fashion model or movie extra is competing based on their appearance or availability, and a scientific test subject has the presumption of danger (which legal prostitutes shouldn't if they get johns medically cleared in advance), rather than their willingness to bump uglies.

The "need" for prostitution is illusory and only exists in insanely alienated and deprived societies. Strengthening the position of sex workers is OK but they must recognize that we will eliminate them (as a class of workers, not people) as we take over.

Well, for Marx a lot of Lumpen jobs were in the unproductive category. And he never spoke too kindly of unproductive labours by often calling them parasites.

It’s not only ill-suited, it’s purposely made that way by sex workers. In the same way cigarette makers knew their product was addictive and harmful.
Which is why sex workers are the first to protest the spread of sex bots. Perhaps the most eloquent and ethical solution to a major societal I’ll maybe ever. Sex workers are only second to feminists in their opposition to sex bots.

Memes aside, is anybody other than religious fundies and a handful of the loopiest sex-neg feminazis (the so-called "ominous alliance") actually against something as ridiculous as sexbots at a political level?

"Sex worker". The laughable mentality of the post-structuralist in action. Changing the label of whores does not change their character or the sentiment towards them.

This for 100000000/10.

And the interesting fact is that most of women in prostitution have mental problems like borderline personality disorder, are from dysfunctional families or are addicts - this kind of "employment" serves them as method of auto-destruction. So legalizing the prostitution is literally like legalizing the heroin.

It's not true - it fixes. Criminalizing bosses is not criminalizing prostitutes. "Decriminalization" activists, for the other hand, prefer to use unclear descriptions like "sex-workers" to create illusions that managers, pimps, drivers and bodyguards - ordinary bandits, criminals, are also "workers" so should be "decriminalized". Such a situation.

I see, so labour works by people telepathically communicating their skills and talents to a robot that then does all the labour. What you said was stupid. You need a body to do labour, so if a person sells their labour, they are selling the use of their mind and body for a certain period of time.

Try over the Internet. Cam whoring isn’t illegal for the same reason my work over the Internet is considered labor and not “renting” my body.
You literally are charging someone access to get INSIDE your body. Lol

Oh fuck yes. Look at the hysteria in the 1960s and 1970s surrounding print and video pornography. Even today has a pronographic theater EVER been painted in a positive light?
Men having alternatives to human woman for sex undermines a whole host of vested interests, There an article every week now regarding the dangers of sex bots. The upheaval and backlash against sex bots is going to be epic.
Just look at this thread. All these people going back and forth over sex workers but not a single one besides myself has brought up the most obvious and ethical solution to all this, promoting the development and wide spread adoption of sex bots.

As if women being more comfortable around men wouldn't be a healthier solution to the problem. Your solution is literally the most, de-humanizing, extreme form of alienation, and it's anti-natal.

My solution is liberating. Your a priori assumption that the current social norms regarding dating and marriage are equitable to men and that men overall are happy with them are completely bougus. And that what women have deemed as “not comfortable” regarding men’s behavior, is rational.
Forcing men to an antagonist relationship with women via circumstance is terrible for men.
Men should not be softly disciplined via withholding of sexual intimacy by women. If men freely choose an alternative that you deem even more dehumanizing and alienated then guess what bitch, the social norm they are escaping was even more so.

Litterally pol tier arguments. If someone doesn’t want children they shouldn’t be coerced by withholding alternatives.

just being the mirror of everything the far right is, is not a strategy for anything other than larping

Also, material and broad social conditions decide pretty much completely inidividual decision to have babies or not. Since everyone is uncomfortable with forcing people to pair up, you just improve material and social conditions in such a way that people want to mate. It's not rocket science. People don't have free will.

there's now at least a dozen countries NOW that aren't italy in the early 20th centruy persuing pro-natal policy. It's not taboo, it's not a Holla Forums argument, and it's much more humane than anti-natal policy seen in places like China.

How is what I’m saying a mirror of the far right? If anything it’s more of a Stirner-esque rejection of both your spooks and the far rights and just pure subjective self interest.
You guys continually put the onus on the men that are choosing these dollars because your all crypto liberals that think men should sacrifice their own self interest for the sake of society, be that in the form of far right nationalism or state communism

Well no laws and state violence do. Along with societal brain washing and destroying opposition and censoring alternative views. >Since everyone is uncomfortable with forcing people to pair up, you just improve material and social conditions in such a way that people want to mate. It's not rocket science.
We’re talking first world men that will be adopting these sex bots first. So no these men are not abandoning relationships with real women because they can’t afford to date. They’re conciously doing it because they have already been clearly told collectively by women that they are unwelcome. And where they are welcome (like relationships with single mothers) the terms are stupidly stacked against their best interests.
It’s pretty telling you’re worried at all of the effect of sex bots. You’re not dumb, you know hordes of men have men neglected for at least a generation and will flock to this alternative. This will undermine your own interests for whatever reason.
People don't have free will.

*choosing these dolls

The user I was responding to said sex bots were anti natal. That is a pol tier argument, right up there with jacking off is anti natal.
And those pro natal policies won’t work. They don’t address the core issue that’s causing sex not demand, hypergamy and woman’s deeply anti male capitalist view of the value of men.

Well no laws and state violence do. Along with societal brain washing and destroying opposition and censoring alternative views.

But people are perfectly comfortable with making men pay for children wether they get to see them or not.
We’re talking first world men that will be adopting these sex bots first. So no these men are not abandoning relationships with real women because they can’t afford to date. They’re conciously doing it because they have already been clearly told collectively by women that they are unwelcome. And where they are welcome (like relationships with single mothers) the terms are stupidly stacked against their best interests.
It’s pretty telling you’re worried at all of the effect of sex bots. You’re not dumb, you know hordes of men have men neglected for at least a generation and will flock to this alternative. This will undermine your own interests for whatever reason.
Like hell I don’t

No one wants sex to be commodified, that's just an inevitable part of it existing under Capitalism.
Just because they're both proles doesn't mean anything other then the fact that they sell their labor to survive.

I didn't know your brain and hands were separate from your body. What a strange existence.
And if you didn't pay your restaurant bill you wouldn't be sitting down to eat a meal. Paying for a service isn't rent.

What do you think consumerism is? It's people buying commodities to fill a need that the commodities can't fill. People buying and selling sex is bad, but that doesn't change anything about prostitutes being workers and how signaling out their job as being uniquely heinous is usually just moralism.

You do realize that when people talk about legalizing sex-work they usually also talk about outlawing pimping?

Normal people aren't going to choose a glorified real doll over a human being. Stop thinking everybody else's history with relationships is as shitty as your own.

t. khv male that realizes a fucking doll isn't going to satisfy my desires

For someone who’s says moralist arguments are bougus you sure do indulge in them. I couldn’t care less that the use of sex bots doesn’t conform to what you deem normal.
At any point did I say people should be forced to use sex bots? No I didn’t, but that making them widely available would destroy the demand for sex workers and ethically provide an outlet for the frustrated sex drive of many men.
Like I said your concern is telling. If people who choose sex bots are broken like you say then shouldn’t you WANT them out of the dating pool?
No, better they get chewed up by our toxic dating culture since that will make your fee fees feel better.
Armchair psychology, the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I can easily turn this around on you. Stop thinking everyone has to conform to a norm that serves your self interest at the determine if their own porky. Your bar is going to go bankrupt after the sex bot revolution and well all be he better for it.

*at the determinate of their own porky. Your bar is going to go bankrupt after the sex bot revolution and we’ll all be the better for it.

You know that how? Because I advocate for a policy that will realistically collapse the underground sex trafficking economy.
Now I realize your a liberal feminist. Even if I was a hugless kissless virgin that childish shaming tactic wouldn’t work. Itd make me want a sex doll more lol.

I'm not saying sex dolls are morally bad, I'm saying they won't have the impact you think.
Highly unlikely to happen. People know a fucking machine when they see one. The illusion with prostitutes is that they actually like you, and that's already hard to keep up, with a sex doll you now have to maintain the illusion that she actually is real.
I don't have anything against them or against sex bots, I'm simply saying the type of people who would prefer a sex bot over an actual woman, specifically a gf, is very low.
You're the one invested in this topic, not me.
I'm simply stating a fact. You're making the mistake that other people think like you.

Because I know what normal masturbation is like and advanced masturbation isn't going to be a how lot different. It's not even the sex that matters, I know people who have sex all the time and they're still empty; it's the human connection that matters.
Very unlikely.
Mostly definitely not either.
I'm saying I am. Holy fuck work on your reading comprehension. The t. only applies to the only person when you're quoting them.


A human connection they’re not getting from sex workers either. You’re saying sex workers are providing some sort of human touch, I’m saying they’re not and that sex not will be analogous alternative that is way cheaper.
With regards to sex bots replacing girlfriends hordes of men have been left out courtship. They are not getting sex or relationships now. They are just getting taken advantage of in the current toxic dating culture.
Something like 40 percent of young men in the US are either virgins or have not had sex in the last 4 years. The demand for these sex dolls is going to cause a tectonic shift in society.
Look to Japan’s grass eaters for an even better example of their hordes of men neglected by current dating culture.


What facts are you stating, it’s just a typical ad hominem attack. “Your argument is moot because your crazy and dysfunctional”
You don’t know what’s going on in my head even if your were to psychoanalyize me. Psychology is just a bunch of bullshit spooks stacked on top of one another to coerce people back into participating in toxic capitalism.

And your invested in delegitimizing the adoption of sex bots. Really activated my almonds.

Have you tried a sex bot? I don’t think you’d just flippantly dismiss them as advanced masturbation if you had.

I'm sex bots will be one step above masturbation, but still below actual sex with human beings. A prostitute is better than jerking off even if neither offer any human intimacy.
Incels are a problem but they're not that statistically big, and while they exist partly because of the shitty culture, they also exist because they don't have proper socialization to interact with other people.
Who is defined as a young man?
Dude, they're just fucking advance real dolls.

I'm not saying you're wrong because you're crazy, I'm simply saying that you think other people think like you do and that's not true.

No, I don't really care. I'm just saying they aren't going to be adopted like you think they will be.

AFAIK, they're still prototypical and are still very animatronic like.

Also why the fuck did you reply in a bunch of separate posts instead of just one?

Incels aren’t the only ones who feel dating is stupid inequitable, they’re just convenient whipping boys that are trotted out whenever anyone wants to try to get a person to self censor themselves when they speak out about this romance shortage issue.
“Hmmm incels bitch about this too, guess your an incel”
It’s concern trolling to the nth degree.
Plenty of men are in sexless or exploitative relationships that they will abandon if sex dolls take of.

Sex workers and the state know this which is why the nascent sex doll brothel industry has been shut down by them in China and Brazil.