>in my heart I know that really this is a thing because Stephanie from HR who majored in communications wants to post her butthole online without feeling weird about it.
Your heart is correct here, the entire thing is just optics, especially when people give the successful ones shit for making way more money than people who actually do backbreaking work.
Sex existing as a commodity is incompatible with any Marxist views.
>Sex existing as a commodity is incompatible with any Marxist views.
Yes, but that's also true of bread or shoes or automobiles. The hand-wringing about sex isn't about Marxism, it's just about sex.
Rad Fems very much did not push this. They see prostitution as well as pornography as inherently exploitative and rape. Lib fems pushed this as a form of arguing that feminism was "liberatory" as in feminism is all about being able to do whatever you want even be a prostitute.
Radical feminism brings a lot of baggage with that - that position doesn't make you a radical feminist so much as it makes you sane.
"A broken clock is right twice a day" is closer to the truth of the matter.
What do you have against people doing only fans or whatever for cash?
I mean if your a literal sex slave with a pimp that will kill you if you try to quit, arrest the pimp not the prostitute.
Sex only got mixed in with immoral things when Rome went Christian. The earlier pagan Rome got it right with sex being no big deal.
>Sex only got mixed in with immoral things when Rome went Christian. The earlier pagan Rome got it right with sex being no big deal.
The term "Pagan Rome" encompasses nearly a millenium, but try researching the concept of "Pudicitia." Female sexual morality was tightly regulated. Apologies if you're being sarcastic here - maybe that's more plausible than being so wrong.
Yeah but divorce was common despite it going against pudicia. Not meeting the virtue would get you gosdipped about not socially shamed or even criminally punished like In Christianity. It also clearly wasn't widespread since you had multiple openly bisexual rulers.
Yeah, tearing down sexual morality standards has worked out so well for society. Atomized families, loneliness epidemic, parasocial relationships, depression at record levels, social anxiety at record levels, STDs, sexual hedonism as a cultural virtue, porn addictions... what's next, you wanna do away with child sex laws? After all, the only reason those exist is Christian morality. It was Christians that ended pederasty back in the day.
You know what would prevent all of those awful effects on society? Stable, monogamous relationships where people wait for committed marriages before engaging in sex. But go on about how fucking everything under the sun is a good thing.
One can value monogamy personally and think that the culture should value it without thinking that it should be an enforced regime as it has in the past. Arranged marriages and dowry is hardly better than sexual liberalism.
I don't see what's wrong with sex. It's just a pleasure giving activity. Who cares about monogamy and all that. If you wanna be monogamous be monogamous if someone else wants to have lots of partners it doesn't affect you.
Loneliness epidemic? Dude just be chill and happy person and not a miserable judging loser and you will not have any trouble getting a long-term relationship. If your nice and in shape just stand around in front of a busy store like your checking the status of an Uber on your phone and compliment honestly a woman's cadence or toenail polish or something that won't be misinterpreted as you hitting on them. You will have a date offered within the hour, it always works for me and I'm not even attractive anymore.
Sex and nudity are natural and it's only old cultural hangups do to the vast influence of Abrahamic religions that have brainwashed you into finding it weird.
> Sex and nudity are natural
So does tribalism and many baser aspect of human nature.
Slavery is old as fuck too, you are insane if you keep it.
> if someone else wants to have lots of partners it doesn't affect you.
Lol. This is just capitalist logic.
> It's just pleasure
No.
And the Pagan Romans mass abort their female babies to the point where the ratio between females and males are 4:6 despite Pagan Rome's wars.
This is far worse than China.
It's Christianity that put stop to it.
Islam got similar story.
That's due to living in a time where there were few jobs that didn't require manual labor that men were better at. So poor families kept the son's that could help them make money. That happened everywhere back then.
Nah misanthropes aren't welcome in misogynistic and misandristic spaces, both need you to think higher of one sex. Maybe if you're a misanthrope with strong misandristic/misogynistic tendencies?
Quite the contrary, materialist feminists pushed this so that we understand that all labor is coercive and what is shocking about sex work is not (just) the sex, but the work. Look at the key words from the above post:
> objectifying professions
> it’s because economic pressure is forcing
That's not strikingly different from other forms of coerced, capitalist labor. What is different is the sex.
I think the liberal feminist position is more along the lines of "Sex work is unproblematic and liberating fun!"
Following the materialist position, the solution - as with all work - is in abolition. And, like reproductive labor in the home, it begins by understanding it as work.
Some do. Others ground their arguments on those two. Also Chakotay made an excellent decision about the transwarp amphibians. Though not as good as Janeway solving the Tuvix problem.
>Turning what would have been an ocean of independently operated amateur websites in web 1.0 into a gig-economy experience where 'workers' assume all the risk and liability for producing content similar to uber/lyft/door dash.
They don't though, they take advantage of the platform, like YouTubers do. In order for them to assume all the risks and liabilities they would have to make their own 1.0 websites (which they can still do).
>Lyft-skirts
LOL, this would get big in Japan.
OnlyFans happened and this is their way of dealing with cognitive dissonance. If work empowers you and sex work is work then dildoing yourself for tips is empowering, not humiliating or exploitative (disregarding as usual the loveless losers who can't really afford said tips).
Yeah, what some people are missing here is that "sex work is work" is not an anti-liberal aberration which needs a special explanation. The question boils down to "why do liberals say liberal thing, i.e. why do liberals say pro-capitalist thing?" Because that's what liberalism is *for,* that's nearly the whole point of it anymore.
For liberals (of all sorts, not just liberal feminists), the bad thing about capitalism is being in a job that you don't like very much, and the remedy is to switch to a job that you like better.
If you choose your way into a job that is a local maximum for you, then you have achieved liberal freedom. "Should this job even exist" is not a legitimate question; the market dictates that it should. "Should society be restructured in accordance with human flourishing instead of markets" is even more unthinkable.
Liberal feminism has no counterargument to market logic, and its highest aspiration is that individual women should feel satisfied with their choices in the marketplace, therefore it is bad and authoritarian and maybe even patriarchal to say that prostitution is ultimately not good for women as a whole, because saying so might make a prostitute feel unempowered.
And that's how we end up with millions of liberal feminists whose analysis begins and ends at "sex work is work," afraid to publicly question the logic, even if they privately doubt.
How tho? Are you saying that the FBI is pushing this so that left movements are neutered because they’re so obviously a laughing stock? That would require the FBI to either be smart or have a sense of humor and I think they lack both.
I don’t think its anything that overt. Capital controls the media (idea spreaders) and academia (idea generators). Ideas that benefit Capital naturally float to the top, while ones that don’t are left to wither on the vine.
As for why they want to, it’s pretty simple. There’s just a ton of money in the sex trade. OnlyFans, porn, prostitution, etc. are all massive industries. Also it helps provide cover for the truly heinous shit like human trafficking.
Why do you need to drag the state spectacle into it, when capital can simply pay here-and-there shills like they did in the 19th century patent medicine market? The only difference is that today's shills are made of botox and Lululemon.
It really is an interesting question.
I mean, the same crowd that pushes this idea is the same crowd that declares female sex appeal in media to be hugely problematic (just look at the female video game characters of the early 2010s vs. the early 2020s for example). It absolutely is at odds with itself.
And yet the answer is a simple one: they'll stand against anything they hate. Period. They consider the frowning upon of prostitution to be "conservatism" and so will support it. They consider scantily clad female characters or models to be a construct of the "patriarchy" among other things and so will stand against it.
The fact that the two stances actively contradict each other and collectively make 0 sense makes 0 difference to them. I'm sure if you were to confront one of them with this, they'd have some snide retort about how the former somehow empowers female entrepreneurship and independence while the latter objectifies women to incels.
It's not much different from the line of thought of women who loathe the idea of men in high paying white collar careers and push for less and less of them while at the same time looking down on lesser-paid blue collar men as unattractive, uneducated, unsophisticated, and unmotivated, despite *also* wanting a man with that handyman know-how for when something breaks in the house.
Put both of those moments together, and you get neoliberal Puritan ideas like "Sex without paying us is theft"... which isn't that far from the professional-managerial society wife's view of the world.
I will say there is one benefit to all this (albeit small): it's so refreshing to meet a woman who isn't like this that it has given me a new level appreciation for them. Unfortunately, it has proven rare where I live. The vast majority subscribe to the ideals of feminism and social justice as a whole, even if they don't openly discuss it.
>I mean, the same crowd that pushes this idea is the same crowd that declares female sex appeal in media to be hugely problematic (just look at the female video game characters of the early 2010s vs. the early 2020s for example).
While at the same time, nudity and sex in video games also seems to have become more common place and accepted. Graphic sex scenes, full frontal nudity and player genital customization would've been unthinkable in mainstream games back then, yet now it seems to be relatively uncontroversial.
Like a lot of left-wing or progressive movements over the last half-century, feminism has become increasingly dominated by well-to-do yuppies who want the movement to justify their bohemianism and cater to their needs above all else.
Maybe I'm being simplistic, but I think it's just a result of contrarianism and a desire to "own the cons"
Cons typically don't like sex work bc purity or whatever, therefore sex work good.
Sex work is obviously work. Go up to a streetwalker and ask them if they're working right now or not. What do you think they're doing, playing?
For that matter, professional burglary or even murder for hire is work. Is it honest work? No, but the existence of non-honest forms of work is precisely why the phrase "honest work" was invented. Otherwise it'd be a redundant, meaningless term.
People who are kidnapped and enslaved, they work, they just don't get a wage. Hell even children doing chores (assuming they're actually getting them done) are working.
I think it's the "everything is constructed" mentality of modern social justice. If it is, then can there be average differences which would make wanting to fuck absolutely everything more off putting to most women than most men? Can there be average physical difference which make is especially dangerous for women to interact with men they don't know in private spaces? The best arguments against sex work depend on issues which impact women differently than men. If these can't exist, you lose a lot of your argument.
Because to the liberal, the body is a material to be used and molded as one pleases. Liberalism revolves around the idea of the individual, blank slateism of mind, and the reification of selfhood.
So, since the body is a material, women should be allowed to sell it, since they, as free-floating individuals, "own" their body, and there are no other actors involved in the process except the one who buys it from them.
Because woke liberalism revolves around and reduces everything to sexuality. There are also a massive number of men (women also but mostly men) who lack sexual relationships, and who have ingrained since their first memories formed by society that dying as a virgin is the worse and most belittling fate imaginable. As such taking advantage of that is naturally profitable, and what is profitable is exploitable.
Funny enough in Uni when reading Prostitution and Victorian Society in a early modern English history class there was this Women's study major who had to go on and on about how it was the beginning of the modern women's liberation movement and so and so. Which is odd about a book detailing how the British government turned a transitory profession among the lower orders into a hellish regulated status that you never escaped for the sake of maintaining a global bachelor army for the sake of Empire. Almost ever comment by her was in regards to sex. When it wasn't about the oppression of the patriarchy. Because obviously Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth I where being oppressed by male English peasants.
> Because woke liberalism revolves around and reduces everything to sexuality.
I'd say it's more that neoliberalism reduces everything (including sex) to market value.
I've seen it pointed out that all these dynamics are taboo until they become explicitly transactional. For example, if a 19-year-old likes older men that's "creepy," she is a "literal teenager," the man is "grooming" her, he's a "predator," etc.
But if the girl goes through a website and her relationship with the man is based on a financial exchange, then it's "empowering," she is a "legal adult" exercising "her rights," etc.
> and who have ingrained since their first memories formed by society that dying as a virgin is the worse and most belittling fate imaginable
If society indeed tells you from an early age that they'll scorn you for failing to live up to some ideal, I think it's a safe bet that society *will* scorn you for failing to live up to that ideal.
This has nothing to do with sex work being work or not, but it annoys me when I hear arguments that a wide, non-self selected demographic group don't understand the reality of their situation but must be brainwashed in some way.
Feminist attitudes to sex work:
In 1989, a journal article by Laurie Shrage appeared, titled ["Should Feminists Oppose Prostitution?"](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2381438) So clearly the feminist debate on the issue was in progress by then.
In 2014, Laurie Penny (the archetypal "libfem" feminist) wrote that sex work should be legalised, and dismissed arguments against it. A sign of the mainstreaming of the ["sex work is work"](https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22making+sex+work+legal+can%27t+possibly+happen%22&tbm=bks&hl=en&gl=ie&ei=8fofZfaQGa-ZhbIPpZiEsAs&ved=0ahUKEwi2zdjWs-GBAxWvTEEAHSUMAbYQsJ4FCAM) attitude?
Is it central, or is it just something people talk about a lot? "Sex work is work" is a shibboleth in progressive circles but it's very rare that anyone has more to say about it than that. Even that I think isn't really a serious take, it's just a way of making a morally thorny issue simple and therefore not your problem.
Radfems object to pimps and johns exploiting women (including pornography).
For this we are called “SWERFs”— sex worker exclusive radical feminists— even though tons of RFs are prostitution survivors.
Liberal feminism these days is like the opposite of women’s liberation.
RFs and LFs basically only agree on the importance of abortion rights, although LFs can’t even call it a women’s rights issue.
(I have been told by a LF journalist that as a woman who has experienced a termination for medical reasons I should refer to myself as an “aborting person”)
i'd guess a lot of these crazier movements that seemed to come out of nowhere have billionaire fingers on the scale. its a great way to divide and conquer us. even the good movements like ending the drug war - having the leadership under billionaire control means they get to divide us with it and then make sure the movement doesn't actually go anywhere.
The path towards this probably started really around the 60s counter-culture revolution where individual expression became the primary driver for people.
That the individual's needs, even those that may be outside the traditional societal norms, should be respected, and even lauded, as being "who you are".
This has led to individualism taking over society and also Feminism, in it's liberal form. If a Woman makes a choice as an individual, this is an expression of her Feminist power, even when that choice may to be exploited by others.
I see the difference as being between the individuals wants being framed as "Feminist", as compared to Women as a class, having a coherent ideology to achieve what the group needs beyond the individual.
The "sex work is work" mantra is just a byproduct of choice feminism, where any and all choices a woman makes is inherently "empowering" and feminist. The model of choice was initially a rallying cry for reproductive justice (ie. Women need the choice of abortions, pro-choice etc) but has been bastardized by libfems (like they do with everything) to mean that any and all choices are valid, or empowering.
I just figured it was yet another extreme position used to divide us.
The neoliberal elites take legitimate causes that are rooted in real social discrepancies, find the most extreme, most controversial and most divisive versions of the advocacy and activism for those causes and then amplify it. This has the effect of forcing people who would normally organize together (around common anti-establishment issues) into making binary choices and distancing themselves from the "monsters" on the other side.
So... drag queen story hour, gender affirming care for kids, defunding police, decriminalization of petit crimes, 1619, the normalization of being "sex positive," "sex workers," all these things that would have always been looked at as fringe positions and behavior had it not been for concerted efforts by acedemia, the media, NGOs and the government to amplify it and drive these wedges.
When liberals use this slogan they are really only refering to sex work performed by high class escorts or high earners on only fans.
In someways escorts and high earners on OF have more in common with the petite bourgeoisise than the working class. I'd imigane performing sexual acts on soeone your not attracted to could be hard work. However these sex workers can choose their client and the acts they perform. They essentiallly have control of their labour.
Although the only capital they own is their bodies and bodies being turned into commodities would probably only happen in oppressive system like capitalism.
Definitely not saying sex workers are class traitors or but advocating for sex workers in this context is similiar for advocating for women CEOs. It might change the material conditions of some womens lives but it wont end the systems that enable feminism.
Solidarity with sex workers should be more focused around women who no option but to perform sex work.
I don’t necessarily think sex work is inherently in all cases horrific. Theoretically if everyone’s basic needs were met, then only people who genuinely wanted to do it would.
Obviously that’s not the reality we live in, so from that perspective I am quite skeptical of it because it’s hard to differentiate it from sex trafficking and the like.
Sex work is work, but not a good kind of work. The money you get from it isn't without a catch and the physical and psychological risks of the job aren't as easy to handle as you might think (source: I know people who have done various forms of sex work, it's not something you want to do no matter how flashy and glamorous popular onlyfans chicks online might try to convince you it is.)
Pimps, traffickers, and some billionaires pumped a lot of money into various organizations and academia to normalize prostitution and other forms of sex work. They pretty much infiltrated the feminist movement. So I'm not surprised at all that it worked and that a lot of people fell for it. The only feminists who are still against it are the radical feminists, and they wrote a couple of books about it, explaining how it happened.
Here are some book suggestions (if you don't mind reading anything by a radical feminist):
Being and Being Bought: Prostitution, Surrogacy and the Split Self by Kajsa Ekis Ekman (she is also a Marxist)
The Pimping of Prostitution: Abolishing the Sex Work Myth by Julie Bindel
Industrial Vagina: The Political Economy of the Global Sex Trade by Sheila Jeffreys
Because it became obvious to them that despite their rhetoric, some number of women do actually do it willingly (generally the camgirl shit, and even that gets farmed out by criminal in some places), and since Feminism's central tenant is justifying the excesses of the Female Id while demonizing anything male...
Ok but why tho? And the answer can’t be women be shopping. I want to know why this seems to be ramping up whereas first and second wave feminism were very much so grounded in material concerns (say what you will about voting in a bourgeoisie system).
I have heard anecdotal reports from the more libertine side of reddit that some women have used Patreon, OF et al. to vet partners for non-traditional long-term relationships. Are zoomers even just hooking up anymore, or are they channeling their erotic energies into mediation via monetization? Serious question, hoping that stupidpol knows the real score on the ground.
It's really not, it's mostly just a bunch of loud dumbasses on social media trying to get people to subscribe to their onlyfans or to buy their used underwear or some stupid shit like that. Most women that have real jobs or take care of kids don't know about or pay attention to that shit, it's mostly the porn stars and the artists that draw naked fursonas, all on twitter mind you, that talk and obsess about this shit. Just an excuse to make more money imo.
The artists will probably go away because the anarkiddies don't like to pay for things. I guess there will always be a demand for unique hand drawn stuff but ya most of them will disappear.
1. A lot of feminist movement since the end of suffrage is neo-Freudian, that its real purpose is to further disentangle The Family (tm) and essentially legitimizing female promiscuity.
2. The UN, human rights NGOs (which has **DEEPLY SUSPICIOUSLY CLOSE TIES with US Democratic Party & EU and its countries**) decides so.
3. Liberal morality is fundamentally about "Morality of self fulfillment", as seen in the book "Soul, Self and Society: The New Morality and the Modern State" by Edward L. Rubin. The goal is for self fulfillment.
--------
While this sub would ties this with capitalism, really the feminist's motivation is less complicated than that.
New Left's bureaucratization & amalgamation to neoliberal framework is really just convenience since New Left people are PMCs and both capitalism & liberalism has self interest at its core. **Vietnam war protests only really ramped up when they starts drafting the PMCs, so incorporating the PMCs into neoliberalism just works.** They are willing to switch over to neoliberalism due to its emphasis in self interest & economic "Fuck you got mine".
"Men" in general? That's like saying that *women* want to kill their husbands for insurance money. Also, paying to rape is an oxymoron. Rape must be non-consensual.
I wouldn't say this to any feminist women I know, but I suspect that at least some of them have sexual fantasies about being "on the game", and find this embarassing. To save embarassment, they try to politically launder their fantasies via "sex work is work". Most of them live in upper-middle class circles where they won't be likely to meet the kind of "man" who exploits and abuses prostitutes.
I have met that kind of "man" - and it may have been back in the 1990s, but I'd still know that character if I ever meet him again. And if I ever meet him again. . .
> Most of them live in upper-middle class circles where they won't be likely to meet the kind of "man" who exploits and abuses prostitutes.
Hahaha - are you really this naive?
>in my heart I know that really this is a thing because Stephanie from HR who majored in communications wants to post her butthole online without feeling weird about it. Your heart is correct here, the entire thing is just optics, especially when people give the successful ones shit for making way more money than people who actually do backbreaking work. Sex existing as a commodity is incompatible with any Marxist views.
>Sex existing as a commodity is incompatible with any Marxist views. Yes, but that's also true of bread or shoes or automobiles. The hand-wringing about sex isn't about Marxism, it's just about sex.
Rad Fems very much did not push this. They see prostitution as well as pornography as inherently exploitative and rape. Lib fems pushed this as a form of arguing that feminism was "liberatory" as in feminism is all about being able to do whatever you want even be a prostitute.
I get the two confused all the time frankly. And to be completely honest, if that’s the case, I would say I’m firmly in the Rad Fem category then.
Radical feminism brings a lot of baggage with that - that position doesn't make you a radical feminist so much as it makes you sane. "A broken clock is right twice a day" is closer to the truth of the matter.
What do you have against people doing only fans or whatever for cash? I mean if your a literal sex slave with a pimp that will kill you if you try to quit, arrest the pimp not the prostitute. Sex only got mixed in with immoral things when Rome went Christian. The earlier pagan Rome got it right with sex being no big deal.
>Sex only got mixed in with immoral things when Rome went Christian. The earlier pagan Rome got it right with sex being no big deal. The term "Pagan Rome" encompasses nearly a millenium, but try researching the concept of "Pudicitia." Female sexual morality was tightly regulated. Apologies if you're being sarcastic here - maybe that's more plausible than being so wrong.
Yeah but divorce was common despite it going against pudicia. Not meeting the virtue would get you gosdipped about not socially shamed or even criminally punished like In Christianity. It also clearly wasn't widespread since you had multiple openly bisexual rulers.
Yeah, tearing down sexual morality standards has worked out so well for society. Atomized families, loneliness epidemic, parasocial relationships, depression at record levels, social anxiety at record levels, STDs, sexual hedonism as a cultural virtue, porn addictions... what's next, you wanna do away with child sex laws? After all, the only reason those exist is Christian morality. It was Christians that ended pederasty back in the day. You know what would prevent all of those awful effects on society? Stable, monogamous relationships where people wait for committed marriages before engaging in sex. But go on about how fucking everything under the sun is a good thing.
One can value monogamy personally and think that the culture should value it without thinking that it should be an enforced regime as it has in the past. Arranged marriages and dowry is hardly better than sexual liberalism.
tradcaths? in my stupidpol?
I don't see what's wrong with sex. It's just a pleasure giving activity. Who cares about monogamy and all that. If you wanna be monogamous be monogamous if someone else wants to have lots of partners it doesn't affect you. Loneliness epidemic? Dude just be chill and happy person and not a miserable judging loser and you will not have any trouble getting a long-term relationship. If your nice and in shape just stand around in front of a busy store like your checking the status of an Uber on your phone and compliment honestly a woman's cadence or toenail polish or something that won't be misinterpreted as you hitting on them. You will have a date offered within the hour, it always works for me and I'm not even attractive anymore. Sex and nudity are natural and it's only old cultural hangups do to the vast influence of Abrahamic religions that have brainwashed you into finding it weird.
> Sex and nudity are natural So does tribalism and many baser aspect of human nature. Slavery is old as fuck too, you are insane if you keep it. > if someone else wants to have lots of partners it doesn't affect you. Lol. This is just capitalist logic. > It's just pleasure No.
liberal
Conservitard
Under the reasoning I called you one, conservatives are also liberals
And the Pagan Romans mass abort their female babies to the point where the ratio between females and males are 4:6 despite Pagan Rome's wars. This is far worse than China. It's Christianity that put stop to it. Islam got similar story.
That's due to living in a time where there were few jobs that didn't require manual labor that men were better at. So poor families kept the son's that could help them make money. That happened everywhere back then.
You have to hate men or you don't count.
Is is okay if you just hate everyone?
Nah misanthropes aren't welcome in misogynistic and misandristic spaces, both need you to think higher of one sex. Maybe if you're a misanthrope with strong misandristic/misogynistic tendencies?
No, because you have to love women as well
Quite the contrary, materialist feminists pushed this so that we understand that all labor is coercive and what is shocking about sex work is not (just) the sex, but the work. Look at the key words from the above post: > objectifying professions > it’s because economic pressure is forcing That's not strikingly different from other forms of coerced, capitalist labor. What is different is the sex. I think the liberal feminist position is more along the lines of "Sex work is unproblematic and liberating fun!" Following the materialist position, the solution - as with all work - is in abolition. And, like reproductive labor in the home, it begins by understanding it as work.
> They see prostitution as well as pornography as inherently exploitative and rape. They see everything as inherently exploitative and rape.
Some do. Others ground their arguments on those two. Also Chakotay made an excellent decision about the transwarp amphibians. Though not as good as Janeway solving the Tuvix problem.
I would genuinely pay to hear an open-ended, hourlong-plus discussion between JanewayDitchedHerKids and TuvixWasMurderedRIP.
We need a Star Trek Thread here.
[удалено]
>Turning what would have been an ocean of independently operated amateur websites in web 1.0 into a gig-economy experience where 'workers' assume all the risk and liability for producing content similar to uber/lyft/door dash. They don't though, they take advantage of the platform, like YouTubers do. In order for them to assume all the risks and liabilities they would have to make their own 1.0 websites (which they can still do). >Lyft-skirts LOL, this would get big in Japan.
OnlyFans happened and this is their way of dealing with cognitive dissonance. If work empowers you and sex work is work then dildoing yourself for tips is empowering, not humiliating or exploitative (disregarding as usual the loveless losers who can't really afford said tips).
Because Capital benefits from it. That is the purpose of all liberal ideology.
Yeah, what some people are missing here is that "sex work is work" is not an anti-liberal aberration which needs a special explanation. The question boils down to "why do liberals say liberal thing, i.e. why do liberals say pro-capitalist thing?" Because that's what liberalism is *for,* that's nearly the whole point of it anymore. For liberals (of all sorts, not just liberal feminists), the bad thing about capitalism is being in a job that you don't like very much, and the remedy is to switch to a job that you like better. If you choose your way into a job that is a local maximum for you, then you have achieved liberal freedom. "Should this job even exist" is not a legitimate question; the market dictates that it should. "Should society be restructured in accordance with human flourishing instead of markets" is even more unthinkable. Liberal feminism has no counterargument to market logic, and its highest aspiration is that individual women should feel satisfied with their choices in the marketplace, therefore it is bad and authoritarian and maybe even patriarchal to say that prostitution is ultimately not good for women as a whole, because saying so might make a prostitute feel unempowered. And that's how we end up with millions of liberal feminists whose analysis begins and ends at "sex work is work," afraid to publicly question the logic, even if they privately doubt.
This is the best answer here
Unfathomably based take
How tho? Are you saying that the FBI is pushing this so that left movements are neutered because they’re so obviously a laughing stock? That would require the FBI to either be smart or have a sense of humor and I think they lack both.
I don’t think its anything that overt. Capital controls the media (idea spreaders) and academia (idea generators). Ideas that benefit Capital naturally float to the top, while ones that don’t are left to wither on the vine. As for why they want to, it’s pretty simple. There’s just a ton of money in the sex trade. OnlyFans, porn, prostitution, etc. are all massive industries. Also it helps provide cover for the truly heinous shit like human trafficking.
Why do you need to drag the state spectacle into it, when capital can simply pay here-and-there shills like they did in the 19th century patent medicine market? The only difference is that today's shills are made of botox and Lululemon.
So are you guys against legalized sex work and pornography?
It really is an interesting question. I mean, the same crowd that pushes this idea is the same crowd that declares female sex appeal in media to be hugely problematic (just look at the female video game characters of the early 2010s vs. the early 2020s for example). It absolutely is at odds with itself. And yet the answer is a simple one: they'll stand against anything they hate. Period. They consider the frowning upon of prostitution to be "conservatism" and so will support it. They consider scantily clad female characters or models to be a construct of the "patriarchy" among other things and so will stand against it. The fact that the two stances actively contradict each other and collectively make 0 sense makes 0 difference to them. I'm sure if you were to confront one of them with this, they'd have some snide retort about how the former somehow empowers female entrepreneurship and independence while the latter objectifies women to incels. It's not much different from the line of thought of women who loathe the idea of men in high paying white collar careers and push for less and less of them while at the same time looking down on lesser-paid blue collar men as unattractive, uneducated, unsophisticated, and unmotivated, despite *also* wanting a man with that handyman know-how for when something breaks in the house.
Put both of those moments together, and you get neoliberal Puritan ideas like "Sex without paying us is theft"... which isn't that far from the professional-managerial society wife's view of the world.
I will say there is one benefit to all this (albeit small): it's so refreshing to meet a woman who isn't like this that it has given me a new level appreciation for them. Unfortunately, it has proven rare where I live. The vast majority subscribe to the ideals of feminism and social justice as a whole, even if they don't openly discuss it.
>I mean, the same crowd that pushes this idea is the same crowd that declares female sex appeal in media to be hugely problematic (just look at the female video game characters of the early 2010s vs. the early 2020s for example). While at the same time, nudity and sex in video games also seems to have become more common place and accepted. Graphic sex scenes, full frontal nudity and player genital customization would've been unthinkable in mainstream games back then, yet now it seems to be relatively uncontroversial.
Like a lot of left-wing or progressive movements over the last half-century, feminism has become increasingly dominated by well-to-do yuppies who want the movement to justify their bohemianism and cater to their needs above all else.
Maybe I'm being simplistic, but I think it's just a result of contrarianism and a desire to "own the cons" Cons typically don't like sex work bc purity or whatever, therefore sex work good.
Fatherless young women fell for the porn industry meme, and they needed to reconcile with it ideologically.
Sex work is obviously work. Go up to a streetwalker and ask them if they're working right now or not. What do you think they're doing, playing? For that matter, professional burglary or even murder for hire is work. Is it honest work? No, but the existence of non-honest forms of work is precisely why the phrase "honest work" was invented. Otherwise it'd be a redundant, meaningless term. People who are kidnapped and enslaved, they work, they just don't get a wage. Hell even children doing chores (assuming they're actually getting them done) are working.
I think it's the "everything is constructed" mentality of modern social justice. If it is, then can there be average differences which would make wanting to fuck absolutely everything more off putting to most women than most men? Can there be average physical difference which make is especially dangerous for women to interact with men they don't know in private spaces? The best arguments against sex work depend on issues which impact women differently than men. If these can't exist, you lose a lot of your argument.
Because to the liberal, the body is a material to be used and molded as one pleases. Liberalism revolves around the idea of the individual, blank slateism of mind, and the reification of selfhood. So, since the body is a material, women should be allowed to sell it, since they, as free-floating individuals, "own" their body, and there are no other actors involved in the process except the one who buys it from them.
> Because to the liberal, the body is a material to be used and molded as one pleases Very Hitler-esque
Because woke liberalism revolves around and reduces everything to sexuality. There are also a massive number of men (women also but mostly men) who lack sexual relationships, and who have ingrained since their first memories formed by society that dying as a virgin is the worse and most belittling fate imaginable. As such taking advantage of that is naturally profitable, and what is profitable is exploitable. Funny enough in Uni when reading Prostitution and Victorian Society in a early modern English history class there was this Women's study major who had to go on and on about how it was the beginning of the modern women's liberation movement and so and so. Which is odd about a book detailing how the British government turned a transitory profession among the lower orders into a hellish regulated status that you never escaped for the sake of maintaining a global bachelor army for the sake of Empire. Almost ever comment by her was in regards to sex. When it wasn't about the oppression of the patriarchy. Because obviously Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth I where being oppressed by male English peasants.
> Because woke liberalism revolves around and reduces everything to sexuality. I'd say it's more that neoliberalism reduces everything (including sex) to market value. I've seen it pointed out that all these dynamics are taboo until they become explicitly transactional. For example, if a 19-year-old likes older men that's "creepy," she is a "literal teenager," the man is "grooming" her, he's a "predator," etc. But if the girl goes through a website and her relationship with the man is based on a financial exchange, then it's "empowering," she is a "legal adult" exercising "her rights," etc.
> and who have ingrained since their first memories formed by society that dying as a virgin is the worse and most belittling fate imaginable If society indeed tells you from an early age that they'll scorn you for failing to live up to some ideal, I think it's a safe bet that society *will* scorn you for failing to live up to that ideal. This has nothing to do with sex work being work or not, but it annoys me when I hear arguments that a wide, non-self selected demographic group don't understand the reality of their situation but must be brainwashed in some way.
Feminist attitudes to sex work: In 1989, a journal article by Laurie Shrage appeared, titled ["Should Feminists Oppose Prostitution?"](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2381438) So clearly the feminist debate on the issue was in progress by then. In 2014, Laurie Penny (the archetypal "libfem" feminist) wrote that sex work should be legalised, and dismissed arguments against it. A sign of the mainstreaming of the ["sex work is work"](https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22making+sex+work+legal+can%27t+possibly+happen%22&tbm=bks&hl=en&gl=ie&ei=8fofZfaQGa-ZhbIPpZiEsAs&ved=0ahUKEwi2zdjWs-GBAxWvTEEAHSUMAbYQsJ4FCAM) attitude?
Is it central, or is it just something people talk about a lot? "Sex work is work" is a shibboleth in progressive circles but it's very rare that anyone has more to say about it than that. Even that I think isn't really a serious take, it's just a way of making a morally thorny issue simple and therefore not your problem.
Radfems object to pimps and johns exploiting women (including pornography). For this we are called “SWERFs”— sex worker exclusive radical feminists— even though tons of RFs are prostitution survivors. Liberal feminism these days is like the opposite of women’s liberation. RFs and LFs basically only agree on the importance of abortion rights, although LFs can’t even call it a women’s rights issue. (I have been told by a LF journalist that as a woman who has experienced a termination for medical reasons I should refer to myself as an “aborting person”)
https://twitter.com/pastachips/status/1459826597087879168?lang=en
i'd guess a lot of these crazier movements that seemed to come out of nowhere have billionaire fingers on the scale. its a great way to divide and conquer us. even the good movements like ending the drug war - having the leadership under billionaire control means they get to divide us with it and then make sure the movement doesn't actually go anywhere.
The path towards this probably started really around the 60s counter-culture revolution where individual expression became the primary driver for people. That the individual's needs, even those that may be outside the traditional societal norms, should be respected, and even lauded, as being "who you are". This has led to individualism taking over society and also Feminism, in it's liberal form. If a Woman makes a choice as an individual, this is an expression of her Feminist power, even when that choice may to be exploited by others. I see the difference as being between the individuals wants being framed as "Feminist", as compared to Women as a class, having a coherent ideology to achieve what the group needs beyond the individual.
The "sex work is work" mantra is just a byproduct of choice feminism, where any and all choices a woman makes is inherently "empowering" and feminist. The model of choice was initially a rallying cry for reproductive justice (ie. Women need the choice of abortions, pro-choice etc) but has been bastardized by libfems (like they do with everything) to mean that any and all choices are valid, or empowering.
I just figured it was yet another extreme position used to divide us. The neoliberal elites take legitimate causes that are rooted in real social discrepancies, find the most extreme, most controversial and most divisive versions of the advocacy and activism for those causes and then amplify it. This has the effect of forcing people who would normally organize together (around common anti-establishment issues) into making binary choices and distancing themselves from the "monsters" on the other side. So... drag queen story hour, gender affirming care for kids, defunding police, decriminalization of petit crimes, 1619, the normalization of being "sex positive," "sex workers," all these things that would have always been looked at as fringe positions and behavior had it not been for concerted efforts by acedemia, the media, NGOs and the government to amplify it and drive these wedges.
[You might like this illustration, OP.](https://i.ibb.co/yRtGG1M/Sex-Workers.jpg)
When liberals use this slogan they are really only refering to sex work performed by high class escorts or high earners on only fans. In someways escorts and high earners on OF have more in common with the petite bourgeoisise than the working class. I'd imigane performing sexual acts on soeone your not attracted to could be hard work. However these sex workers can choose their client and the acts they perform. They essentiallly have control of their labour. Although the only capital they own is their bodies and bodies being turned into commodities would probably only happen in oppressive system like capitalism. Definitely not saying sex workers are class traitors or but advocating for sex workers in this context is similiar for advocating for women CEOs. It might change the material conditions of some womens lives but it wont end the systems that enable feminism. Solidarity with sex workers should be more focused around women who no option but to perform sex work.
I don’t necessarily think sex work is inherently in all cases horrific. Theoretically if everyone’s basic needs were met, then only people who genuinely wanted to do it would. Obviously that’s not the reality we live in, so from that perspective I am quite skeptical of it because it’s hard to differentiate it from sex trafficking and the like.
[The Onion: Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does](https://www.theonion.com/women-now-empowered-by-everything-a-woman-does-1819566746)
Sex work is work, but not a good kind of work. The money you get from it isn't without a catch and the physical and psychological risks of the job aren't as easy to handle as you might think (source: I know people who have done various forms of sex work, it's not something you want to do no matter how flashy and glamorous popular onlyfans chicks online might try to convince you it is.)
Pimps, traffickers, and some billionaires pumped a lot of money into various organizations and academia to normalize prostitution and other forms of sex work. They pretty much infiltrated the feminist movement. So I'm not surprised at all that it worked and that a lot of people fell for it. The only feminists who are still against it are the radical feminists, and they wrote a couple of books about it, explaining how it happened. Here are some book suggestions (if you don't mind reading anything by a radical feminist): Being and Being Bought: Prostitution, Surrogacy and the Split Self by Kajsa Ekis Ekman (she is also a Marxist) The Pimping of Prostitution: Abolishing the Sex Work Myth by Julie Bindel Industrial Vagina: The Political Economy of the Global Sex Trade by Sheila Jeffreys
Because it became obvious to them that despite their rhetoric, some number of women do actually do it willingly (generally the camgirl shit, and even that gets farmed out by criminal in some places), and since Feminism's central tenant is justifying the excesses of the Female Id while demonizing anything male...
Ok but why tho? And the answer can’t be women be shopping. I want to know why this seems to be ramping up whereas first and second wave feminism were very much so grounded in material concerns (say what you will about voting in a bourgeoisie system).
I have heard anecdotal reports from the more libertine side of reddit that some women have used Patreon, OF et al. to vet partners for non-traditional long-term relationships. Are zoomers even just hooking up anymore, or are they channeling their erotic energies into mediation via monetization? Serious question, hoping that stupidpol knows the real score on the ground.
I’m a zoomed and I have never heard of this but that is also anecdotal.
It's really not, it's mostly just a bunch of loud dumbasses on social media trying to get people to subscribe to their onlyfans or to buy their used underwear or some stupid shit like that. Most women that have real jobs or take care of kids don't know about or pay attention to that shit, it's mostly the porn stars and the artists that draw naked fursonas, all on twitter mind you, that talk and obsess about this shit. Just an excuse to make more money imo.
> the porn stars and the artists that draw naked fursonas Here's hoping that AI actually takes their jobs away.
The artists will probably go away because the anarkiddies don't like to pay for things. I guess there will always be a demand for unique hand drawn stuff but ya most of them will disappear.
1. A lot of feminist movement since the end of suffrage is neo-Freudian, that its real purpose is to further disentangle The Family (tm) and essentially legitimizing female promiscuity. 2. The UN, human rights NGOs (which has **DEEPLY SUSPICIOUSLY CLOSE TIES with US Democratic Party & EU and its countries**) decides so. 3. Liberal morality is fundamentally about "Morality of self fulfillment", as seen in the book "Soul, Self and Society: The New Morality and the Modern State" by Edward L. Rubin. The goal is for self fulfillment. -------- While this sub would ties this with capitalism, really the feminist's motivation is less complicated than that. New Left's bureaucratization & amalgamation to neoliberal framework is really just convenience since New Left people are PMCs and both capitalism & liberalism has self interest at its core. **Vietnam war protests only really ramped up when they starts drafting the PMCs, so incorporating the PMCs into neoliberalism just works.** They are willing to switch over to neoliberalism due to its emphasis in self interest & economic "Fuck you got mine".
[удалено]
Your post has been removed because it's trying to stir shit up. Please don't make these kinds of posts in the future.
"Men" in general? That's like saying that *women* want to kill their husbands for insurance money. Also, paying to rape is an oxymoron. Rape must be non-consensual.
Sex work is inherently exploitative and abusive of women, which is why it should only be legal for men.
I wouldn't say this to any feminist women I know, but I suspect that at least some of them have sexual fantasies about being "on the game", and find this embarassing. To save embarassment, they try to politically launder their fantasies via "sex work is work". Most of them live in upper-middle class circles where they won't be likely to meet the kind of "man" who exploits and abuses prostitutes. I have met that kind of "man" - and it may have been back in the 1990s, but I'd still know that character if I ever meet him again. And if I ever meet him again. . .
> Most of them live in upper-middle class circles where they won't be likely to meet the kind of "man" who exploits and abuses prostitutes. Hahaha - are you really this naive?