iâm not a sex worker and you should listen to sex workers themselves about this but campaigning for the criminalisation of sex work is harmful bc:
âthey wouldnât do this if they truly had a choiceâ:Â
a. maybe not, but neither would many retail workers, cleaning ladies, nannies, and generally people in minimum jobs/jobs that are considered âunskilled.â those people are also overwhelmingly poor women, queer women, women of colour, single moms, etc, so thatâs also marginalisation-informed class-based oppression. by focusing only on sex work, you show that your issue is with sex and not with actual class-based oppression or protecting vulnerable people
b. if you actually talked to any sex workers, youâd realise that many of them chose this job over any other âunskilledâ jobs, for reasons such as: they like sex; they like the human connection; it allows them to be self-employed; it allows them flexible working hours (particularly useful for disabled ppl and parents, among others); they actually feel safer than in other jobs (particularly trans sex workers who have a way of vetting clients often feel safer than in a retail job, for example); it pays well, often better than other jobs they could apply for; etc.
ofc i wish no one would ever have to do a job they didnât want to do, but thatâs a socialist fight, not an anti-sex work fight. if capitalism coerces people into sex work, universal basic income, for example, would way more efficiently prevent non-consensual sex work than any laws, and it would also prevent other types of non-consensual labour - but also donât pretend there wouldnât be some people whoâd keep doing sex work to complement that income bc, surprise, some sex workers actually enjoy their job.
âit creates the unhealthy illusion of a sexual relationship that you should actually be getting from a loved oneâ
i mean, according to this logic, letâs criminalise nannies, bc they give the illusion of a parental relationship that children should get from their actual parents. letâs criminalise psychologists, bc they create the illusion of intimacy with a person who personally cares about you, which is something you should be getting from your loved ones. letâs criminalise at-home nurses and domestic workers and cooks bc domestic work and care should really be taken care of by family.
sounds ludicrous, doesnât it? sometimes ppl donât have access to certain services or have no way to have certain needs met without paying for them, so they must pay for them. also, the definition of being a professional is being better at what you do than a non-professional and/or offering something a non-professional canât or doesnât offer, which easily explains why someone who could obtain those things elsewhere still chooses to go to a professional.
âtheyâre selling their body and creating the expectation of womenâs bodies as commodities you can consume!!!1!!!!1!!!â
oh boy, welcome to capitalism. sex workers donât sell their bodies: they sell their time, during which they perform sex acts. just like a cashier sells their time, during which they scan peopleâs purchases. just like a doctor sells their time, during which they figure out therapies for people. just like a teacher sells their time, during which they educate people.Â
labour is something thatâs expected from all of us under capitalism (except the very rich), and itâs disproportionately expected from marginalised ppl to do jobs they donât like bc they should feel lucky to even have a job. if you have a problem with people doing something they wouldnât do if they didnât get money for it, and with marginalised people being particularly vulnerable to such a situation, you have a problem with the concept of all labour under capitalism (which, i mean, same, but this isnât a sex work issue; itâs a socialism issue - cf above)
âitâs legalised rape/sexual assaultâ
hmmmm, no, itâs not. rape is sex without consent. consent is something very personal, and everyone decides for themselves what it takes for them to consent to having sex with someone. if youâd never consent to sex because someone gave you money, thatâs your fullest right, and if anyone pushed that boundary, that would be rape. we all have different boundaries, though - some people wonât consent to sex just bc they think someone is hot, but others will; some people wonât consent to sex acts they have no interest in but their partner does, but others will; similarly, some people wonât consent to sex with someone whoâs paying them for it, but others will. trying to apply global rules to what one can and canât consent to makes the actual concept of consent meaningless and subsequently feeds rape culture.
this is also very, very dangerous rhetoric if you truly want to protect vulnerable people. when all sex work is considered rape, it put sex workers at a higher risk of actually being raped (i.e. having sex without their consent):
a. clients assume sex workers donât want to have sex with any of their clients and donât want to do any of the sex acts they perform with them, so they think forcing themselves onto a sex worker who hasnât accepted them or forcing them to perform sex acts they havenât consented/explicitly refused to is okay if they pay them afterwards. acting like money is this big consent-eraser erases actual consent and leads to a mindset that gets sex workers raped.
b. it becomes impossible for a sex worker to report a rape, firstly bc theyâve committed a crime themselves by being a sex worker and would as such get into legal trouble, and secondly bc the reaction they get is overwhelmingly âwell yeah, all sex you have in the context of your job is technically rape, so why would we do anything about this particular instance.â
âit gives men the impression that all women are sexually available to them!!!!1!!1!!!â
can we stop blaming other women for men being shitty, jfc. also, itâs simply false: sex work is setting conditions for having sex with someone, and sex workers are far from the only ppl to do that. if me canât respect those conditions and the fact that those conditions vary from person to person, thatâs a men problem, not a sex work problem. also this argument is diametrally opposed to âsex work is not a real choice!!!â bc if you rly thought they did it against their will, you wouldnât blame them for what it leads men to think, would you? shows the hypocrisy again - you donât want to protect women, you just hate sex workers
sex work forces marginalised women into unsafe situations and makes them even more vulnerable
not when sex work is treated as any other job. if itâs decriminalised, sex workers could be treated like any other workers and have social security coverage, insurance coverage, workersâ rights, retirement plans, etc etc. making sex work safer makes the marginalised ppl who are more likely to do sex work safer and raises their living standard.Â
âwe need to protect the victims of human trafficking and people who are actively coerced into sex workâ
yes!!!! very true!!! we do!!! and you create the exact opposite effect by campaigning for the criminalisation of sex work (including the criminalisation of the clients of sex workers). when sex work is criminalised or illegal, you effectively increase non-consensual sex work and the impact of human trafficking:
a. websites and online platforms used by sex workers are shut down. this has several effects:
- it makes it impossible for sex workers to vet their clients ahead of time, to see a profile, to have a conversation, etc. this makes it a lot harder for them to recognise a dangerous client and almost impossible to refuse/cancel appointments
- they lose their network of clients, and easy means of communication with them. it forces them to seek out clients in dangerous situations (such as on the streets or at truck stops etc) or to go back to a pimp, who does have the network and the means of communication, and who effectively exploits them, taking a share of their earnings and often pressuring them into non-consensual work or unsafe situations
b. when everything is considered âhuman trafficking,â law enforcement has it easy only arresting sex workers and calling it human traffic. they track down sex workers who are then arrested and face fines or jail time, are often the victims of assault by police officers, and generally end up way more vulnerable than they started. meanwhile, actual human trafficking rings are often much harder to find, and when sex work and human trafficking are considered on and the same, law enforcement doesnât put in the work of rescuing actual human trafficking victims, instead basing their numbers and success on their arrest of sex workers. if you want to help human trafficking victims (which you should!), campaign for decriminalisation of sex work and for more efficient application of anti-human trafficking laws
donât campaign against sex work or for the criminalisation of sex work or anything that pushes sex workers underground. youâll only end up harming the people you want to help.
discoholicmusic
theartofmadeline
gummygunk
stormborns
janainaart
dailybridgerton
izzy806
jbbartram-illu
kaledo-art
