Should brothels exist?

[Novus America]

But why resort to just any system? There is a middle way, in which prostitution is decriminalized, but not controlled by pimps and corporations.

I like the British approach much better than the more statist and exploitative German model.

I prefer a Dutch model, regulated and policed red light districts

I disagree. Regulation is required based on the complexity of the industry in question, and the damage done by something going wrong. We are not talking about building airliners here.
There are no significant barriers to entry or risk of monopolization for independent self employed prostitution, no major issues involving implementing new technologies, intellectual property, pollution, outsourcing, strategic national defense goods etc.

I do not see why prostitution requires significant regulation, or regulation beyond other sexual relationships, some which are similar to prostitution (sugar babies, trophy wives etc.).

Regulation should be based on need, not done for its own sake. If it can do fine under the UK system, why add more complexity and control over the women’s bodies and lives? Why is it needed?

I do not see a good reason for the government to regulate consensual, private sexual relations.

[Saiwania]

Even those legal and well-consumed facets of the sex industry remain broadly problematic in the ways I described. The example I mentioned involved a billion dollar conglomerate that millions of people, especially men, use on a routine basis. I think the nature of the industry and the power structures in place predisposes it to be abusive, especially in the absence of adequate regulations. Which legal sex work companies avoid on a routine basis through off-shoring. Again, it's really surprising to see non-libertarians supporting people who are literally worse than the capitalist ghouls that they otherwise rant about on this forum on a not infrequent basis.

Also, RAPE SURVIVORS ARE NOT THE SAME AS UNDERPAID EMPLOYEEES. Why do I have to explain this to y'all? Are y'all seriously this tone deaf? I want you to go to a group therapy session and tell people this. See the reaction you get.

Just admit your vice is problematic. It's not hard.

I don't have a vice in real life, but it is a vice I'd nonetheless like to exist if not be fully legalized where I live. To be frank, I don't necessarily care if bad things happen in the background. The problems that occur in this world are larger than me or anyone else can truly ever solve. I'd consent to some basic regulations like security, STD prevention, and ensuring everyone is 18+ but beyond that- I'm not super concerned or invested in abuses. If people don't want to take on the risks involved with doing sex work then they can avoid it entirely or should.

So far as the past scandals with Mindgeek go, those incidents happened because some people just break the law on occasion if not frequently. They don't care if they can get money/ratings from it, even if the content happens to be illegal. Just like tons of people don't care about digital piracy if they can get old software for free (putting aside the fact that piracy is often the only way to ensure old media gets preserved after the rights holder stops selling it, disappears, or whatever happens in the realm of business).

In that case, the end users who upload content were at fault, not the platform itself. Although the platform is at fault if the platform's design is flawed enough as to be vulnerable to abuses/excesses or if they willingly looked the other way out of complacency/greed and didn't make attempts to fix the problems that arose until later. Practically speaking, Mindgeek and any company like it- does probably have to require that no one be able to upload anything without first verifying their identity along with the identify of anyone depicted, beyond also making use of industry black lists of known file hashes that're illegal and should automatically be flagged/removed if detected. If end users can't be fully trusted, enough restrictions have to be placed on them, like not allowing hosted videos to be downloaded (because then it might be reuploaded) and so on.

No, I don't think I'll acknowledge that prostitution/sex is inherently problematic because fact is: it is people who're at fault and not the product/service itself. The root of the problem is that people don't always behave or have the best intentions. Measures can be taken to address/limit such problems but in the end, it shouldn't be on those companies to prevent everything bad about human nature.

Society has too many hang ups about sex and I'm perhaps sick of it. This should be nothing to be afraid of in my view. If most STIs were eventually eradicated with new vaccines/cures, the situation could be even better than it actually is.

[Ethel mermania]

I prefer a Dutch model, regulated and policed red light districts

I disagree. Regulation is required based on the complexity of the industry in question, and the damage done by something going wrong. We are not talking about building airliners here.
There are no significant barriers to entry or risk of monopolization for independent self employed prostitution, no major issues involving implementing new technologies, intellectual property, pollution, outsourcing, strategic national defense goods etc.

I do not see why prostitution requires significant regulation, or regulation beyond other sexual relationships, some which are similar to prostitution (sugar babies, trophy wives etc.).

Regulation should be based on need, not done for its own sake. If it can do fine under the UK system, why add more complexity and control over the women’s bodies and lives? Why is it needed?

I do not see a good reason for the government to regulate consensual, private sexual relations.

Preventing human trafficking, ensure health and safety standards. Sex workers are entitled to both federal and state level OSHA, type standards.

In ny state we license and regulate hair cutters, I dont see a reason not to do the same to prostitutes.

[Novus America]

I disagree. Regulation is required based on the complexity of the industry in question, and the damage done by something going wrong. We are not talking about building airliners here.
There are no significant barriers to entry or risk of monopolization for independent self employed prostitution, no major issues involving implementing new technologies, intellectual property, pollution, outsourcing, strategic national defense goods etc.

I do not see why prostitution requires significant regulation, or regulation beyond other sexual relationships, some which are similar to prostitution (sugar babies, trophy wives etc.).

Regulation should be based on need, not done for its own sake. If it can do fine under the UK system, why add more complexity and control over the women’s bodies and lives? Why is it needed?

I do not see a good reason for the government to regulate consensual, private sexual relations.

Preventing human trafficking, ensure health and safety standards. Sex workers are entitled to both federal and state level OSHA, type standards.

In ny state we license and regulate hair cutters, I dont see a reason not to do the same to prostitutes.

Decriminalizing consensual sexual relationships while banning non consensual ones, brothels and pimps is the best way to fight trafficking. Effectively encouraging things that encourage trafficking do not.
Trafficking is still illegal in the UK.

Well maybe your state should stop regulating haircutters. Just because you excessively regulate other things, does not mean you should increase excessive regulation.

If sex workers are independently self employed they can set their own health and safety standards. If someone is self employed how would they sue their employer for violating standards? If they are self employed there is no real need. They should be able to sue and/or report their clients for crimes or things against their consent, but that does not require additional regulations.

Regulation of brothels and pimps would be necessary as they tend to encourage trafficking and exploitation, if you allow them in the first place. But not allowing them takes care of that.

When third parties get involved, when lack of consent gets involved the government must step in. But I do not see why the government directly controlling private consensual sex is necessary, especially when again things that are basically prostitution are not banned or even regulated, like trophy wives and sugar babies.

Strictly punish violations of consent laws, keep third party exploitation prohibited, and then more regulation of sex lives is not needed nor desirable.

[Ethel mermania]

Preventing human trafficking, ensure health and safety standards. Sex workers are entitled to both federal and state level OSHA, type standards.

In ny state we license and regulate hair cutters, I dont see a reason not to do the same to prostitutes.

Decriminalizing consensual sexual relationships while banning non consensual ones, brothels and pimps is the best way to fight trafficking. Effectively encouraging things that encourage trafficking do not.
Trafficking is still illegal in the UK.

Well maybe your state should stop regulating haircutters. Just because you excessively regulate other things, does not mean you should increase excessive regulation.

If sex workers are independently self employed they can set their own health and safety standards. If someone is self employed how would they sue their employer for violating standards? If they are self employed there is no real need. They should be able to sue and/or report their clients for crimes or things against their consent, but that does not require additional regulations.

Regulation of brothels and pimps would be necessary as they tend to encourage trafficking and exploitation, if you allow them in the first place. But not allowing them takes care of that.

When third parties get involved, when lack of consent gets involved the government must step in. But I do not see why the government directly controlling private consensual sex is necessary, especially when again things that are basically prostitution are not banned or even regulated, like trophy wives and sugar babies.

Strictly punish violations of consent laws, keep third party exploitation prohibited, and then more regulation of sex lives is not needed nor desirable.

I would think registration, proof of citizenship and proof of domicile would be a better way to fight trafficking. I think work limits should be set, I think zoning should be enforced. Medical checkups every x amount if days. Health and safety training should be mandates.

We highly regulate sin type of businesses. Alcohol, tobacco, firearms. I dont see how prostitution should be different

[Novus America]

Decriminalizing consensual sexual relationships while banning non consensual ones, brothels and pimps is the best way to fight trafficking. Effectively encouraging things that encourage trafficking do not.
Trafficking is still illegal in the UK.

Well maybe your state should stop regulating haircutters. Just because you excessively regulate other things, does not mean you should increase excessive regulation.

If sex workers are independently self employed they can set their own health and safety standards. If someone is self employed how would they sue their employer for violating standards? If they are self employed there is no real need. They should be able to sue and/or report their clients for crimes or things against their consent, but that does not require additional regulations.

Regulation of brothels and pimps would be necessary as they tend to encourage trafficking and exploitation, if you allow them in the first place. But not allowing them takes care of that.

When third parties get involved, when lack of consent gets involved the government must step in. But I do not see why the government directly controlling private consensual sex is necessary, especially when again things that are basically prostitution are not banned or even regulated, like trophy wives and sugar babies.

Strictly punish violations of consent laws, keep third party exploitation prohibited, and then more regulation of sex lives is not needed nor desirable.

I would think registration, proof of citizenship and proof of domicile would be a better way to fight trafficking. I think work limits should be set, I think zoning should be enforced. Medical checkups every x amount if days. Health and safety training should be mandates.

We highly regulate sin type of businesses. Alcohol, tobacco, firearms. I dont see how prostitution should be different

People already have to provide proof of citizenship to do other things. That is an issue beyond prostitution. Register does not necessarily prevent trafficking any more than existing laws. Illegally trafficked ones will not be registered or registered regardless if it can be done in such a way to prevent alarm. Trafficking is a major problem in Germany’s regulated prostitution system.

Those other things involve the manufacture and transport of goods, so are quite different. People’s sex lives, as long as it is consensual and all should not be controlled by the government, and as mentioned many of the things you point out only become issues if we allow or require brothels to form.

Also it should be note by decriminalizing it vs regulating and taxing it, we are doing less to encourage it or create the perverse incentive to support it.

One interesting thing about this is the Soviets with alcohol, the Soviets in the late 80s cracked down heavily on alcohol given the harm it caused, but this also caused serious economic damage which helped accelerate the collapse of the Soviet economy, because alcohol had been a major source of revenue.

Or how electric cars are causing havoc to the gas tax system.

As soon as the government gets involved in regulating and profiting from something, it is effectively comes to encourage that thing, and has a perverse incentive to keep that thing going or even expand it, even if it first regulated and taxed it because it felt it was harmful.

[Fahran]

Fash moment.

I mean... both of these people are fash. So...

[Fahran]

On a similar note, I don't purchase the services of prostitutes either. :^)

Neither do I, I just think its a much worse thing than prostitution

Valid.

[Nararius]

Brothels should be controlled because safe sex is a right. There are sex workers, you have to accept that. Inspected brothels do not have AIDS and other diseases.Sex Work İs Work !

Agreed, sex work is work.

It is amazing how many SWERFs (Sex worker exclusive radical "feminists") are on NationStates.

I always find the views of SWERFs, TERFs, and Carceral Feminists to be disturbing, and I do not consider these groups to be leftists or moderates, I consider them to be full right wing ideologies, and I think it is doubtful if they could even be called feminism.

I don't consider what passes for mainstream feminism today to be right-wing ideologies. They are the ones more associated with the left and progressive movements. Two different sides could come to an overlapping conclusion on policy, but have different reasoning motives.

Conservatives = "Prostitution should be banned or discouraged because it is harmful to all of society."
Anti-sex Feminists = "Prostitution should be banned because it is a patriarchal institution and men are inherently rapists and degenerates, etc. blah-blah"

[Fahran]

I don't consider what passes for mainstream feminism today to be right-wing ideologies.

It doesn't have to pass for feminism. It is feminism. Even if sex-positive feminists and "libertarian socialists" dislike the actual arguments made. While not all feminists are left-wing, a lot of them have been associated with the political left. This includes SWERFs and TERFs as well - such as Germaine Greer. And you really don't have to be a SWERF, sex-negative, or even a feminist to be critical of the sex industry.

They are the ones more associated with the left and progressive movements. Two different sides could come to an overlapping conclusion on policy, but have different reasoning motives.

True.

Conservatives = "Prostitution should be banned or discouraged because it is harmful to all of society."
Anti-sex Feminists = "Prostitution should be banned because it is a patriarchal institution and men are inherently rapists and degenerates, etc. blah-blah"

These arguments aren't really too different despite emerging from different paradigms. Besides that, are we really going to argue that the sex industry hasn't been a patriarchal morass that caters to the male gaze, often at the expense of both men and women? That's rather the point. Again, I'm not proposing we ban anything. I'm simply proposing we acknowledge that, maybe, we shouldn't applaud or normalize vices beyond healthy levels and that an industry that profits off of deeply immoral things (such as sexual violence, rape, human trafficking, revenge porn, etc.) warrants a higher degree of regulation than industries that don't do that.

[Maricarland]

Agreed, sex work is work.

It is amazing how many SWERFs (Sex worker exclusive radical "feminists") are on NationStates.

I always find the views of SWERFs, TERFs, and Carceral Feminists to be disturbing, and I do not consider these groups to be leftists or moderates, I consider them to be full right wing ideologies, and I think it is doubtful if they could even be called feminism.

I don't consider what passes for mainstream feminism today to be right-wing ideologies. They are the ones more associated with the left and progressive movements. Two different sides could come to an overlapping conclusion on policy, but have different reasoning motives.

Conservatives = "Prostitution should be banned or discouraged because it is harmful to all of society."
Anti-sex Feminists = "Prostitution should be banned because it is a patriarchal institution and men are inherently rapists and degenerates, etc. blah-blah"

Feminism is an philosophy, ideology, and movement founded on the principle of egalitarianism between the sexes and genders. We are currently in the third wave of feminism. Each wave of feminism has contributed its own branch of ideas towards the movement. However, each wave of feminism has also had its own divisions, feminism (like most ideologies has various groups within it that do not always agree).

1st wave feminism was mostly focused on equal voting rights for women and giving women equal power to men, however, there were divisions. For example a lot of the early feminists in the 1st wave were explicitly racist, arguing that women were essential in the controlling of "savage and brutish races" and therefore should and must have voting rights. This racist tendency in feminism still survives today, but that is only one tendency among many. Some early feminists were more aligned with socialism and were opposed to racism (such as figures like Emma Goldman, Victoria Woodhull, and Mary Shelly).

2nd wave feminism was focused more on social roles and economic liberation of women. 3rd wave feminism is more inclusive and focuses on gender roles entirely, embracing queer identities. Usually feminism is associated with the left, however, there are some tendencies within feminism that are regressive and reactionary, such as carceral feminism that see the answer the sexual violence to be more policing and prisons (which actually harms women who do sex work, look it up), instead of sex education, sex positivity, decriminalizing sex work, prison abolition and restorative and transformative justice models.

There is a group that goes by the term, "sex worker exclusive/exclusionary radical feminism" (SWERFs) that use feminism as justification to be anti-sex worker and sex work and often sex-negative (the opposite of sex positivity), with little else associated with their feminism because arguing against sexual liberation (they believe that sexual liberation actually harmed women's rights and freedoms). SWERFs often overlap with TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) who use feminism as an excuse to be against people who are transgender or non-binary, arguing that transwomen are just men invading women's spaces, and transmen are lesbian women who have been mutiliated and that transgenderism is stealing lesbians away from the feminist community.

Obviously, SWERFs, TERFs, and carceral feminism are not leftist ideologies and are right-wing in nature (and ridiculous), and many gender studies sociologists and feminists of other tendencies and leftists who align with feminism (like myself) do not even consider SWERFs, TERFs, or carceral feminists to even be feminists, but rather people using the label of feminism. I fully support inclusive, intersectional, non-capitalist, non-carceral feminism, and do consider most forms of feminism to be leftist.

[Novus America]

I don't consider what passes for mainstream feminism today to be right-wing ideologies. They are the ones more associated with the left and progressive movements. Two different sides could come to an overlapping conclusion on policy, but have different reasoning motives.

Conservatives = "Prostitution should be banned or discouraged because it is harmful to all of society."
Anti-sex Feminists = "Prostitution should be banned because it is a patriarchal institution and men are inherently rapists and degenerates, etc. blah-blah"

Feminism is an philosophy, ideology, and movement founded on the principle of egalitarianism between the sexes and genders. We are currently in the third wave of feminism. Each wave of feminism has contributed its own branch of ideas towards the movement. However, each wave of feminism has also had its own divisions, feminism (like most ideologies has various groups within it that do not always agree).

1st wave feminism was mostly focused on equal voting rights for women and giving women equal power to men, however, there were divisions. For example a lot of the early feminists in the 1st wave were explicitly racist, arguing that women were essential in the controlling of "savage and brutish races" and therefore should and must have voting rights. This racist tendency in feminism still survives today, but that is only one tendency among many. Some early feminists were more aligned with socialism and were opposed to racism (such as figures like Emma Goldman, Victoria Woodhull, and Mary Shelly).

2nd wave feminism was focused more on social roles and economic liberation of women. 3rd wave feminism is more inclusive and focuses on gender roles entirely, embracing queer identities. Usually feminism is associated with the left, however, there are some tendencies within feminism that are regressive and reactionary, such as carceral feminism that see the answer the sexual violence to be more policing and prisons (which actually harms women who do sex work, look it up), instead of sex education, sex positivity, decriminalizing sex work, prison abolition and restorative and transformative justice models.

There is a group that goes by the term, "sex worker exclusive/exclusionary radical feminism" (SWERFs) that use feminism as justification to be anti-sex worker and sex work and often sex-negative (the opposite of sex positivity), with little else associated with their feminism because arguing against sexual liberation (they believe that sexual liberation actually harmed women's rights and freedoms). SWERFs often overlap with TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) who use feminism as an excuse to be against people who are transgender or non-binary, arguing that transwomen are just men invading women's spaces, and transmen are lesbian women who have been mutiliated and that transgenderism is stealing lesbians away from the feminist community.

Obviously, SWERFs, TERFs, and carceral feminism are not leftist ideologies and are right-wing in nature (and ridiculous), and many gender studies sociologists and feminists of other tendencies and leftists who align with feminism (like myself) do not even consider SWERFs, TERFs, or carceral feminists to even be feminists, but rather people using the label of feminism. I fully support inclusive, intersectional, non-capitalist, non-carceral feminism, and do consider most forms of feminism to be leftist.

This is pretty much a no true Scotsman approach. This is your view of what you think feminism is or at least should be.
I would argue a much broader approach, that feminism is the desire to empower women, be used to define it. Because it is less driven on personal perceptions of right and wrong in determining who falls within the broader ideological current.

If it was merely egalitarianism between the genders, the name would not need to specify femininity. It would simply be sexual egalitarianism.

Now in many cases it is in fact egalitarian, at least in theory, simply seeking to empower women to a status equal to men. But as you noted there are other currents, some think empowering women requires disempowering men, or empowering women to be more powerful than men. Or excluding men entirely. Extreme cases like Feminist separatism are still feminism.

And some cases it just becomes subject conflicts of interest like issues regarding the draft, alimony or sentencing discrepancies that some feminists are not so keen about getting into, given the inequality in those cases is sometimes seen as beneficial to women.

TERFs and SWERFs also feel they are empowering and protecting women, although you might disagree with their methods and conclusions, it is still from a desire to empower women, as they see it.

Also Feminism is considered by many to be now “fourth wave” although admittedly it is somewhat difficult to define the third and fourth wave, whereas the first and second were more united around concrete policy proposals and overturning explicitly sexist laws that gave women less power, after those more concrete legislative goals were mostly achieved it lost those unifying forces and thus ended up becoming more theoretical, ideological, and at times even contradictory.

Like all ideologies it it is not some pure concept, but a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly.

[Maricarland]

Feminism is an philosophy, ideology, and movement founded on the principle of egalitarianism between the sexes and genders. We are currently in the third wave of feminism. Each wave of feminism has contributed its own branch of ideas towards the movement. However, each wave of feminism has also had its own divisions, feminism (like most ideologies has various groups within it that do not always agree).

1st wave feminism was mostly focused on equal voting rights for women and giving women equal power to men, however, there were divisions. For example a lot of the early feminists in the 1st wave were explicitly racist, arguing that women were essential in the controlling of "savage and brutish races" and therefore should and must have voting rights. This racist tendency in feminism still survives today, but that is only one tendency among many. Some early feminists were more aligned with socialism and were opposed to racism (such as figures like Emma Goldman, Victoria Woodhull, and Mary Shelly).

2nd wave feminism was focused more on social roles and economic liberation of women. 3rd wave feminism is more inclusive and focuses on gender roles entirely, embracing queer identities. Usually feminism is associated with the left, however, there are some tendencies within feminism that are regressive and reactionary, such as carceral feminism that see the answer the sexual violence to be more policing and prisons (which actually harms women who do sex work, look it up), instead of sex education, sex positivity, decriminalizing sex work, prison abolition and restorative and transformative justice models.

There is a group that goes by the term, "sex worker exclusive/exclusionary radical feminism" (SWERFs) that use feminism as justification to be anti-sex worker and sex work and often sex-negative (the opposite of sex positivity), with little else associated with their feminism because arguing against sexual liberation (they believe that sexual liberation actually harmed women's rights and freedoms). SWERFs often overlap with TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) who use feminism as an excuse to be against people who are transgender or non-binary, arguing that transwomen are just men invading women's spaces, and transmen are lesbian women who have been mutiliated and that transgenderism is stealing lesbians away from the feminist community.

Obviously, SWERFs, TERFs, and carceral feminism are not leftist ideologies and are right-wing in nature (and ridiculous), and many gender studies sociologists and feminists of other tendencies and leftists who align with feminism (like myself) do not even consider SWERFs, TERFs, or carceral feminists to even be feminists, but rather people using the label of feminism. I fully support inclusive, intersectional, non-capitalist, non-carceral feminism, and do consider most forms of feminism to be leftist.

This is pretty much a no true Scotsman approach. This is your view of what you think feminism is or at least should be.
I would argue a much broader approach, that feminism is the desire to empower women, be used to define it. Because it is less driven on personal perceptions of right and wrong in determining who falls within the broader ideological current.

If it was merely egalitarianism between the genders, the name would not need to specify femininity. It would simply be sexual egalitarianism.

Now in many cases it is in fact egalitarian, at least in theory, simply seeking to empower women to a status equal to men. But as you noted there are other currents, some think empowering women requires disempowering men, or empowering women to be more powerful than men. Or excluding men entirely. Extreme cases like Feminist separatism are still feminism.

And some cases it just becomes subject conflicts of interest like issues regarding the draft, alimony or sentencing discrepancies that some feminists are not so keen about getting into, given the inequality in those cases is sometimes seen as beneficial to women.

TERFs and SWERFs also feel they are empowering and protecting women, although you might disagree with their methods and conclusions, it is still from a desire to empower women, as they see it.

Also Feminism is considered by many to be now “fourth wave” although admittedly it is somewhat difficult to define the third and fourth wave, whereas the first and second were more united around concrete policy proposals and overturning explicitly sexist laws that gave women less power, after those more concrete legislative goals were mostly achieved it lost those unifying forces and thus ended up becoming more theoretical, ideological, and at times even contradictory.

Like all ideologies it it is not some pure concept, but a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly.

I was rushing through my summaries, as I am tired and going to sleep soon. I agree with your last sentence. Though the definition of feminism is about gender and sexual egalitarianism, the word feminism was based off the word feminine because historically women were the ones being oppressed in most societies and empowering women was the spark and main focus of the movement for a very long time (and arguably still is).

[Novus America]

This is pretty much a no true Scotsman approach. This is your view of what you think feminism is or at least should be.
I would argue a much broader approach, that feminism is the desire to empower women, be used to define it. Because it is less driven on personal perceptions of right and wrong in determining who falls within the broader ideological current.

If it was merely egalitarianism between the genders, the name would not need to specify femininity. It would simply be sexual egalitarianism.

Now in many cases it is in fact egalitarian, at least in theory, simply seeking to empower women to a status equal to men. But as you noted there are other currents, some think empowering women requires disempowering men, or empowering women to be more powerful than men. Or excluding men entirely. Extreme cases like Feminist separatism are still feminism.

And some cases it just becomes subject conflicts of interest like issues regarding the draft, alimony or sentencing discrepancies that some feminists are not so keen about getting into, given the inequality in those cases is sometimes seen as beneficial to women.

TERFs and SWERFs also feel they are empowering and protecting women, although you might disagree with their methods and conclusions, it is still from a desire to empower women, as they see it.

Also Feminism is considered by many to be now “fourth wave” although admittedly it is somewhat difficult to define the third and fourth wave, whereas the first and second were more united around concrete policy proposals and overturning explicitly sexist laws that gave women less power, after those more concrete legislative goals were mostly achieved it lost those unifying forces and thus ended up becoming more theoretical, ideological, and at times even contradictory.

Like all ideologies it it is not some pure concept, but a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly.

I was rushing through my summaries, as I am tired and going to sleep soon. I agree with your last sentence. Though the definition of feminism is about gender and sexual egalitarianism, the word feminism was based off the word feminine because historically women were the ones being oppressed in most societies and empowering women was the spark and main focus of the movement for a very long time (and arguably still is).

Well that is why I think “empowering women” is a much better definition “gender and sexual egalitarianism” (also the difference between sex and gender really did not become as big until the third and fourth waves), the empower women definition I find to be a much more logical approach that better explains and incorporates the various currents, including those feminists who are not as egalitarian as well as those who are egalitarian.

And it should also be noted many who believe in legal equality between the sexes are quite unwilling to define themselves as feminists and reject the label.

There is not one universally agreed on definition, so even the definition itself is up for debate, not merely what meets the definition.

[Ifreann]

Of course exploitation is comparable to exploitation.

"Life is so difficult right now."

"I know, right? I didn't get the raise I wanted. Looks like I'll be skating by on $8 an hour until I can find a better job."

"Oh... I'm a survivor..."

"Yeah, we're the same. I feel you, sis."

That one thing is worse than another doesn't mean that the two are not comparable. Comparable means "can be compared" not "are identical". You can't even call one thing worse than another without comparing the two.

Again, so does every industry under capitalism.

I get the impression you're not really paying attention to the fact that the sex industry epitomizes pretty much all of the excesses of capitalism to a horrendous degree, and that a lot of the demand it creates and meets is often predicated on violence, power, and misogyny. This isn't even super deep feminist theory.

It's also remarkably under-regulated and supporters of the industry have often categorically refused to support necessary regulations - as happened on this very forum.

I get the impression that you're reading my position as a defence of the sex work industry, when it really isn't. It's a condemnation. The fossil fuel industry has been knowingly destroying the world for decades. The arms industry actively courts international military conflict and the mass slaughter of innocent people. The pharmaceutical industry pursues life-destroying addictions as a money making strategy. And the sex work industry is cut from the same foul cloth. Mindgeek has as little regard for the people who make the videos on their many websites as Erik Prince has for either the mercenaries he hires out to commit war crimes for America or for the innocent children those mercenaries murder.

[Fahran]

That one thing is worse than another doesn't mean that the two are not comparable. Comparable means "can be compared" not "are identical". You can't even call one thing worse than another without comparing the two.

It's an absurd comparison that you asked us to make in presenting an argument that an industry that profits, often deliberately, off of sexual violence and objectification is as exploitative as every other, better regulated industry under capitalism. The sex industry is in many cases objectively much worse, even in places where it's legal or semi-legal, than other industries. Since they've not only got the pay issue going on, but a bunch of additional ones.

I get the impression that you're reading my position as a defence of the sex work industry, when it really isn't. It's a condemnation.

It sounds a lot like a whataboutism. As though the problem can be boiled down to capitalism alone and we can forget the deep-rooted cultural issues that are wrapped up in the sex industry.

The fossil fuel industry has been knowingly destroying the world for decades. The arms industry actively courts international military conflict and the mass slaughter of innocent people. The pharmaceutical industry pursues life-destroying addictions as a money making strategy. And the sex work industry is cut from the same foul cloth. Mindgeek has as little regard for the people who make the videos on their many websites as Erik Prince has for either the mercenaries he hires out to commit war crimes for America or for the innocent children those mercenaries murder.

I want to drop a boot on all of those industries as well.

[Elwher]

It's a bit more blatant in the absence of even manufactured consent though.

At least some of those field workers likely believe they're doing very well for themselves, and, by the standards of some places, they probably are. Never mind that this argument sheds a lot of light on how exploitative our approach to immigration has been, even in progressive circles.

How well they believe themselves to be doing is hardly relevant. They are exploited, paid scant pennies relative to the money their labour generates, regardless of the fact that someone else somewhere else lives in worse conditions.

It sounds as though you believe that you, who has not lived that sort of life, know what is better for the people who do than they do. How well they believe themselves to be doing is not only relevant, it is the only thing that matters. If I think my living conditions are rotten, they are for me; and if I think they are good, they are that as well. I am the determiner of my condition, not anyone else.

[Saiwania]

It's an absurd comparison that you asked us to make in presenting an argument that an industry that profits, often deliberately, off of sexual violence and objectification is as exploitative as every other, better regulated industry under capitalism. The sex industry is in many cases objectively much worse, even in places where it's legal or semi-legal, than other industries. Since they've not only got the pay issue going on, but a bunch of additional ones.

I still don't care about any of that. If people don't want to accept the risks that sex work might entail, then they shouldn't do it. Its a vice I want legal.

[Fahran]

I still don't care about any of that. If people don't want to accept the risks that sex work might entail, then they shouldn't do it. Its a vice I want legal.

I suppose we can add this to your list of abominable opinions then.

Mind you, I think at least some people on NSG likely agree with you given the fierce opposition regulations designed to stamp out revenge porn (which actually isn't participating in sex work) and rape in porn, though they wouldn't word it in such a tactless and impudent way. Does nothing matter to you aside from your own appetites? That's a sincere question.

[Saiwania]

Does nothing matter to you aside from your own appetites? That's a sincere question.

I'm at a point in life where nearly everyone I could have a relationship with practically speaking- won't be a virgin like I am. I had some opportunities that I intentionally passed up on because I thought it too risky in terms of monetary loss or life altering consequences like being saddled with child support. Now that I'm older, I don't get any more chances anymore by default. Later on, I might just be tired of waiting and decide to just want to check that box off before I die or so I can move on or play catch up. To see what I've missed.

I've done more than enough self deprivation and delayed gratification. If a prostitute is willing and I have the money saved up, I don't see why not in terms of going for it just once.

[Fahran]

I'm at a point in life where nearly everyone I could have a relationship with practically speaking- won't be a virgin like I am.

I think you're putting more weight on that than many folks would. With regard to relationships and sexuality, my belief has always been that those things emerge naturally from complementary needs, chemistry, and genuine mutual affection. Virginity usually isn't going to make or break a relationship where everything else is present. Even experienced folks probably have to learn about their partners and get acquainted with their needs and likes. So you're not in a bad place - at least not because you're inexperienced with relationships.

I had some opportunities that I intentionally passed up on because I thought it too risky in terms of monetary loss or life altering consequences like being saddled with child support. Now that I'm older, I don't get any more chances anymore by default. Later on, I might just be tired of waiting and decide to just want to check that box off before I die or so I can move on or play catch up. To see what I've missed.

I think you have some pretty severe issues with anxiety that you've probably never gotten resolved. Sai, I'm going to say this as kindly as I can, but I think you need extensive therapy for a number of things. I can't make a diagnosis, but I can tell you from experience that it helped me a lot. I also think you need to work on meeting people IRL. Being in a bubble hasn't been good for you, and you seem deeply unhappy with your lot in life.

I've done more than enough self deprivation and delayed gratification. If a prostitute is willing and I have the money saved up, I don't see why not in terms of going for it just once.

I mean... I'm not going to stop you, but, as I mentioned, my criticism is of the sex industry and the culture surrounding it. Not really of individual persons. I disagree with it morally, but plenty of people have moral disagreements that society doesn't care too much about.

[Pasong Tirad]

Lol Sai also supposedly passed up on an opportunity to date a woman because she wasn't white so

[The Islamic Caliphate of the Balkans]

I do not care. I fuck my whores where they live.

[Fahran]

Lol Sai also supposedly passed up on an opportunity to date a woman because she wasn't white so

Which, together with not having a healthy social environment in general, is probably a bigger issue than being a virgin or anything else. And I do think a relationship is preferable to paying someone to send you a picture of their feet.

[Fahran]

I do not care. I fuck my whores where they live.

Well, aren't you spicy?