Support NeoGAF

[MacGurcules]

Does it necessarily follow that someone engaging in sex for money becomes an object? Is it inherently dehumanizing? Do people paying for sex necessarily want an object rather than a person? Does paying somebody for non-sex services also objectify them?

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Does it necessarily follow that someone engaging in sex for money becomes an object? Is it inherently dehumanizing? Do people paying for sex necessarily want an object rather than a person? Does paying somebody for non-sex services also objectify them?

It doesn't matter, really. People can treat someone working at Best Buy as subhuman too. The point is that if someone wants to exploit someone else's desire to objectify them, they can.

 

[Lafiel]

I think the choice thing is a bit of a silly red-herring in this whole debate, since it's different for every individual, some might be sex workers because of their economic circumstances, some might simply just enjoy the profession and the work. I also feel similar logic is used to justify why we should pay fast food workers like shit, eg because it's a shitty job.

Either way - they are entitled to full worker rights and protection like every other profession

 

[PJV3]

Prostitution is legal in the UK, brothels and kerb crawling are the illegal parts, most independent women advertise their wares on the Adultwork website. How you go about making it respectable is complicated, but it isn't as taboo as it used to be.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

It doesn't matter, really. People can treat someone working at Best Buy as subhuman too. The point is that if someone wants to exploit someone else's desire to objectify them, they can.

On top of that, people already do this to people who have ZERO ties to sex work. It's not going to make people all of a sudden turn into a target. Anyone's a target.

 

[rtcn63]

Recent Economist articles on the subject (coincidence that the article in the OP was written a week or so after?):

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...haking-up-oldest-business-more-bang-your-buck

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2014/08/interview-sex-worker

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/08/economist-explains-7

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-sex-easier-and-safer-governments-should-stop

 

[Sketchbag]

Well yeah, that's what empowerment is. I think Sketchbag thinks that being empowered is just making the correct moral decision (which is too ambiguous to even address). Someone can be empowered and still decide to take a load to the face on film or in private.



"Google it yourself" being the worst argument of all time aside, you're still not understanding what it means to be empowered.

Already said I cannot link due to Barricuda blocking me. I said I will link later. I know what empowerment means. Do you or do you just know the legal defintion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empowerment

I mean, your claim is essentially "hey there's a seedy side to the sex trade". Which like, yeah duh obviously. In this way, it is a trade.

Yes. And that seedy side exists due to people the power difference between the client and the clientelle. If you think the illusion of strength and decision making is empowerment, go ahead, it's still an illusion. The act of empowerment with women regards to sex jobs is their input and decision making. When it's all due to the whims of men it's not empowering, it's an illusion. I can say my work empowers me because I got a voice and yadda yadda. At the end of the day my voice is very small and isn't heard due to the power imbalance. My power is an illusion. I am a worker.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Well yeah, that's what empowerment is. I think Sketchbag thinks that being empowered is just making the correct moral decision (which is too ambiguous to even address). Someone can be empowered and still decide to take a load to the face on film or in private.

Well, I think you're off. You're assuming every choice is made in a vacuum and not taking context into account – situation, life, opportunity etc.

And since you guys seem to equate working at Walmart to selling sex, would you guys also argue that selling your body would be an acceptable requirement instead of collecting unemployment checks, for instance?

 

[ElTorro]

Here is an interessting blog post on the topic that I read a while ago.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/925

What do you guys think about this part?

The notion that sex is somehow relevantly “different” from producing food, transporting food, making food, serving food, cleaning up food, is a religious concept. It has no objective validity absent religious myths and superstitions. I can abuse, mistreat, enslave, exploit a food service worker. That in no way means food service work is inherently degrading or in any way wrong or shameful, or even undesirable (I know many who love the work…as long as they find employers and customers and coworkers who treat them decently, which is the moral reality of all work and employment whatever). It obviously also makes no sense to declare food service work illegal for any of these reasons (men like to eat laboriously prepared food and be waited on hand and foot and not have to clean up after…and they will pay women to do this…and no one is outraged by that). Ditto, sex work.

Sex differs in some respects from food service work, certainly. But not as much as you think, and not in any way that really matters. It’s not inherently more dangerous, for example. There are serious, even lethal, accidents in the food service industry, too (not just workplace dangers, but criminal ones as well: many a food service worker has been beaten, raped or murdered by armed robbers). We didn’t solve that problem by banning the industry. We solved it by improving (and continuing to improve) all aspects of safety and legal protection. We could do the same in the sex industry–and in fact, we can only do that by legalizing it.

On the other hand, sex work is more intimate, more personal, and more violating than food work. But so are other industries. Sex involves being penetrated, but many professional athletes intimately and abusively touch each other, too; we pay surgeons to grab our balls, finger our anus, cut open our chests, and shove things up our every orifice; people pay professionals to pierce and tattoo them; cops and soldiers get paid to take a bullet now and again. Sex is very intimate and personal, but often so is professional writing and acting and dancing, interviewing people for oral histories or news reports, giving and receiving a massage, or speaking to a therapist. Indeed, that latter is arguably more intimate and personal than hired sex work. Think about it. Paying someone to listen at length to your most personal thoughts and darkest secrets, and being paid to listen to strangers’ most personal thoughts and darkest secrets. That’s exposing the real you, the deepest and truest form of nudity and vulnerability and penetration. Compared to that, sex is a mere dance.

I am not sure I agree completely with the last paragraph, but I can't pinpoint the reason.

 

[dinazimmerman]

It might work if you only decriminalize selling sex without decriminalizing buying sex and pimping/brothels/other intermediaries. In practice, buying and selling sex are usually decriminalized together (though third party involvement usually remains illegal). And there's empirical evidence that this leads to increased human trafficking (see: http://www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEn...elopment-_prostitution_-anonymous-REVISED.pdf).

The problem is that decriminalizing buying sex increases the size of the market, which attracts more human traffickers, who will further benefit from the fact that their clients now have plausible deniability ("I didn't know!").

Even just decriminalizing selling sex increases the supply of sex workers, which increases the size of the market overall (less taboo, more variety -- all these increase demand), prompting more human traffickers to enter the market. Also, it makes it easier for them to operate under false pretenses (e.g., by forcing their victims to pretend they actually are prostituting themselves voluntarily). True, now victims can expose traffickers without fear of legal action themselves, but many victims still fear being hurt somehow or deported.

Ultimately, there are many counteracting effects at work, so it's an empirical question. And one that is not easy to answer.

 

[Sketchbag]

How is it not empowerment when they're making the decisions? Do you think a women who decides to conform to gender roles because she likes it isn't empowered? As long as someone isn't pushing it as something people must do, I don't see how it's looked down upon.

I'm not saying not to decriminalize it. I'm saying just because you're given an illusion doesn't mean you're empowered. Do you really think porn actresses are empowered because they can refuse to shoot? No. Their sole purpose is to be a vagina. They get barely any say in the production or how it's shot because they are at the desires of an audience.

 

[tmarques]

I often wonder what sex workers do for a living once they are too old to work. If anything they should be allowed to work legally so they can eventually retire with some dignity.

 

[Takuan]

Already said I cannot link due to Barricuda blocking me. I said I will link later. I know what empowerment means. Do you or do you just know the legal defintion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empowerment



Yes. And that seedy side exists due to people the power difference between the client and the clientelle. If you think the illusion of strength and decision making is empowerment, go ahead, it's still an illusion. The act of empowerment with women regards to sex jobs is their input and decision making. When it's all due to the whims of men it's not empowering, it's an illusion. I can say my work empowers me because I got a voice and yadda yadda. At the end of the day my voice is very small and isn't heard due to the power imbalance. My power is an illusion. I am a worker.

You'd be surprised at how many escorts call the shots in these arrangements and how well their clients treat them.

I do have to say the idea of paying a small amount (competitive market) for a good looking whore might change my own behavior if it was available locally and normalised. No need to waste time on tinder or trying to look for short term relationships when you can play in a league you'd have no access to. This is the reason why it sort of scares me, because I know people who have had orgies with normal prices and have no interest going through the trouble of socialising with females via bar flings etc now.

Yup. I've seen world views completely warped by it. Paying for it does nothing to improve one's comfort with "normal" women and, in some cases, increases their animosity towards them.

 

[ICKE]

I do have to say the idea of paying a small amount (competitive market) for a good looking whore might change my own behavior if it was available locally and normalised. No need to waste time on tinder or trying to look for short term relationships when you can play in a league you'd have no access to. This is the reason why it sort of scares me, because I know people who have had orgies with normal prices and have no interest going through the trouble of socialising with females via bar flings etc now.

 

[Brakke]

Yes. And that seedy side exists due to people the power difference between the client and the clientelle. If you think the illusion of strength and decision making is empowerment, go ahead, it's still an illusion. The act of empowerment with women regards to sex jobs is their input and decision making. When it's all due to the whims of men it's not empowering, it's an illusion. I can say my work empowers me because I got a voice and yadda yadda. At the end of the day my voice is very small and isn't heard due to the power imbalance. My power is an illusion. I am a worker.

So, ok, if you want to go that way. If it's permissible to you engage in work you don't feel empowered in, then why shouldn't sex work be permissible? And in any case, why should "empowerment" even be a concern of the government. Why should anyone desire a government so patronizing as to tell me what self-actualization means to me? How would they know?

But still, if your options are "work a job I don't feel power in but then go home with a paycheck which gives me literal power" or "be prevented from doing work and then stay home with no paychecks", which situation is more empowering?

 

[kirblar]

I'm not saying not to decriminalize it. I'm saying just because you're given an illusion doesn't mean you're empowered. Do you really think porn actresses are empowered because they can refuse to shoot? No. Their sole purpose is to be a vagina. They get barely any say in the production or how it's shot because they are at the desires of an audience.

People work because they have to. They work meeting the demands of consumers- whether they be individuals, businesses, or governments. Lots of people work because they have to and not because they want to. That's the way of the world. The world runs on trade. But you can choose what trade you're in.

I do have to say the idea of paying a small amount (competitive market) for a good looking whore would change my own behavior if it was available locally and normalised. No need to waste time on tinder or trying to look for short term relationships when you can play in a league you'd have no access to. This is the reason why it sort of scares me, because I know people who have had orgies in Germany with normal prices and have no interest going through the trouble of socialising with females via bar flings etc

Is it really a bad thing that these people are off of the relationship market?

 

[Minus_Me]

I'm not saying not to decriminalize it. I'm saying just because you're given an illusion doesn't mean you're empowered. Do you really think porn actresses are empowered because they can refuse to shoot? No. Their sole purpose is to be a vagina. They get barely any say in the production or how it's shot because they are at the desires of an audience.

By that metric, what jobs are actually empowering? Not trying to be a dick, just looking for an outlook.

 

[MacGurcules]

It doesn't matter, really. People can treat someone working at Best Buy as subhuman too. The point is that if someone wants to exploit someone else's desire to objectify them, they can.

That's kind of the point I'm making. If labor is a commodity, what makes sex work any different from other work? Digging holes for a living might not be a great job, but in the end, it's still swapping work for money.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Already said I cannot link due to Barricuda blocking me. I said I will link later. I know what empowerment means. Do you or do you just know the legal defintion?

Playing daddy and trying to protect women because they might have to do something icky that they made the choice to do isn't empowering.

Well, I think you're off. You're assuming every choice is made in a vacuum and not taking context into account – situation, life, opportunity etc.

And since you guys seem to equate working at Walmart to selling sex, would you guys also argue that selling your body would be an acceptable requirement instead of collecting unemployment checks, for instance?

Why does the context matter? No one considers your context before carefully thinking about whether or not you can make your own choices.

 

[Dictator93]

Here in Germany it is legal. Still has some problems but is safer for those involved now that it is regulated.

So I can only hope that countries that decide to legalize it, do it in a way which protects those who "choose" to get involved in it, whilst understanding that legalization does not prevent or hellp any of the problems associated with it (illegal importation of human sex slaves, the fostered areas of cities, etc...).

 

[Wazzy]

I'm not saying not to decriminalize it. I'm saying just because you're given an illusion doesn't mean you're empowered. Do you really think porn actresses are empowered because they can refuse to shoot? No. Their sole purpose is to be a vagina. They get barely any say in the production or how it's shot because they are at the desires of an audience.

If a women decides she wants to go into porn because she likes it, why exactly is she not empowered? We can address issues within the porn industry and how the workers are treated but that doesn't mean a women can't be empowered when deciding to do porn.

Just like how someone can decide they want to follow gender norms and can be empowered from it. There's still negatives that can happen within in gender norms like abuse and control and those are things that should be targeted.

 

[dejay]

Prostitution is legal in Australia and brothels are legal in the more populous eastern states where there's some decent regulation.

Still, there are cases of human trafficking, underage girls and the involvement of organised crime, despite the legal status and regulation. It's a lot better than the alternative though.

 

[Tawney Bomb]

If it's legalized would rules be put in place to protect consumers? For instance if I'm not satisfied with something on an infomercial, I have 30 days to send it back. Would refunds for poor service be a thing?

 

[hodayathink]

Do you really think porn actresses are empowered because they can refuse to shoot? No. Their sole purpose is to be a vagina. They get barely any say in the production or how it's shot because they are at the desires of an audience.

I don't really agree with that. The fact that, generally, a specific type of porn sells well does not mean that they don't have any say in how a scene is produced. Generally speaking (at least when it comes to the majority of porn that is shot coming from the San Fernando Valley), the girls know pretty much everything about the production companies beforehand, and base whether they'll shoot for them off of that. So they don't "have a say in the production", but they're generally agreeable with how it's produced, because they wouldn't shoot there if they weren't.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Why does the context matter? No one considers your context before carefully thinking about whether or not you can make your own choices.

If you don't have any other real options, then it's hardly a real choice, is it?

 

[Sketchbag]

You'd be surprised at how many escorts call the shots in these arrangements and how well their clients treat them.

Not saying it's a 100% thing. There are workers (ones with clientelle that have some power).

So, ok, if you want to go that way. If it's permissible to you engage in work you don't feel empowered in, then why shouldn't sex work be permissible? And in any case, why should "empowerment" even be a concern of the government. Why should anyone desire a government so patronizing as to tell me what self-actualization means to me? How would they know?

But still, if your options are "work a job I don't feel power in but then go home with a paycheck which gives me literal power" or "be prevented from doing work and then stay home with no paychecks", which situation is more empowering?

Never said sex work shouldn't be permissiable but the idea they're empowered by legalizing it is foolish as it just removes 1 barrier and now you have an illusion of choice and power. What is so outlandish and controversial about that?

People work because they have to. They work meeting the demands of consumers- whether they be individuals, businesses, or governments. Lots of people work because they have to and not because they want to. That's the way of the world. The world runs on trade. But you can choose what trade you're in.

Is it really a bad thing that these people are off of the relationship market?

By that metric, what jobs are actually empowering? Not trying to be a dick, just looking for an outlook.

Any job where your voice is heard and understood. The porn industry doesn't listen to female actresses unless they're super popular or own their own gig which the majority do not.

If a women decides she wants to go into porn because she likes it, why exactly is she not empowered? We can address issues within the porn industry and how the workers are treated but that doesn't mean a women can't be empowered when deciding to do porn.

Just like how someone can decide they want to follow gender norms and can be empowered from it. There's still negatives that can happen within in gender norms like abuse and control and those are things that should be targeted.

Again, then that's an illusion of empowerment. It's similar to how minorities get "rights" when in reality they're still treated horribly. Just because they're given the "right" to do something doesn't mean they're still not put down. Again, how is that disagreeable?

 

[Brakke]

If you don't have any other real options, then it's hardly a real choice, is it?

It's one more choice than you'd otherwise have.

 

[Takuan]

Here in Germany it is legal. Still has some problems but is safer for those involved now that it is regulated.

So I can only hope that countries that decide to legalize it, do it in a way which protects those who "choose" to get involved in it, whilst understanding that legalization does not prevent or hellp any of the problems associated with it (illegal importation of human sex slaves, the fostered areas of cities, etc...).

How normalized is it in your culture? Is it accepted in a typical monogamous relationship for the male to seek out a prostitute? Is it a respected job?

My guess is that making sex work legal doesn't eliminate the whore stigma.

 

[Wazzy]

Again, then that's an illusion of empowerment. It's similar to how minorities get "rights" when in reality they're still treated horribly. Just because they're given the "right" to do something doesn't mean they're still not put down. Again, how is that disagreeable?

You keep ignoring the fact that mistreatement within an industry does not mean a women can't be empowered when deciding to do porn or prostitution. We should be targeting the negatives of the industry but we shouldn't be trying to take away a womens choice in the matter. Are we suddenly going to say a women posing for a magazine in lingerie isn't empowered because she'll be viewed as an object?

 

[woen]

Oldest debate in the world.

Decriminilization/Legalization won't make everything right and bright.

 

[kirblar]

You keep ignoring the fact that mistreatement within an industry does not mean a women can't be empowered when deciding to do porn or prostitution. We should be targeting the negatives of the industry but we shouldn't be trying to take away a womens choice in the matter. Are we suddenly going to say a women posing for a magazine in lingerie isn't empowered because she'll be viewed as an object?

That's actually what SWERFs believe. Last Sarkeesian thread had a great link to a post compiling tweets calling out the issues with using the term "Prostituted Women" for female prostitutes while using "Gigolos" to refer to male ones: http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2...d-women-have-connotations-femfreqvideo-games/ (h/t Reishiki)

 

[Sketchbag]

You keep ignoring the fact that mistreatement within an industry does not mean a women can't be empowered when deciding to do porn or prostitution. We should be targeting the negatives of the industry but we shouldn't be trying to take away a womens choice in the matter. Are we suddenly going to say a women posing for a magazine in lingerie isn't empowered because she'll be viewed as an object?

Sure. Say they're empowered but even yourself said it in bolded. You can say they're all empowered all you want. I say the mistreatment and lies kills any empowerment they may have and leave a husk of what it is.

And yes, models are generally picked out to be on covers or pay to get on covers for exposure. There's a reason why "it women" at the time get congratulated for being on the cover of Vogue and have a nice spread. They have a choice in whether or not they can do it but don't act as if the mistreatment and lies are totally a separate issue when it comes to their choices. It's actually insulting to those trying to make a difference in those industries.

 

[Wazzy]

I wouldn't say every single person going into porn is empowered, but I would argue most people don't feel empowered in their jobs/careers.

However, I agree with you in that a woman in porn that enjoys her work and thinks it's great, should have the right to feel empowered to continue doing what she loves.

Maybe the wording in my post was bad or unclear but I meant if someone decides to go in and feel empowered, they should be able to feel that way. Of course everyone person going in isn't empowered because that would assume every person in the industry likes doing it which I wasn't trying to say.

That's actually what SWERFs believe. Last Sarkeesian thread had a link to a post compiling tweets calling out the issues with using the term "Prostituted Women" for female prostitutes while using "Gigolos" to refer to male ones: http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2...d-women-have-connotations-femfreqvideo-games/

Wait.

Are SWERFS the same as that group that is disgustingly bigoted towards men and transgendered people?

 

[OrlanisWorks]

Should be legal so it can be a safely operated occupation.

 

[kirblar]

Wait.

Are SWERFS the same as that group that is disgustingly bigoted towards men and transgendered people?

Nope, those are TERFs. Both suck. (ERF = -excusionary radical feminist.)

 

[Dictator93]

How normalized is it in your culture? Is it accepted in a typical monogamous relationship for the male to seek out a prostitute? Is it a respected job?

My guess is that making sex work legal doesn't eliminate the whore stigma.

It is normal to see prostitues (in specific sections of the city) or advertisements for sex services, but it is definitely not "expected" or "normal" for a man to seek extra-relationship sex from one.

I have never r really talked to a prostitue beyond being acosted by them to have sex, so it is hard to say how stigmatized they are. I would imagine they are though.

Society does not look on them too fondly still.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Requirement? What? No one is required to do anything instead of unemployment.

Yes, selling your body is an acceptable alternative to any other type of work... just like stripping or being a personal assistant.

My question is basically whether or not it'd be okay for an unemployment office to suggest prostitution to someone without a job as an option.

 

[Reishiki]

Nope, those are TERFs. Both suck. (ERF = -excusionary radical feminist.)

There's some healthy overlap between TERFs and SWERFs, however.

 

[Wazzy]

Nope, those are TERFs. Both suck. (ERF = -excusionary radical feminist.)

Huh. I've never heard of them. I'll have to look them up.

Sure. Say they're empowered but even yourself said it in bolded. You can say they're all empowered all you want. I say the mistreatment and lies kills any empowerment they may have and leave a husk of what it is.

And yes, models are generally picked out to be on covers or pay to get on covers for exposure. There's a reason why "it women" at the time get congratulated for being on the cover of Vogue and have a nice spread. They have a choice in whether or not they can do it but don't act as if the mistreatment and lies are totally a separate issue when it comes to their choices. It's actually insulting to those trying to make a difference in those industries.

You're trying to take away any empowerment a women would feel when wanting to enter both industries and I find that insulting. We can target negatives of something while still allowing people a choice to enter the industry. You're dismissing any women that feels empowered from doing porn and making assumptions about what they've gotten a say in. If these women were enforcing their attitude on other women in the industry, that would be a problem because then they're no longer getting the choice.

How is a woman who decides they want to follow gender norms not empowered? She made the decision because she likes them. Empowerment is that we get that choice.

 

[MacGurcules]

My question is basically whether or not it'd be okay for an unemployment office to suggest prostitution to someone without a job as an option.

If you can't get another job, are you required to start your own business in order to qualify for unemployment?

 

[dinazimmerman]

Is allowing more women to empower themselves through sex work worth allowing more women to be exploited? If you can show successfully that legalizing prostitution will lead to less exploitation, then legalization is a no-brainer, as there is really no downside. Otherwise, there's an empowerment vs. exploitation trade-off that must be considered.

 

[kirblar]

Huh. I've never heard of them. I'll have to look them up.

Until Reishiki posted that link in the Tropes thread, I hadn't either. Was hugely enlightening, and helped illuminate what I think is a massive fault-line when discussing this subject.

 

[Sketchbag]

You're trying to take away any empowerment a women would feel when wanting to enter both industries and I find that insulting. We can target negatives of something while still allowing people a choice to enter the industry. You're dismissing any women that feels empowered from doing porn and making assumptions about what they've gotten a say in. If these women were enforcing their attitude on other women in the industry, that would be a problem because then they're no longer getting the choice.

How is a woman who decides they want to follow gender norms not empowered? She made the decision because she likes them. Empowerment is that we get that choice.

I am not taking any real empowerment away, just their illusion of it. Think the Teen Mom who made the back door vid felt empowered after being told by her male co-star how to shoot the film? Probably not. Would you? It was her debut... right?

You cannot say they're empowered then say the negatives are a different issue. They're one in the same when it comes to fulfilling their job. They're still used, abused, lied, looked down on, and severely objectified even if it's legal. These do not empower the women. Giving them the choice to choose who they want because, as I said before, the John will move right to the next one. That's the issue.

 

[waypoetic]

But... Trafficking?

 

[agrajag]

the hell with decriminalizing it, legalize it full stop. Make it a legitimate profession and let them file taxes.

 

[Ganhyun]

I say make it legal and setup industry health standards like the areas in Nevada where it is legal do. It makes things much safer for the sex workers and their clients and also gives places that do a huge increase in tax revenue.

 

[Fuzzery]

Legalize it, take a cut

 

[itsinmyveins]

If you can't get another job, are you required to start your own business in order to qualify for unemployment?

Where I live you have to look for a job to be able to collect unemployment checks, either by yourself or by being helped by an unemployment office. My question was simply whether or not it'd be fine for that office to suggest prostitution via a bordello as a job. The point being that while some might think that it'd be okay and no different than working at Walmart, I doubt most people would consider it an actual job opportunity.

Is allowing more women to empower themselves through sex work worth allowing more women to be exploited? If you can show successfully that legalizing prostitution will lead to less exploitation, then legalization is a no-brainer, as there is really no downside. Otherwise, there's an empowerment vs. exploitation trade-off that must be considered.

This is fairly reasonable, though I don't think anyone here is actually grasping or taking objectification and its impact on society in account.

 

[Wazzy]

I am not taking any real empowerment away, just their illusion of it. Think the Teen Mom who made the back door vid felt empowered after being told by her male co-star how to shoot the film? Probably not. Would you? It was her debut... right?

You cannot say they're empowered then say the negatives are a different issue. They're one in the same when it comes to fulfilling their job. They're still used, abused, lied, looked down on, and severely objectified even if it's legal. These do not empower the women. Giving them the choice to choose who they want because, as I said before, the John will move right to the next one. That's the issue.

The negatives ARE a different issue. You're trying to say porn must involve abuse to be made and that's ridiculous. A women or man might decide to enter the porn industry because they like making porn, that doesn't mean they like the negatives that might come with who they work with which is why we target that instead of trying to take away the empowerment of them wanting to join.

Objectification is always going to exist. Retail workers are viewed as sub human but that doesn't mean if someone enjoys the job that they're not empowered. We should be encouraging better treatment for these workers, not taking away the empowerment they feel for wanting to do the jobs just because the bad treatment exists.

 

[GrayFoxPL]

Definitely.

"I demand refund for this blowjob!

It was sloppy and not in a good way!"