* That all women should never give sex for free out of love and affection or even fun and those that did were as stupid as any business owner who gives away product.
Goethestein posted:john hate smacks of methodological individualism ftw and draws attention away from the more general reproduction of society
yeah it would be pretty stupid to hate individuals who are only acting out what the social fabric tells them is the only option they have
Melissa Gira Grant: Yes. It’s so hard for me to say that’s dehumanizing because it sounds like I’m saying that to see someone in a sexualized way, particularly in a commercialized way, is dehumanizing. But given that sex workers have almost no political power, the sexual objectification is destructive. If they had political power, the objectification wouldn’t be a big deal—people objectify powerful people all the time. I think it’s fucked up that people say, “Beyoncé shouldn’t wear that.” I’m not too worried about Beyoncé. She’s made an empire of doing this.
that's a good way of saying the term 'objectification' doesn't stand for anything and should be discarded
AmericanNazbro posted:all those arguments are the same ones you vehemently refute to ad nauseum when it's applied to troop defense
omg.............
marimite posted:it's sad how many leftists think that when compared to prostitution, it's preferable to do manual labor or be confined to domestic drudgery and raped by one's husband.
yes, it's so sad when people would want to refrain from being dehumanized and reduced to a mere masturbatory aid, without even the minimum recourse available to manual laborers and people under a state-sanctioned marriage contract. It really is exhilarating and empowering to think about all the money one can earn being a cum bucket for a hard-working, family-man banker. Anyway, it's time to go to the retard firm, i have some fancy ass contracts to sign with my spittle or whatever, i t is, i do
Crow posted:marimite posted:
it's sad how many leftists think that when compared to prostitution, it's preferable to do manual labor or be confined to domestic drudgery and raped by one's husband.
yes, it's so sad when people would want to refrain from being dehumanized and reduced to a mere masturbatory aid, without even the minimum recourse available to manual laborers and people under a state-sanctioned marriage contract. It really is exhilarating and empowering to think about all the money one can earn being a cum bucket for a hard-working, family-man banker. Anyway, it's time to go to the retard firm, i have some fancy ass contracts to sign with my spittle or whatever, i t is, i do
uh, wouldn't prostitution have to be legal in order for there to be contractual obligations involved? all banning it has ever done was make women easier to exploit.
as far as the concrete situation, i personally don't feel prostitution should be criminalized, at the very least it should be decriminalized and maybe even regulated. i think that there should be an emphasis on police targeting patrons and brothel owners solely, maybe the latter in a more rigorous way.
educational initiatives about the extent of sex trafficking, sexual assault and abuse, and the economic injustice that give many women no other choice are also important, as well as organizing sex workers and educating them in the legal rights they do have. i think providing legal counsel and attempting to protect and expand the legal recourse available to sex workers, especially trafficked women, would be an important medium-term goal.
none of this has to entail treating the work as either 1) empowering or 2) shameful. in that sense, indeed the work is similar to other waged work in capitalism, as in not necessarily empowering nor shameful in formulation, but deployed against the worker themself as a disempowering, shameful ritual. my personal opinion is that it should not be framed in terms of empowering work and choice, but struggle and justice. the decision to frame sex work as a debate of choice and desire is absolutely fatal and reflects the same sort of libertarian labor discourse that posits: if they don't like it, laborers can just go somewhere else. the problem with prostitution isn't so much those who go in out of their own volition (which is already a minefield to determine) but those to whom there is no other choice, whether economic or psychological.
beyond those personal opinions, i don't really know, lol
what i do know, is that though the mistake of pity is something which should be guarded against, i dont think there's many feminists that would argue prostitutes should be ashamed of themselves. and i certainly know feminists do not provide the police cover for targeting sex workers. evil corrupts any just demand for its own purposes, it doesnt care what source.
Crow posted:anyway, instinctually, the fact that both Reason magazine and The Economist support this line of reasoning that Jacobin asshole is using, should give any decent hyooman being pause
yes, certainly. however, I think it's a bit hasty to just stop at the commodification of bodies and leave it at that, as there all kinds of other messy stuff involved such as the reproduction of capitalism in the family and the line of flight that prostitution often allows. it's easy to see how feminism can be an important part of an accelerationist program, as controversial as it is.
marimite posted:according to nick land, the only way to end the objectification of women is for lesbian guerrillas to smash patrilineal kinship structures
according to nick land, mens rights activists provide a correct analysis of the "sheer madness of liberalism", according to a pareto distribution only 20% of the worlds population is productive (this percentage correlating with a high iq rating), mengerian analysis provides the most reasonable explanation for the origin of money, the most incisive and correct political thinker of our times is a man who sees "progressivism" as responsible for the vast majority of problems in the world today and advocates for imposed neoliberal forms following a military coup as the solution, and that social darwinism is an unassailable science that has tragically been tarnished by misguided accusations of nazism. nick land is a charlatan who hides himself in a cloak of dazzling rhetoric to fool idiots like you into thinking he has anything valuable to say
it's easy to see how feminism can be an important part of an accelerationist program, as controversial as it is.
it's darling to see you casting accelerationism in a negative light after i called you out for being one and you abandoning that entire argument in a heartbeat but no, little baby who would rather stain the pages of their copy of fanged noumena rather than actually read anything that might challenge your castle of sand, this is not easy to see. in fact, your incisive thesis of the opposition to sex work somehow contributing to the deterritorialization carried about by the flows of capital has no relation to material relations in the slightest, on account of being the product of an infant who thinks skimming the pages of post-structuralist theorists is a sufficient enough basis to run his mouth off as if he is actually saying anything
