DataSnake said:
So actually listening to women instead of just assuming I know what's best for them is misogyny now? Interesting definition you have.
No, supporting the sale of women's bodies to violent men is misogyny - justifying it by finding a mouthpiece from within the ranks that agrees with you is too, though.
Why are sex workers more likely to be victimized than other women? I'll give you a hint: it has to do with the fact that they can't go to the police and the fact that society values them even less than other women. Now what do you suppose is the reason for those two facts? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with "enigma".
No, it doesn't. It has to do with the fact that the type of man who kills women is the type of man who buys sex. It has to do with the fact that the sex industry is driven by sexually entitled, violent, misogynistic, abusive men and always will be because sexual entitlement, violence, misogyny, and abuse are necessary psychological traits for one to find purchasing a woman appropriate.
Women who are no longer sex workers are not personally affected by criminalization. Current sex workers are affected. It stands to reason that the people who are most likely to be fucked over by a bad policy should have more of a say in the formulation of such policy than those with no stake in the matter.
First off, *all* women are affected by a decision to view a woman's body as a legitimate thing to sell. But even disregarding that, the fact is that those currently reliant on a system of exploitation often support the continuation of that system of oppression. That's how it works. It was that way with child labor, it was that way with the 14-hour day, it was that way with slavery, it was that way with women in the workforce. In all of those cases, huge numbers - maybe even the majority - of those being oppressed demanded the continuation of their oppression. Not because they're stupid or bad people, but because that's how oppression works - it makes you dependent on it. If we refused to abolish every system wherein those it exploited sometimes protected it, there would be no social justice *ever*.
First off, this is a bit of a circular argument. You're claiming that sex work is inherently coercive, then saying that all the statements people who frankly know more about the subject than either of us make to the contrary are invalid because it's coercive. You can't use a statement as evidence for itself. Second, by limiting the discussion to "exited women", you're of course going to find more who found sex work unsatisfying, because those who didn't were less likely to quit. This is the same type of selection bias that allows every insurance company to claim that the people who switched to it saved money.
These are women who are emerging from the industry suffering rape, abuse, assault, exploitation, and every possible indignity. And you're saying they're leaving because they found it "unsatisfying?" 90% of women in the sex industry do not participate for reasons of satisfaction, buddy - they do it because otherwise they will starve. Is your view of the realities of prostitution really so warped that you think anyone but a small minority of privileged young white women engage for anything other than survival?
And yet, few if any people seriously try to make it a criminal offense to shop at Wal-Mart. Hell, many domestic workers are trafficked, but you don't see anyone trying to make it a criminal offense to hire a housecleaner or babysitter.
If there were laws that were aimed at dismantling Walmart as a company and ending its economic influence, I'd be all for it - as I am also all for the more realistic political project of preventing "domestic labor" immigration programs.
The difference here, of course, is that housecleaning has existed without oppression at some point in time. Find me a society in the world, today or in the past, where the sex industry was not uniformly a misogynistic, abusive system.
So what's your plan for the people "reliant on the system"? You want to take away their means to put food on the table and a roof over their head, I'm sure you have a brilliant alternative lined up. Or is that why you don't want them to have a say, because it would be harder to say "got mine, screw you" to an impoverished woman's face?
Which is why the Nordic Model allocates tens of millions of dollars to exit programs, job skills workshops, and other systems designed to help impoverished women not only escape prostitution but find stable lives outside of it. I must say though, this excuse - those being oppressed really, truly *need* the system of oppression to survive - is one made by literally every absolutely disgusting and indefensible social institution we've ever had.
White southerners by the dozens said, "Oh yes, slavery is certainly rough - but without it, where would the negro go?"
So did the colonists: "Oh yes, our residential schools and reservations are often brutal places to be - but without them, where would the red man go?"
So did the capitalists of the Gilded Age: "Oh yes, our coal mines and textile mills are full of death and misery, but without them, where would the poor folks go?"
In every single other case, it was simply a naked attempt to couch the self-interest of the oppressor class in a false sense of sympathy or concern for their victims. I don't buy it then, I don't buy it now.
EDIT: this is getting a bit off topic. If you want to continue this discussion, why not make a thread in R&P?
Honestly I think it's very on topic, for no other reason than because what "sex work" really *is* is central to the discussion of what depictions are and aren't appropriate in video games. But if you would like to continue this, yes, for sure make a thread.
