Thinking about this because of a greentext I saw earlier complaining about OF models.
It feels like a lot of the stigma surrounding sex work in the modern day (that doesn’t just boil down to misogyny/gender norms/religion) is based on the fact that selling intimate aspects of one’s self places a set value on something that many see as sacred; something that shouldn’t have monetary value.
Not to say anything about the economic validity of a society without currency, but I think that, hypothetically, if that were to exist, sex work would be less stigmatized since this would no longer be a factor. Those engaged in sex work would be more likely to be seen as doing it because it’s something they are good at/enjoy, and less because it’s an “easy” way to make money, as some think. It would also eliminate the fear of placing set value on social, non sex-work related intimacy (not that those fears were well-founded to begin with).
It wouldn’t really be “sex work” if they weren’t doing it in exchange for something would it?
Yes, we have currency as a placeholder for trading goods directly but people who perform sex acts for other goods like drugs are just as stigmatized and no currency was involved.
And if people are just having sex with a fun of it then it’s not sex work either, it’s just sex, which is less stigmatized now then it was 30 years ago but it still has a stigma attached to it, otherwise slurs like “skank” and “slut” wouldn’t exist.And if people are just having sex with a fun of it then it’s not sex work either,
No, labor stays labor no matter the reason it is performed - people perform labor when they doodle or blow their noses… it doesn’t stop being labor just because they’re not doing it in exchange for something tangible.
With sex it is the same - nobody engages in it for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
True, but there are more aspects to sex work than just exchanging sex for something else. Creating pornography, for instance, is something some people already choose do just for fun, even without economic incentive.
We are talking about the world’s oldest profession here. Prostitution far predates the invention of currency, as transactional sex goes farther back than recorded history.
Currency is not needed for prostitution. All that is required is payment, in any form. This occurs during transaction, which constitutes trade.
I don’t think making prostitution more difficult by requiring barter solves anything at all.
I assumed OP was talking about a post-scarcity economy, not one based on barter. I didn’t think anyone wants to go back to a barter system considering the overwhelming popularity of currency everywhere it has been used.
Even in post scarcity, bartering would resume and the stigma would persist. Either way, how the transaction unfolds in not where wrist-wringers get caught up
Even fucking male spiders give a gift to the females so she doesn’t fucking eat him literally.
That’s not prostitution because the gift was not for the sex, but instead not to be cannibalized. It’s very clearly a case of “extortion under the threat of cannibalization!” 🤓
If you get paid for it you are a whore, if you do it as a hobby you are a slut.
The stigma is there, regardless of the money aspect. They will just use a different word.
I wanted to disagree with this, but I actually think you make a rather compelling argument.
There will always be exhibitionists and people who just like to fuck, but sex work is, by definition, transactional. You’re not going to see a society with free communal whores who aren’t being compensated in any way.
transactional
I prefer “tit for tat”.
I was more thinking any and all forms if sex work, however you want to transpose their equivalents in a post-scarcity society.
You’re just delusional.
I don’t think you’d have prostitution in a currencyless society. They wouldn’t be prostitutes at that point.
You don’t need currency for it to be prostitution. Prostitution is exchanging sex for goods, services or currency.
So if I paid in chickens then it’s not prostitution?
Chickens would be the currency in this scenario.
Some bang for your buck-awk, if you will.
Chickens aren’t currency. Trade and currency are two different things.
I’d counter that prostitution is sex work in exchange for something of value, and chickens still 100% qualify. I don’t think splitting hairs on currency vs. chickens changes anything here
Exchanging things is trade. Currency is a medium of exchange. Not having currency doesn’t stop trade, it just makes it more difficult.
Chickens would be a medium of exchange in this scenario.
Yes, and that would not be currency. It might be useful to think of this as a tiered system.
‘Trade’ is a top-level idea, an exchange between entities. On a tier below that, i.e. a closer specification of ‘trade’, exists ‘barter’ (trading goods for other goods or services) and ‘money’ (trading some representational, notional item for goods/services). ‘Chickens’ as a payment is a further specification of bartering, while ‘currency’ is a further specification of ‘money’ (being ‘money’ defined/in use by a specific power/state).
There are more forms of sex work than just prostitution, though. Porn, sex surrogacy, etc. People can find those rewarding outside monetary incentive.
People who have sex with people just because they enjoy it already exist. It’s not new and it won’t meaningfully increase just because a society becomes currencyless.
Without an economic incentive, sex workers will stop existing entirely. It won’t be work, and they won’t have any need to do it. They won’t be compelled to have sex with you just because you have money now. There will still be people at a bar, club, or whatever who will have sex with someone they like for little or no reason, but again, that’s not new.
Maybe you’re right, but I also think that depends on the idea that other aspects of sex work beyond just sex for money wouldn’t be fulfilling to anyone without incentive. Creating pornography, for instance. Maybe that’s true in an “all work is degrading” type of way. Maybe it’s just semantics around the word “work”.
a lot of the stigma surrounding sex work in the modern day (that doesn’t just boil down to misogyny/gender norms/religion) is based on the fact that selling intimate aspects of one’s self places a set value on something that many see as sacred
The fact that most of the times the stigma only clings to the person selling and not the person buying makes me think that this is actually a negligible part of the stigma.
There are absolutely individuals who shame those who buy these things (think those who make fun of OF subscribers), but overall I would say you’re right.
I think a lot of that is the fact that sex workers are more public-facing than their clients, making them targets for stigma.
Talk about toxic culture …
How we treat sex worker and other types of people who are less privileged is what the society really is.
Also, how Catholic clergy abuse got handled.
I know people need their copes but this behavior has consequences.
Everybody so alpha to chimp out a like poor abused young woman who is forced into prostitution.
But the alphas tuck their dicks, do some vague lip service about Catholic church and then hack to spazzing about these whores.
This is what a Clown society looks like folks!
Huh? Are you just talking about like a girlfriend?
not all people deflate (traditional) intimate relationships into communistic sex work.
difference is you can operate a sex-for-everyone-booth or have sex with someone you deeply trust, know and care about (gf).
(i also hope that you don’t assume the readers are all heterosexual men, because then you would have much bigger problems with your gender politics)
I don’t think unpaid public sex slaves exist, they always pick their mates.
What?
A prostitute that isn’t paid…
Isn’t really a prostitute are they?
There can be other forms of compensation in currencyless societies, so not necessarily. There’s also just the personal fulfillment aspect, which is supposed to be the main thing motivating people to work in this hypothetical.
Edit: Other forms of compensation would re-introduce ethical questions, so that’s probably a bad suggestion. It would have to be a post-scarcity society, as others have pointed out.
There’s also just the personal fulfillment aspect,
Yeah, that’s the reason lots of people have sex for no money…
Like, if there’s no money changing hands, it’s not a free prostitute, it’s just someone willing to have sex with you
It doesn’t make any sense to still call them a prostitute.
It does if they formally define it as their career path and treat it as such.
Sex work is more than just having sex with people for fun. There’s layers, specializations, and skill to it. Not all of it is strictly physical. Someone might want to just go on a date after their spouse passed away, for instance. Handling that situation requires a lot of emotional maturity and your skill in those situations improves with experience.
Edit: better examples would be sex surrogacy or porn creation.
So. In your eyes…
Are they having sex with everyone that asks?
Or are they only having sex with people they want to for no money, like literally every other human?
Because the more you talk, the more it’s feeling like you want a society with public sex slaves.
If there’s no sex, why are you calling them sex workers? In your example, it’s just sympathy dates?
Seriously, none of what you’re saying makes sense. And I know this is a sub for ideas that aren’t thought out… But still bro
While I agree with you that I don’t think OP has correctly described what they’re actually thinking about, there is plenty of sex work that doesn’t involve actually having physical sex with anyone. Like a solo porn model, or erotic dancers
I think OP doesn’t even know what their point is.
They keep saying people will continue to perform sex work if there’s no economic gain, but at that point it’s not work. Then the counter argument to that is “there’s many different kinds of sex work”, but the point still stands that having sex voluntarily, being an exhibitionist, or having a hobby of filming sexual encounters are all things that people do for personal gratification and are not considered a career now, or in this hypothetical post-scarcity civilisation.
Like someone else said, it sounds like they are just fantasising about sex slaves. To me it also sounds like OP is overcompensating on the whole “I respect sex workers” virtue signalling.
Other commenter is right, I was thinking more things like creating pornography or sex surrogacy, things that people would find fulfilling and choose to do irrespective of what incentives may or may not be on offer, and would qualify as more traditional “work”.
things that people would find fulfilling and choose to do irrespective of what incentives may or may not be on offer
Again, people already do that for free…
Just with people they choose to.
So either you’re advocating for sex slaves who feel obligated to do so with anyone, or it’s just still normal sexual/romantic activities.
I don’t agree, I think it’s possible to compartmentalize certain sexual activities as not romantic and also not obligation-based, while still being fulfilling and work-related in a post-scarcity society. Like helping clients overcome sexual insecurity or barriers with sex surrogacy, for instance.
So instead of being a ‘whore’ for money, Jane can be a ‘whore’ for a meal? Or a whore for a new dining set?
Unless we are in a post scarcity world there will be ‘currency’ even if it’s not ‘money’.
Anything that made sex transactional would just be more of the same old shit we see today.
True, it would have to be post-scarcity to be ethical then.
It seems like you mean a post-scarcity society rather than a currencyless one. Sex work done to earn a living is still done to earn a living if it’s in a society that distributes goods and services in another way. I’d hope that the sex worker in question is getting personal fulfilment from it, but unless their basic needs are covered regardless then it seems foolishly optimistic to assume that it’s the case
Post-scarcity is more accurate for what I was imagining, yes.
You’re looking at this as an economics issue. But I think it’s a fundamentally a biological or evolutionary artifact. Evolutionary biology has intraspecific competition for access to mates to mating opportunities as a driver for change.
Organisms work to prevent the resource from being exploited just like water, habitats, space, etc. It’s other women that would lose if access to mating opportunities are tied with monetary transactions, and a few would benefit. Minimizing prostitution helps the female of the species be more selective about their mates, and increases the “value” of their interactions.
There’s evidence for this.
Trans priestesses attended temples in Mesopotamia and were very highly regarded.
Well, this is the weirdest shit I’ve ever read.
I don’t think it matters whether the exchange of value involves currency or not.
There are things that most people find to be unethical to “sell” (exchange for value in a transaction). Those include actual human beings (slavery), military or political influence (bribery), and murder.
I believe that sex work in often included in that list because of a lengthy deep history of protection of “bloodlines.” Of course, there has always been sex work, but those who offered such services - especially women - were by definition unconcerned about their own “bloodline,” which must then mean that their “bloodline” was not worth protecting. That meant that providers of sex work were necessarily “lower” people.
Today, and especially in the global West, the notion of “bloodlines” is more associated with bigotry than high status. That’s why we’re calling it “sex work” now instead of “prostitution,” for example - and sex work is more socially acceptable now, even if it’s not super high on that scale. Because that cultural thing about “bloodlines” is well-entrenched and runs very deep.
Big doubt. Sex work was stigmatized back when there was only bartering. The stigma isn’t about the money at all. It’s about the nerve of someone to use their body to get by. Until people stop caring what other people do with their body, this issue will remain.
This is absolutely true, I just think that it would be less stigmatized. I don’t think it’s possible to completely eradicate the stigma, it’s just too difficult to compartmentalize these things for some.
I don’t think changing the mode of payment would curb any stigma. The stigma isn’t about the transaction, it’s about autonomy and the only path to removing stigma is normalizing that autonomy. And protecting it.
