You were more interested in delivering a canned lecture. I don't have to justify myself to such a rude person. Sex work is NOT real work, that's not just an odd perspective, it's the majority opinion.
My explanation eventually leads back to Marxism and destruction of the family unit and other cornerstones of public order and decency which form the core of Enlightenment Western civilization. This isn't the proper place to critique Marxism. I'm sure everybody feels the chilling effects in their own workplaces and on the Internet, as well. Some things are just not fit to talk about outside certain welcoming spaces, like 4chan.
So what is "real work"? What does it do, or produce, or involve? Is sex work just one of the many things that aren't "real work" to you, or is it just sex work? Is providing a service not real work? do you have to produce a tangible object? Is giving someone a massage real work? Does it become not real when using one's genitals instead of hands or back?
Does a psychotherapist do "real work"? Psychotherapists talk a lot to people about sex. Is that really just telephone sex?
Is the work more or less real if that therapist is allowed to touch you?
What about the two ladies that looked after my Dad, while he was dying? They got him up, washed him, dressed him, and put him to bed. I know they used to smear ointments on his body. Is there really such a clear distinction between care work and sex work?
I'm seeing some pretty shocking prudishness in this thread. Different people live their lives in different ways, and scolding people who are not like you isn't going to change that.
People that think sex is necessarily "dirty" and worthy of disapproval are people with problems. They're entitled to their point of view, but trying to enforce that view through repressive legislation is just mean and intolerant.
> People that think sex is necessarily "dirty" and worthy of disapproval are people with problems.
I absolutely agree. To add, I think a lot of this comes from people that see sex as this magical thing separate from all other human activities. Not that it is dirty, but that it is special and so cannot be sullied by capitalism. So a coal miner risking his health working underground is normal, but a sex worker risking their health is a reprehensible human rights violation. A retail worker being disrespected and demeaned by customers is just part of the job, but a sex worker feeling like their work is demeaning is a destruction of the beautiful spark that is the human spirit. Someone working 3 minimum wage jobs just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads is just the way it is, but someone selling sex for the same reasons is an unforgivable exploitation.
I’m all for moving towards a society where no one had to debase themselves, risk their health, or feel forced to work just to survive. But as long as we do all have to sing for our supper, I don’t see sex work as existing outside that framework.
This didn't really feel like an explanation or an answer as to why you believe sex work is not "real work". What exactly are the characteristics of real work? Once you've defined those qualities it'll be easier for HN to understand why you believe it falls outside that domain.
As far as sex work being nasty and exploitative I can think of plenty of capitalistic industries that are and have been equally exploitative to their workers. (mining industry, Foxconn, etc).
> My explanation eventually leads back to Marxism and destruction of the family unit and other cornerstones of public order and decency which form the core of Enlightenment Western civilization
As Marx himself pointed out, it is capitalism which, by reducing the working class which composes the greatest part of society to consumables in the system of production, destroys the family unit and other cornerstones of public order and decency of the society in which the Enlightenment emerged, and the capitalist habit of blaming opponents of capitalism for that is a diversionary tactic.
Capitalism is entirely a concept within Marxism and doesn't exist outside that particular philosophy. Maybe that's why Marxists have reached total penetration and are having difficulty converting new useful idiots. Most people wised up to the re-definition of language and the predominance of neologisms and tuned it all out.
> Capitalism is entirely a concept within Marxism and doesn’t exist outside that particular philosophy.
The conversion of the means of production from appurtenances to land that was usually held as entailments to independent marketably property held in fee simple (along with land itself being converted from entailments to fee simple ownership) driven by pressure from and to the benefit of the burgeoning mercantile class is, like, a real thing that happened. The idea that capitalism exists only as a concept within Marxism is novel, but not even popular among anti-Marxists.
> Maybe that’s why Marxists have reached total penetration and are having difficulty converting new useful idiots.
Marxism was a reaction to the particular situation in the dominant economies of the West in the late 19th Century, and played a powerful role in shaping the reform of those economies that occurred in the early-mid-20th Century and essentially completely replaced the system that Marxism reacted to. While the dominant system of the developed world is still sometimes called “capitalism” (though others distinguish it as “welfare statism”, “the modern mixed economy” and shares some key characteristics of the earlier system, it is also radically different.
Marxism is part of the background of a lot of modern movements most of whose members wouldn’t describe themselves as Marxist because they are working from a different point and responding to different problems.
> Most people wised up to the re-definition of language and the predominance of neologisms and tuned it all out.
Yeah, I don’t think “re-definition of language and […] neologisms” have ever been a particular problem for Marxists; all systems which give importance to distinctions that have not otherwise been considered import either create new language or use existing language in special ways, and many of them are quite successful.
Oh, for goodness' sake. You are ill-informed. Your own President, as well as his predecessor, have both spoken publicly about the marvels of Capitalism. Are they both Marxists? Was it their marxist indoctrination that made them think Capitalism is a thing?
