Is pay for sex morally wrong?

Whores are aligned with the fags, rapists, and theives in their legitimatization of the bourgeois project.

This unironically

Rapists are often not bourgeois. Criminal class. The rest I can see.

There's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

Attached: Dvb6P4wWwAAb751.jpg (1300x910 97.48 KB, 111.93K)

That's a pretty rare butterfly, the overwhelming majority of prostitutes are victims of sex trafficking, regardless the legal status of prostitution.

Define this without any circularity.

Attached: 464293afd3e06abbd1e91659e1d0c6ad3131d4cfc9ceccaf58554f767c22dc16.jpg (571x235, 64.36K)

Attached: Sexual exploitation.png (854x1286, 54K)

Nothing is morally wrong if you are our team! Morality is only a tool we use against the dumb Sassenachim.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (400x400, 387.29K)

That's a lie. I'm not even using the nice "not true" formula. It's a lie and you know it.

That's not true either. Or rather, as the poster above put it, "that's a pretty rare butterfly".
The correct phrasing would be "who enter the sex industry out of rational choice over a crappy manufacturing or retail job".

Is the injection of capitalism into spheres of life that shouldn't even be associated with economics at all, whether on the selling or buying side, really something you want to defend?

This isn't a "no ethical consumption under capitalism" issue

Attached: deluxe-hugs~614.jpg (614x409, 76.09K)

>>>/liberty/

Many professions in our economic conditions are not "vital to civilization" or a commodification of activities that would have previously been performed by participants for their own needs such as child care or much of the food industry. The "sex industry", running the gamut from prostitution to pornography to sex toys/accessories/supplements is just one such industry that exists in capitalism and not treating those within this industry as workers because sex is involved would be as absurd as not treating video game qa testers or uber drivers as workers. This is idealistic workerism that fails to analyze actually existing capitalism, instead fetishizing an image of the worker that no longer exists on a mass scale.

Attached: DmNyNatWsAAeWY8.jpeg (720x639, 57.94K)

Professional childcare and food service make sense, since these are vital functions that busy people might not have the time to do themselves, rather than nonvital recreation, and furthermore have overhead that must be compensated in order to be done. Even products and services accessory to recreation, such as toys or booking, make sense as economic activities.

Prostitution fits none of those criteria, and is more comparable to something like professional athletes, or microtransactions for DLC. Something that shouldn't and needn't exist under any economic system, period.

yes

prostitution is more like a service for recreation, I really don't get why it would be similar to athletes, it makes no sense whatsoever.
(BTW not the guy you are responding to and unsure about prostitution)

Because it's injecting money into an activity whose sole legitimate purpose is fun for the person doing it

It reinforces the patriarchal notion that men are entitled to the bodies of women.

Lol they are so entitled that they have to pay.

Elaborate.

I don't understand. How isn't a lot of recreational activities the same thing? Like I don't know buying a video game, or a kart race, or a ticket to the circus, or paying tv channelsdedicated entirely to reality shows.

Ok, so we also shouldn't pay millions to athletes, celebrities, musicians and anyone else who earns to do anything that people could do for fun because work means no fun allowed at all.

Yeah this. Remember never to pay the bill at the restaurant or buy a woman gifts if she's having sex with you. It undermines real intimacy and is irreconcilable with opposing capitalism.

Clowns are literally just laugh's prostitutes and won't be a thing in socialism.

All of those have overhead that has to be compensated, and are in any case merely accommodative of recreation, rather than being recreational in and of themselves. Also, to the extent writing a game, organizing a race, singing a song, or performing a circus act is enjoyable, it is only incidentally enjoyable, and in a manner wholly different from the audience. And the dichotomy between user/audience/participant and author/organizer/performer is inherent, creating different social and economic dynamics for both. In the case of prostitution, however, the two are identical to each other, indistinguishable except that one is being paid and the other is paying.
Both of these are an abomination on a level worse than prostitution. It's taking an activity that should be purely recreational, and entirely removing most people from any direct enjoyment, instead having them pay for other people to enjoy the activity in their stead.

Split the bill and give each other gifts. Don't encourage THOT culture.

< lol prostitutes are totally voluntary they do it because they enjoy it lmao
Can someone explain this? How is supporting sex work not liberalism?

Attached: 1512762086239.png (640x360, 211.56K)

As someone else said above it's not about supporting the "industry" of sex work but about supporting the workers.
All workers are exploited under capitalism.

Only you can explain the strawman that you built in your own mind.

Attached: Strawman.jpg (482x298, 39.96K)

Is this a real tweet? It reads like a parody. (It's hard to tell.)
They are vices, yes, but what do they think its got to do, or hasn't got to do, with being a revolutionary?
Sure, it's better for you to do some meditation or yoga first thing in the morning than light up a cigarette. It's better to eat some nice oily fish with omega 3's than clog up your arteries with fatty burgers. It's better to get a girlfriend than hire prostitutes.
But vices don't really prevent you from being a revolutionary. Different context, but it's like a martial arts teacher said, "people think they have to give up their bad habits if they want to do martial arts. Don't! Just come along, you and your bad habits."
To quit vices you really need something to quit for, anyway .
It's a bit pointless railing against vice when the conditions that drive people to indulge in vice remain.
Here's a good article on lab rats cured of smack addiction by what is, in effect, fully automated luxury communism :
m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6506936

Attached: 5038cf873546540c45dabea4517978be5c6efe2bbaa80311ed1308b2ebbe5ca2.jpeg (255x226, 13.74K)

How is legalizing rape helping workers?

Nobody else can do what professional athletes do. Watching it is appreciating the spectacle of extraordinary human performance. Beyond that, it possesses a narrative of dedication and struggle that results in the accomplishment of great feats. Such a thing is compelling, like performance art without the pretense.

Attached: FeministRobot.png (500x499, 725.64K)

Yet another "communism is when der Fuhrer forbids everything they deem unnecessary" thread?
Sparrows were deemed unnecessary, now kill yourself to end these spam campaigns.

I could just barely tolerate "spectator" recreation if money were removed entirely from it, as for instance prestigious competitive events like the Olympics banned professional athletes as "unsportsmanlike" for many decades.

But even so, the very idea of taking an inherently participatory activity and debasing it into a passive one fills me with deep revulsion.

We just established that prostitutes are forced into selling their bodies. What would you call that if not rape?

All business for profit is morally wrong.

All work under capitalism is rape.
The only way out is to destroy capitalism and move on to another system.

There's nothing sexual about restocking shelves.

I cannot comprehend how you can be put off by the notion of watching people who are the best in the world at a particular activity performing said activity. Spectatorship is appreciation of human accomplishment.

And sex makes everything especially bad, does it?

Then I guess that kind of "rape" is only as bad as being employed stocking shelves is.

When the boss takes part of the worker's wage for himself it's akin to anal sex without lube or consent.
That's very sexual.

They exist as a replacement for something that would normally be done without economic incentive, and often as a supplement to recreational activity. Regardless to categorize labor based upon what is "real work" and what isn't is to partake in workerism whose conclusion is to ignore labor struggles because they don't fit an idealistic conception of the proletariat. This is a mistake because it relies upon the same bourgeoisie logic that has been used to deny the importance of worker's organization for such jobs like call centers or even fast food workers.
Even if we are to take the bizarre stance that overhead costs are necessary to conside labor work or not, prostitution and other forms of sex work have overhead costs. Do you think rooms, transportation costs, or hosting is somehow free is sex for money is involved?
We aren't living in a society where "economic sense" is related to usefulness, we are living in one where "economic sense" is determined by what can be sold. Since prostitution can be sold, it makes just as much "economic sense" within capitalist society as any other recreational activity or supplement. To argue otherwise is to presuppose that capitalism operates in a way that it doesn't.
Neither capitalism nor the state should exist, yet here we are living in capitalist states because what is unfortunately doesn't equate to what should be. Prostitution exists in this capitalist society, regardless of legality, and will continue to exist because it is a product of material circumstance. It's not going to vanish because people think it shouldn't exist, it will only vanish when the conditions that create it no longer exist.

Supporting any work, aka wage labor, is liberalism. What isn't liberalism is supporting workers or organizing with them to abolish wage labor.

If a twitter tankie has a dumb take you can be reasonably sure it's real. I think that guy ended up being revealed as another red-brown fellow.

Attached: DvxCj9FUYAMJR8V.jpeg (1200x1157, 228.39K)

I can't speak for who you asked, but I'd call it wage slavery.
If you call it rape- what if a prostitute doesn't, but she says that she consented? Is that "false consciousness"?
There was a theory workers have false consciousness ", which was by held by some Marxists, but it's really a gaslighting tactic to argue people that don't know their own minds.
Many people would agree they are wage slaves, but they don't think they are literally slaves, as though having to go through the 9-5 grind, and not having much choice about it, is the same as literally being owned as property . Prostitution is probably an emotionally tough job, which no one would do except for the money, but that doesn't mean it's rape.

Communism is when you encourage horizontal violence and make porkies nut.

Fuck off pomo.

I can appreciate it in the academic sense of study, to see how it's done and understand the limits of what's possible, but I can't truly enjoy something like spectator sports for its own sake, since it just makes me want to play myself, and merely watching feels disrespectful toward the spirit of what the athlete is doing. Maybe when I'm old and broken down, such a vicarious substitution would be palatable, but it just feels inherently perverse.

Even moreso watching history repeat itself with computer games being consumed by "eSports", "livestreaming", and the slow death of modding, it makes me think back not only to what happened to sports, but to other once-active now-passive passtimes that used to have a fuzzier distinction between audience and performer, such as music and dramatic fiction. It's how capitalism kills human culture.

Nobody is suggesting that phone reps and frycooks be abolished and suppressed.
It's not about whether something is work, but about whether people deserve compensation for it. Anyway, the core activity the prostitute sells is identical to that performed by the John.
The same is true of assassins and slavetraders

Attached: artorig_bentonsourcesofcountrymusicthe1328805910325.jpg (1500x918, 255.69K)

It's morally wrong not to pay for sex

The trend of automating those jobs or the reaction to organization of workers in those occupations says otherwise.
If they're performing a service, they deserve compensation no less than anyone else in our capitalist society. Prostitution isn't the same as fucking a significant other or someone you met off an app, it's specifically an exchange of money for a service and should be treated as such.
Work isn't determined by the character of the product or service, it is determined by the labor put into creating the product or service. As the trick is not selling their labor, it is a mistake to equate the trick's consumption of the prostitute's service with the prostitute producing the service.
Scorching take.

Jobs can't be "automated", they can only be made more efficient, freeing up a fraction of the labor once required by them for other tasks
For what?
So the prostitute is getting it for free? Every detail of a comparison between prostitution and an actual profession looks more and more absurd.
Point is, "suppression≠abolition" is a vacuous statement. We can argue about how effective suppression is in a given instance, but suppression can't simply be brushed off.

I know it isn't a lie

A robot that flips burgers or an ordering kiosk certainly is automation of a job, or at the least making it efficient enough where more than a few fast food workers can be let go. Repeating thinly veiled liberal ideology of the market fixing it or pedantry over the term automation isn't going to change the reduction of workers employed in precarious jobs.
For performing the service.
The same as a daycare worker gets the joy of watching children for free.
Of course it can be brushed off, we only need to analyze attempts at suppression regarding alcohol or drugs has been a dismal failure in curbing the industry surrounding them and has almost exclusively affected those we would consider victims of such rather than those profiting. Slavery supports this, with multinational corporations employing slave (adjacent) labor in the global south despite slavery having been legally abolished. From these failures of suppression we can conclude that without a change in the conditions that give rise to these phenomenon, any attempted suppression of them will be ineffective at stopping them and can even empower the victimizers at the expense of the victims.

Attached: DsD2aVNX4AEPEgf.jpeg (356x500, 63.25K)

Paying for anything is morally wrong.

No, reducing a large number of cooks with a small number of mechanics etc. for the same number of burgers, which will cut the price of burgers, resulting in either increasing burger consumption sufficiently to absorb all the labor freed up, or shifting freed up labor to a competing industry. Read Jevons.
The service without any expenses?
Ignoring that actually has some overhead, the daycare worker's experience is completely different from the children or their parents. It would be a bit more like paying other parents purely to have their kids play with your children.

Attached: jevons.jpg (740x405, 38.07K)

Read Marx
It has expenses. Do you think transportation, hosting, and rent no longer costs anything if sex is being sold?
The prostitute's experience is different from the John's experience, and the experience of both is different from sex they have outside of the sex industry.
That's disingenuous even for a liberal like you.

Quite the opposite. The insight of Jevons' Paradox is that under capitalism, "automation" by itself will never result in any great transformation of the economy, such as an increase in pay, a shortening of the standard workweek, or (desired by workers or not) lower employment rates (about the only thing "automation" itself can do to capitalism is hasten the fall of the RoP). Such things can happen only as the result of conscious political action.
Like I said two posts ago, those aren't what's being paid for in the premium. In fact, many prostitutes expect those to be directly paid by the "customer" at a hotel.
How?
You were attempting to >imply that efforts at stamping out slavery have been pointless, not that it still exists at all.

Attached: slaves-serfs.png (1500x844, 57.26K)

The assumption that employment will not be negatively affected by changes in production efficiency of an industry is claiming the market will adjust to disruption to observe a steady rate of employment aka the market will fix it. That it relies upon the spurious assumptions concerning elasticity of demand and price and the jobs available in other industries is just another example of liberal economics not accurately describing capitalism in the real world.
If the prostitute or brothel have operating expenses that can not be identified based on a particular fuck sold, such as rent for a location or advertisement, then the overhead is included in the premium. This isn't relevant because even if hookers had no overhead costs they would still be engaging in labor to produce a service.
Even if the trick pays for the hotel, the other overhead operating costs such as adverts still remain.
Pointing out that slavery has not been stamped out despite legality is no more supporting child slavers than pointing out how anti-imperialism has failed to prevent imperialism is calling for the support of invasion. Let me attempt to be more plain: Slavery is illegal here in the west yet commodities produced by slave labor are sold in the west by corporations based in the west, murder is illegal yet assassins exist both in the service of the state and as private contractors, drugs are widely illegal yet drug trafficking exists and is very lucrative, burgerland tried banning booze and that only gave criminal organizations an avenue to make more money. This tells us that without abolishing the material circumstances for these things which is mostly capitalism, stamping them out will not work and they will exist either underground in a black market, far away in some third world location, or in a "reformed" way such as prison labor or making welfare recipients work for benefits. The lesson is that it is socialism or bust because capitalism is never going to be reformed into something nice beyond brief windows.

Attached: Redmoon.png (398x378, 48.31K)

It's a cold hard fact that "automation" happened in the 1700s, multiplying efficiency tenfold, yet the then-redundant 90% of the population kept working, and subsequent massive increases to efficiency in following centuries have without exception had exactly the same lack of consequences, as will future "automation" according to every reasonable projection:
epi.org/publication/the-zombie-robot-argument-lurches-on-there-is-no-evidence-that-automation-leads-to-joblessness-or-inequality/
Just like the "customer" does to them? The entire notion of a "sex worker" is asinine twaddle from the same doubledomes as "unpaid domestic and emotional labor".
Largely due to erosion of trade protections by neolibs
Note most hard drugs weren't even in common use before they were marketed, both in legal and illegal forms, during the 1900s.
That's a surprisingly contentious topic, given questionable causation to crime, rapid urbanization during the period, and even questions as to actual trends of crime rate and criminal organization during the period.
Flawed but somewhat valid point, similar to antebellum chattel slavery giving way to sharecropping and the "truck system" before bankruptcy rights and minimum wage were instituted. An improvement did occur, but there is still room for further improvement.

That argument could honestly be applied for OR against suppression, but I think this discussion points to two slightly different questions. First, is suppression for a particular thing an effective way to abolish it? Second, if something is legalized, is that legalization with the general intent of destigmatization (i.e.: free speech, free association, atheism, education of working class children, etc.), or tightly controlled legalization as merely the most pragmatic means of suppressing and (hopefully) abolishing it?

That's a qualitative rather than quantitative question.

We've had two centuries of development since the dawn of industrialization, the circumstances aren't congruous and liberal economic thought has continually proved to be poor at explaining crises.
No.
Actually the notion of the prostitute as a worker arguably comes from Marx.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
The unpaid domestic labor comes from Silvia Federici and she's right in the sense of parents, particularly women circa 1970's but now men relatively equally, being expected to raise the next generation of proletariat for capitalism to exploit without any support from the bourgeoisie who will profit from their labor.
It predates that, the erosion of protectionism exacerbated it but is not the cause and the hypothetical reversal of them will not be a cure.
On the contrary, prison slavery and welfare workers is backsliding on such improvement because they circumvent minimum wage laws. It's a testament to how hierarchical society will continually slide towards enslavement and can not be permanently reformed.
It could only be considered an argument for suppression if we are to assume that the continued existence of such things is actually good.
In most cases no, suppression results in either changing form or going underground. Specifically to prostitution it is already legally suppressed to some degree yet it still widely exists both in legal and illegal forms. Most attempts to further suppress it don't address the underlying causes of it and don't hit pimps or traffickers so much as they hit individual hookers. Similarly to how the illegality of drugs has mostly hurt users and low-level dealers while the folks really profiting make lots of money.
Neither, the former will be used at the will of the state, which means that it will only be used within the interests of the ruling hegemony, look at free speech in america not protecting radical unionists for an example. The latter results in something becoming a normalized industry that still exists widely, like tobacco or porn. Prostitution isn't going to be abolished without the abolishment of capitalism, and attempts at suppression will result either in empowering pimps and traffickers while retaining prostitution or the integration of prostitution into the "legitimate" market where you can order oral off amazon or book an escort as part of a trip similarly to a hotel or rental car.

Attached: furr.png (444x371, 21.4K)

No, but it does make it rape.

I sure hope so

Like if swerfs are correct prostitution is hilarious justice. However it does mean like everything else its selective, as there are obviously sex workers who don't have that problem hence shill for it

Which brings up the female privilege that only a woman could call laying on her back having orgasms a job. No fucking way I'm gonna advocate women having that opportunity.

It's the commodification of basic human substance. Lefties that advocate for for legal prostitution might as well be anarcho-cappies and advocate for licenses to breath air. Hey YOUR LANDLORD OWN'S THE AIR ON HIS PROPERTY TOO!!!!!
Anarchists that support "muh sex workers" are just larping liberals that just want vulnerable men to suffer more under capitalism.

Attached: 1478395360143.jpg (1680x1120, 620.43K)

Attached: marxists_on_prostitution.jpg (857x960, 168.67K)

Eh!?
Porn is just a tiny part of the sex industry.
Most prostitutes have sex with disgusting fugly old men.
And there's also male porn stars and gigolos, so it isn't an exclusive female's job.

bottom one is likely an AnFem

She was involved in the rosa killer party and some later socialist party, so it's clear she wasn't an anarchist.

Zetkin was a VERY old school Marxist, a KPD CC member, a strong supporter of Lenin & the socialist state, and deeply critical of bourgeois feminism:
"Our guiding thought must be: We must not conduct special women’s propaganda, but Socialist agitation among women. The petty, momentary interests of the female world must not be allowed to take up the stage. Our task must be to incorporate the modern proletarian woman in our class battle! We have no special tasks for the agitation among women. Those reforms for women which must be accomplished within the framework of today’s society are already demanded within the minimal program of our party." (Zetkin, 1896)

Depends on whose involved. I just wanna nip this in the bud since the topics been raging on /leftypol for like a month now and I'm sick of it. But here's the solution. Gulag+brothel=Brulag. Just offer all prisoners, political or not the option of a reduced sentence (maybe some pay too) for time served in a specialized prison, the brulag.

That effectively kills the whole issue, and more. It also liberates sex effectively solving the incel problem. No one's hurt and everyone wins. Now let's stop having this dumb ass thread.

Attached: l-28716-not-this-shit-again.jpg (700x518, 20.95K)

History has done nothing but repeat itself in this area for centuries since industrialization, and transhumanists' shrieks of "t-t-t-this time it's different, promise!" are no more convincing in light of the plain facts. "Automation" is a meme.
He's mainly using it as a lurid rhetorical device to emphasize the hideous absurdity of the class system
Is a crank. The entire notion is ridiculous, as the household labor is as much hers as her husband's, and in any case the idea extends well beyond its already tenuous connection to Marxist conceptions of the class system exploiting the reproduction of labor, into completely insane calls for things like "attending to your own personal needs" and "not being an abrasive bitch to strangers" to be paid labor. She and her ilk turn Marxism on its head.
Both of those are a recent phenomenon, dating from the 1970s neolib/neocon push. In particular, the unparalleled metastasization of burgerstan's penal system is almost entirely attributable to the Reagan administration. As for welfare, before labor agitation in the 1900s, it simply didn't exist.
I assumed you offered anti-imperialism as an example of something that has met limited but extant success in practice
That doesn't really imply any synergy between openly permitting something, and the honestly separate efforts to attack underlying causes (poverty, unemployment, organized crime, corrupt enforcement, low social cohesion, limited recreational opportunities, etc.).
That's a bit of a truism, given even the most anarchic nonstate society will still ruthlessly repress something that's widely hated.
Which has in fact been greatly suppressed admittedly only after it had been very artificially pushed earlier in the 1900s
Agreed that prostitution, at least in its most common and harmful forms, is entirely a consequence of class society. The closest thing to prostitution I can imagine under any form of socialism would be purely social, literal attentionwhoring, which is largely inconsequential.

Correction: prison slavery goes back to the 1870s.

Not what I was referring to (although the penal system has become less abusive for each individual prisoner), I was talking about the explosive growth in the burgerstani imprisonment from "generic bourgie state" to "holy shit even the worst gulags can't touch this!".

Attached: U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png (2880x1684, 48.96K)

Is pay for illustrations depicting pay for sex with Alunya morally wrong?

No. It's not a crime, it's your duty.

It's morally wrong to shame the supplier for something you are demanding.
If people stopped doing this, they would've sex for free.

I think all feminism is bourgeois at this point

I think you're probably right

Only when you don't post them on the booru

Based

why do prudish feminists make up lies like this?

What does this even mean? Buying a TV or a computer is also morally wrong? Buying food is ethically wrong?

In capitalism everything is fruit of exploitative labor, so wasting time trying to buy ethically made goods and services is a waste of time.

Attached: e5313a0d2d2d6e656153cb61e2998c607328bc1e4b029220de7d42c528061c6e.jpg (960x591, 117.83K)

No, I am going to oppose injection of capitalism into every sphere of life.

But as long as capitalism is the dominant system of human relations, it is necessarily intertwined with every sphere of human life. To single one of them out to be restricted from market activities does not harm capitalism, it harms the sphere in question. People calling for such measures against sexuality do not oppose capitalism, they oppose sexuality.

So I guess that means we should pay for proprietary coffee pods, ringtones, and microtransactions?

Just because capitalism is the dominant economic system, doesn't mean the economy is all-encompassing.

It's sad, not morally wrong. Unless you actually hurt the poor prostitute, but I am sure that was obvious.

People argue prostitutes have no place in a communist society. IIRC, Marx himself classified them as lumpenproletariat, but that's false by any definition of the word you want to use.
psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
Yeah, I know the source is a bit shit, but the data on the Czech republic is real.

Abolitionism in communist circles is just puritanism disguised as wokeness. Sure, there are many prostitutes and some porn actors who are being exploited, but then there are also many others that are there out of their own volition or as much as of their own volition as there can be in a capitalist society, and many others would be there of there willingly if they had more guarantees on their own safety. So far, most of the arguments I have heard from communist abolitionists are straight out of Christian conservatism, just replacing "the Bible" with "feminism" to avoid being found out.
No, they are, at best, renting their bodies. Selling their bodies would imply cutting up parts of their body and selling them as meat. And even renting their bodies is a stretch, as they are merely providing a service, just like any other job in the third sector.
Vaginas are objectively yet another part of the body. The cashier uses his hands, the somelier uses his mouth… so what? What makes vaginas so special, other than your cryptopuritan morality?
Feminist projection. You would be surprised about what some people (more specifically, women) want to do; just because you, personally, do not want to do that, doesn't mean other people don't. Some people literally eat shit, and it is something I personally do not want to do because just thinking about it makes me want to puke, but prostitution is way tamer than that. Anyway, most jobs don actually want to be done, but they HAVE to be done. Such is the nature of scarcity, and as Emma Goldman once put it very succintly, your average worker in a shitty job is exploited by the bourgoise boss as much as your average prostitute is by their pimp.

Prostitution is not a result of capitalism: it is a result of scarcity. Prostitution is, nowadays, a job paid in cash money, just like any other job. People assume that the destruction of the concept of money would stop prostitution, or rather, the will of prostitution itself, but that's not true. Even in a communist society there can be scarcity, and I assure you people in need will probably come up with prostitution as a sidejob. Why? Because some people actually genuinely prefer prostitution to being a burger flipper, and there is nothing wrong with that. The only way prostitution could be killed in a communist society would be by completely controlling what each citizen can consume (even with an intransferable voucher system, people could probably find a way), and even then I am sure some people would "prostitute" themselves for power and influence.

I know state sponsored pornography sounds stupid, but it would be necessary, specially now that it's become harder for many men to find a partner. Many men are sexually rejected from society, and while most of them will be just sad people who lament being so undesirable, some of them may sadly turn into dangerous rapists. Giving them some sort of sexual release valve is necessary to avoid deep depressions on the first sector, and sexual assaulters on the second. Pornography and prostitution will be part of a sane communist society, if the people building it know what they are doing.

Your counterargument doesn't make any sense. What exactly is it a "prostitute" that works for free does, that distinguishes them from a nympho?

The destruction of money does not destroy the concept of resources. If, say, we destroyed the concept of money and switched to an untransferrable voucher system, you will probably see prostitutes who fuck people to get them to buy things for them. Say, the slut accidentally broke her personal computer recently, and she does not have enough vouchers to get it replaced or repaired. She could fuck someone to get it repaired or replaced for her. Same goes for any commodity, or other resource that is not strictly required to live, or even those that are required to live but she still wants more (food, for example, if she is a fat fuck). This would probably be illegal, or at best in a legal gray area, but when has that stopped prostitution?

Even if we don't go with a vouchers, and use an economic system based on equal resource allocation (you get this amount of aliments every day, you can get a personal computer every 10 years and a repair every two, etc), people would find a way to trade these goods, because they live in a scarce society, and we will for a long long time. As long as not everybody can have 100% of their needs, basic or otherwise, fulfilled, people will resort to all sorts of dumb techniques to acquire more resources for themselves.

Yes, because whores must be free. Seize the means of reproduction.

That is exactly what it means.

Good post

...

What about making sex not scarce instead of controlling everything?
Just change the morals to make it so that having sex with someone is as easy and common as saying hi.

TLDR