Should Sex Work be Decriminalized? One Advocate says Yes

no, they traded sex for tasty treats, specifically grapes iirc
there was no class involved, they are fucking monkeys m8. Just read the article

so you're not gonna provide me a source for your claim that is based on soviet law or anything, and then get snippy and ask me what happened instead?
as said before, i'm sure to have read otherwise, but i don't have a source at hand, but since i didn't bring it up how about you go suck it?

oh, a trots
go figure

shitposting flag from other thread

Please provide us the real version of the events. We are all interested in the truth since you know better. You are the one getting "snippy" not me.

Prostitutes are labor aristocrats at best, petite bourgeoisie at worst. They need to be abolished.

Ehhh, I’ve met some class conscience sex workers, believe it or not.
It’s rare, but it happens.

Also, only a few really manage to become labor aristocrats if they are lucky

Under socialism? sure. It wouldn't fuck up with the mentality of our species' male anymore than porn already has.

go even further
sex work should be nationalized and given to the people

Decriminalized for anyone over the age of 25, harshly penalized for anyone under. Pedos, of course, should be put down or lock away from society for life, which I am sure everyone here agrees with.

Why 25 though? I thought the biggest magical number was 18.

Sex workers should be subsidized and given out on a needs basis until one man one wife is reinstituted.

THIS
Incel problem solved.
Women who like sex work could join these jobs

Just like how only people who enjoy working in retail end up there right?

Brain does not stop maturing until well after 25 for most, time for the lessons of life to set in and not so easy to be preyed upon and put out to work by another. Also, it gives women over 25, no longer prized by society, a chance to find romance, especially the heavy set ones who are struggling with the indoctrination and cultural programming that told them to not further western society or the family unit for child rearing.

youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA

Attached: western society.gif (700x394, 7.89M)

Under capitalism, yeah. Some people just like being hoes tho

Go to the gulag, all of you
Not only is prostitution capitalistic and decadent, the liberal defense of it is profoundly individualistic, putting the utmost faith in an individual and what the individual thinks they want and need instead of what they truly want and need.

Go to the gulag redlib

This is just borgouis moralism hiding under red rhetoric.

You can't have sex work without commodities.

a whore has an objectively easy job compared to a miner, farmer, factory worker, retail worker or just about any profession you care to name

Hookers of the world, unite!

How is that not liberal? That’s exactly the type of reformist shit that libs advocate for now

Does commodity fetishism exist once you nationalize it though? It could be done in such a way that the worker and the client are both satisfied by the work done. The relationship would be completely different. Also, as sex become freely available, relationships based on intimacy rather than sex could be more valued.

that's a good thing

Attached: 1480565598625.png (500x424, 117.54K)

Name one liberal advocating nationalization of prostitution, while simultaneously abolishing money and private property.

You sound like Sargon wrapping yourself in that false dichotomy

To say nothing of this particular video, quick shoutout to The Real News for being /ourguys/. There's no reason why The Real News should not be the go-to news source (besides NewsAnon) for every user here. Paul Jay, although he unfortunately only does editorials and Reality Asserts Itself now, is also the producer of the leftypol-certified Empire Files, Greg Wilpert and Sharmani Peries both used to work in Hugo Chavez's administration and Wilpert's wife is still an ambassador to Venezuela, and Eddie Conway is an OG Black Panther. There's literally no reason for Zig Forums to obsess over a jagoff nightculb comedian who's socdem at best when The Real News is run by actual communists who are actually knowledgeable about the journalistic process and surround themselves with experts who go in-depth on every single video.

Prostitution spreads diseases, harms the overwhelming majority of the women who become involved with it and promotes human trafficking. It might be impossible to stamp out entirely, but that shit needs suppressing.

Fuck right outta here, commisar faggot.

How's the conservative ediucation coming along, "comrade"?
How the fuck does that make it any different than any other job under capitalism?

Amusing that you think you're educated
Getting violently abused, raped and addicted to crack as a sex slave is just like any other job? Okaaaay.

Attached: slap.png (160x160, 75.94K)

Abolish all sex work
Enforce universal mandatory celibacy
Junior Anti-Sex League NOW

Attached: theprince.jpg (384x506, 75.68K)

Attached: slap.png (160x160, 75.94K)

White whores on camshows and other degenerate petty-bourgeois scum don't make up for the millions sold into human trafficking and forced into sex work in their pre-teens. Fuck you cunts.

Attached: 1426397000508.jpg (126x122, 7.8K)

Attached: theprince.jpg (384x506, 75.68K)

You and I both know it is an individualistic choice to become a sex worker in the first place. They don't share their body out of some retarded choice to "serve the collective" (what the fuck)

All Socialist men should strive towards becoming a Gentleman, which means involving oneself in a monogamous relationship in order to procreate with a long-term partner.

On top of this, socialist men should prioritise the safety of women in their community. This naturally involves making sure women can perform labour in a safe environment, and free from exploitation.

Good men should allow the women in their community to seek honest work, whilst simultaneously ostracizing bad men from exploiting intrinsic members of this community.
Sex work is incompatible with this ethos, and needs to be abolished.

What does pro sex work mean to you? How would you know that a pimp isn't hoodwinking you by forcing a woman to say she enjoys her career? If the majority of women in a third world country were forced to say they liked sex work, yet you never knew of the coercion, would you be pro sex worker for them?

Does pro sex work just mean middle class, privileged whores shoving their cunts in peoples faces?

because the pimp would be the people dumbass, if the people are fallible then there is no point to communism at all

Are you a Marxist, because you do understand your implying exchanging money and/or commodities for sex, right?

Attached: 1437572454327.jpg (4879x3489, 593.18K)

OK Sargon of I’m-not-a-revisionist. Let’s neglect the material conditions that force them into that position.
Point being they COULD make that choice under socialism

Spare us moralisms, that has nothing to do with socialism. Someone can be a socialist, have no long term relationship and fuck a different women every month, as long as people are honest with each other who fucking cares?

I do think there's an overemphasis on sex in our societies, but saying men should involve in long term monogamous relationship in order to procreate is silly. That's close to the family unit adored by reactionaries.

Shut up nigger

You do realize there are VERY extensive "pimp" networks in a lot of these third world countries right? So much so that they're even connected to the government at times, such as those of south-east asia. It wouldn't be the people at all, most of the time it's not - it's that few dangerous people corralling these women for profit and to facilitate sex tourism.

None, let the people decided.

Fixed.

Why would there be a profit motive under communism?

I'm talking about now retard.

Abolish all work in general nigga.

Wait I missed what you implied, I thought you were referring explicitly to my point about the large majority of women being coerced in those countries.

Well I hope there doesn't exist a system where women are pimped "by the people". It sounds fucked up, like some type of neo-comfort women shit.

Yeah, but what’s the point of talking about now, if we’re talking about the state of sex work after removing capitalism from the equation entirely?

Such that the new society will still be stamped by the womb of the old society that birthed it, so to will the relationships that precipitate sex work be stained by that old society. We're talking about some far off utopia where there isn't any exploitation from sex work, the only way I can see that happening is that everyone is sated materially.

Your literally advocating for work which by itself cannot be considered useful labour and one who's existence relies entirely on exploitation. Prostitution is trading commodities or money for sex, there is no way it can or should exist in socialism or communism and Marx was clearly against it if the Manifesto is anything to go by,

Not him, but there is nothing wrong with family units, what communists are against is the bourgeoisie conception it. Also, I have to agree with Zizek that the idea of "fuck a different person every month" is one which completely removes itself from any form of absoluteness or "love" and reduces sexual relations to merely mutual masturbation.

Attached: 3703938750bc6b800fa737d7d443db8405d12d39bb056df0b0f66f05ab2bcc92.jpg (255x255, 16.56K)

suck on my tank barrel, liberal

and this is what you call vulgar marxism

“The changed attitude of the young people to questions of sexual life is of course based on a ‘principle’ and a theory. Many of them call their attitude ‘revolutionary’ and ‘communist’. And they honestly believe that it is so. That does not impress us old people. Although I am nothing but a gloomy ascetic, the so-called ‘new sexual life’ of the youth – and sometimes of the old – often seems to me to be purely bourgeois, an extension of bourgeois brothels. That has nothing whatever in common with freedom of love as we communists understand it. You must be aware of the famous theory that in communist society the satisfaction of sexual desires, of love, will be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water. This glass of water theory has made our young people mad, quite mad. It has proved fatal to many young boys and girls. Its adherents maintain that it is Marxist. But thanks for such Marxism which directly and immediately attributes all phenomena and changes in the ideological superstructure of society to its economic basis! Matters aren’t quite as simple as that. A certain Frederick Engels pointed that out a long time ago with regard to historical materialism.

“I think this glass of water theory is completely un-Marxist, and, moreover, anti-social. In sexual life there is not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order. In his Origin of the Family Engels showed how significant is the development and refinement of the general sex urge into individual sex love. The relations of the sexes to each other are not simply an expression of the play of forces between the economics of society and a physical need, isolated in thought, by study, from the physiological aspect. It is rationalism, and not Marxism, to want to trace changes in these relations directly, and dissociated from their connections with ideology as a whole, to the economic foundations of society. Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal person in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is most important of all. Drinking water is, of course, an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new life, arises, it is that which gives it its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community.

“As a communist I have not the least sympathy for the glass of water theory, although it bears the fine title ‘satisfaction of love’. In any case, this liberation of love is neither new, nor communist. You will remember that about the middle of the last century it was preached as the ‘emancipation of the heart’ in romantic literature. In bourgeois practice it became the emancipation of the flesh. At that time the preaching was more talented than it is today, and as for the practice, I cannot judge. I don’t mean to preach asceticism by my criticism. Not in the least. Communism will not bring asceticism, but joy of life, power of life, and a satisfied love life will help to do that. But in my opinion the present widespread hypertrophy in sexual matters does not give joy and force to life, but takes it away. In the age of revolution that is bad, very bad.

“Young people, particularly, need the joy and force of life. Healthy sport, swimming, racing, walking, bodily exercises of every kind, and many-sided intellectual interests. Learning, studying, inquiry, as far as possible in common. That will give young people more than eternal theories and discussions about sexual problems and the so-called ‘living to the full’. Healthy bodies, healthy minds I Neither monk nor Don Juan, nor the intermediate attitude of the German philistines. You know, young comrade –– ? A splendid boy, and highly talented. And yet I fear that nothing good will come out of him. He reels and staggers from one love affair to the next. That won’t do for the political struggle, for the revolution. And I wouldn’t bet on the reliability, the endurance in struggle of those women who confuse their personal romances with politics. Nor on the men who run petticoat and get entrapped by every young woman. That does not square with the revolution.

“The revolution demands concentration, increase of forces. From the masses, from individuals. It cannot tolerate orgiastic conditions, such as are normal for the decadent heroes and heroines of D’Annunzio. Dissoluteness in sexual life is bourgeois, is a phenomenon of decay. The proletariat is a rising class. It doesn’t need intoxication as a narcotic or a stimulus. Intoxication as little by sexual exaggeration as by alcohol. It must not and shall not forget, forget the shame, the filth, the savagery of capitalism. It receives the strongest urge to fight from a class situation, from the communist ideal. It needs clarity, clarity and again clarity. And so I repeat, no weakening, no waste, no destruction of forces. Self-control, self-discipline is not slavery, not even in love.
marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm

Yes, Thai Socialists should fully endorse Western Sex Tourists and SexPats because it is "liberating" for the desperate women who participate in Sex Work as it is their only way of earning a decent income.
Similarly, it was very important for Vietnamese women in the 70s to fuck American soldiers for payment. What other jobs could they have possibly performed?

I would strongly distrust such men, wondering why they felt the need to participate in promiscuity under Capitalism and why they support prostitution so strongly.

Attached: bookchin lifestylism.PNG (605x623, 340.51K)

Then call it sex labor you assburger. Sex can absolutely be useful labor. It's often therapeutic and can constitute reproductive labor.

no, you see, what you have to do is larp as the strawman that reactionaries make communists appear to be and not actually advocate marxism, you silly reactionary!
now go make some revolution and fuck a stranger in the ass! just go outside and throw your dick around!

I don’t think it’s utopic, as the ideal for me would be not having to have sex work in the first place. But yes, this would be in the distant future where the relations of production render it impossible to exploit.

How is a value-forming activity not useful labor?

Sex can be "useful", but its not by definition useful labour. Sex-work is in no way reproductive labour and I'm not sure you know what it means. Reproductive labour is a theory which has to do with domestic care and child rearing.

I have to say, I generally like the Tanks on this board, but somehow you contribute nothing while remaining just as salty as the rest.

Prostitution still existed unofficially in the USSR, no matter how much ☭TANKIE☭s here will deny it.

You're a fucking moron.

I'm talking about prostitution and thought you were too. Are you not?

People who don't have an SO or have one who doesn't fulfill that need can seek out a prostitute. That's literally the purpose of prostitution.

So that's not reproductive labour. Prostitution is trading money/commodities for sex.

Attached: jarjar.jpg (500x465, 39.43K)

Do not deny that, but that doesn't make it good or something which should result from a socialist society

And what good is masturbation without some porn, honestly.

How you're paid for labor (if at all) doesn't change the fact that you performed labor.

I think porn of some form should still exist, such as animated porn or content that has already been produced. I don't really see the issue with amateur sex if both parties consented to its release. Just abolish the porn industry but keep everything they made. There's already enough porn for many lifetimes.

Dude, that’s sex work…

The Paddy Jackson trial should highlight how ugly this promiscuity culture is, yet you seem to be on the same side as the "boys will be boys" idiots.
There is obviously something deeply wrong with the culture of casual sex, excusing this in the name of being "progressive" whilst you are not hurt by is it is incredibly selfish.

Both men and women are victims of this culture, and would benefit strongly with it's removal.

>>>Zig Forums

That's the definition of what prostitution is, it require trading for commodities/money. Its not reproductive labour.

Not exactly, sex-work is not two people just fucking and posting a video. It requires some degree of economic exploitation.

Explain how performing sex acts to fulfill a worker's sexual needs stops being labor when exchange of commodities gets involved.

Read this
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/01/socialists-can-never-support-prostitution/

The leftist position is not to ask yourself this, but to create a situation where there is no reason for sex workers to exist. And by this I mean eliminating the reason for them to exist.
Fuck them tbh

Attached: Cr3ag_HUMAA1t5v.jpg (1200x900, 201.85K)

We were talking about whether or not prostitution would continue to exist in socialism, which I said it would not because such a thing depends entirely on paying money/trading commodities for the act of sex and socialists are against such exploitation in regards to all work. I honestly don't understand how you can defend something which entirely depends on an exchange of commodities when were against such a thing.

At the end of the day, prostitutes are really just charging for something that they willingly give to their boyfriend for free. Sucking cock by itself is not a degrading act. It only becomes degrading when the john is violent or unhygienic. Or it becomes problematic if the john has STDs.

I've been with prostitutes before. Though I stopped doing it over a year ago because I didn't have a positive experience. Because the hookers mostly treat me with cold indifference or look down on me. When a hooker sucks my cock, what are they being subjected to exactly? I'm not hurting them, I soaped up my cock before the session. Manscaped my cock. I didn't give them a STD. I'm there because I want to feel good and get off and enjoy a sexy woman's body. And I paid her for doing something that she does for her boyfriend for free. Where is the exploitation here?

The problem is with violent johns, violent pimps, smelly/unhygienic johns, STDs, etc.

The hooker should be happy that she got paid for doing something she does with her boyfriend anyways without having any harm done to her. Instead they are cold, want you to cum ASAP and get out and look down on me like I'm an autistic incel piece of shit. I'm a human being just like her. A human being in need of some physical affection. And she's a human being in need of resources. I even went down on her because I wanted to make her feel good. But at the end of the day, hookers seem incapable of bonding with their johns. I have only ever felt appreciated by two different hookers out of the many I've seen. And they could have been faking it. lmao. One of those girls no longer works in my city. And the other is a MILF type that I'm not really into.

It sucks that there are shitty johns out there that make this a dangerous job. I'm just offering a perspective from the other side. Not all johns are monsters. In fact many of us feel exploited ourselves. I stopped seeing hookers because I usually walk back to my car feeling used.

I see Cockshots point, but it rests on the assumption that the power relations would be the same. Why couldn’t women run these institutions co-operatively, for instance? I feel the anti-prostitution stance is some huge tenant that’s never really been significantly probed since it might offend someone.

Which is a poor argument because prostitution predates capitalism, and one that you have not made up to this point. Here are the posts in our exchange, in order:

What you have argued is that the involvement of exchange makes sex work not labor.

Because it doesn't. Exchange itself predates commodities, and performing sex acts can be done on a production-for-use basis. This is the nature of sex within a reasonably healthy romantic relationship, but it doesn't have to be restricted to that. Some people are going to be better at sex than others. Some people are going to want to have sex more often than others. In socialism they should have the opportunity to provide sexual services to people who need that.

Most incels just need to be socialized and drop their standards. I feel that relationships will be far less shallow under socialism, even the obsession with looks would be lessened.

You are an ignorant bastard
You are an autist if you think that sex with someone you love is the same thing as sex with someone who paid for it.
And autistic to think that making sex with a man out of love is the same thing as out of economic need
Again you fucking autist
Honestly I'm not gonna even reply to the rest. You are just a terrible fucking person. Hope that one day you have someone you loved fucked in front of you because you need money. Seriously what a fucking idiot. No you are not hurting them directly but that would be probably the last thing they would do ever in their life if there was no economic need.

All johns unironically should be killed.
youtu.be/_G-TxKz6iww

Attached: 113411597.jpg (1050x699 36.13 KB, 133.69K)

You are a social justice warrior. Go back to reddit.