Kyle Kulinski vs. Noam Chomsky & Chris Hedges
Says there is absolutely nothing wrong with the prostitution industry because "having a sex drive is part of being a human" and there should be no shame in that as long as there are a few "proper regulations" and that Chomsky and Hedges are both just prudes who "look down upon sex."
Is Kyle right? Are Chomsky and Hedges just being old reactionary fogies in this instance?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
deseretnews.com
huffingtonpost.com
strawpoll.me
paulcockshott.wordpress.com
twitter.com
Marx regarded wage-work as nothing more than "disguised slavery", so what is a "sex-worker" under capitalism? A sex-slave.
Yeah but no one wants full legalization. Instead most "sex workers" want the state to protect them without taxing them for their profits. It's all just labor aristocrat wankery at its finest.
Third worldism, everyone.
Under capitalism. But socialism? That shit be getting legalized famsquadalam
we'll get hedges & chomsky on board once they realize how much puss they can buy with their labor vouchers
Prostitution has no place under socialism.
That some people are pushed into prostitution under class society is unfortunate and inevitable, but when they're given opportunity for honest work, if they continue to try to live off the commodification of sex, they will have no one but themselves to blame.
Define "honest work."
That's the stupidest and the most anti communist argument pro prostitution I ever heard. No, no place for prostitution. John get shot and whores too if they don't agree, like they did in the ussr.
Go to north america with this shit. Superior civilizations and cultures don't need this liberal bullshit which is basically a religion for you north american scum
I think they mean socially-necessary labour.
Although, be weary, fascists are socislists without marxism.
Labour must be marketed under it's subjective importance under capitalism since we don't own our labour, consumers do.
In communism you own your own labour, so why would you exploit yourself?
Kyle's more right. Hedges has a lot of good ideas but he's an actual Christian and is spooked by a lot of the Christian bs. So he looks around for "sinning" as defined by christian morality, and mixes that in with material realities of oppression and exploitation. I recall an interview where he talked about investigating Kink.com which he defines as sexual sadism and a sign of US decline. But the idea that people liking bondage porn is bad is like, just his opinion man. He doesn't give any stats for whether people like it more than other kinds of porn or whether it's increasing in some meaningful way relative to other porn. It just spooks him, so it's bad. Just because people may like to watch bondage or simulated abuse or rapey stuff doesn't actually mean they want to abuse or hurt people irl. Just like someone playing violent video games doesn't mean they want to go shoot people in the streets. It doesn't even mean they're any more likely to.
In short, yeah Hedges is a prude. He's mixing religious moralizing bs in with his lefty analysis and that's why Kyle is countering. I'm not sure what Chomsky has really said on this topic.
Porn is made with sex workers, the sign of decline is the fact that the labour of porn stars is being demanded more and more, so much so that young women (and men) are going into that business as a serious investment of a career since other forms of work are so alienating.
And a woman getting fucked by 4 guys at once is disturbing, you can see interviews with traumatised porn stars, if you're not phased by these realities, you are a sociopath.
And a lot of porn stars have been sexually abused, too, so a lot of the industry is literally built on child rape.
They have power because they get paid exorbitant amounts of money for sex acts that the "sex workers" (exploited women, girls, and boys) in the third world do every day for pennies. They know that legalization as well as decriminalization simply intensifies such exploitation they just don't give a shit. It's very similar to the way first world workers treated the third world during the cold war before neoliberalism. They didn't care about them as long as they were getting their (albeit pitiful) share of the super profits. First world prostitutes are the same way. They definitely want to be petit bourg though. Honestly in the west the line between petit bourg and labor aristocrat is constantly blurred anyways. Pic very much related.
Kyle is right that Chomsky and Hedges have no argument, but sex work sucks generally. Being anti-sex work is dumb though. Sex workers are mostly just doing what they can to scrape by in a shit system.
That is their argument though.
is it though? according to who, what? The porn industry is not bringing in the money it used to from what i've heard. And the porn industry is not exactly new. The only thing kind of new is the internet, which means way more people have access to pretty much all the porn in the world any time they want it. That's new.
Hey, speak for yourself.
deseretnews.com
I'm not speaking for myself, I was speaking for the women involved, and obviously, as many feminists have said about porn, it reinforces sexual oppression by promoting toxic male fantasies, and even producing them, rape and pedophilia has risen with porn addiction, also.
I'm not here to judge, morally on subjective tastes, but there are negative effects of porn, for the consumer and worker.
...
you're not speaking for the women involved, you're cherry-picking some women involved who say the things you want to say while speaking for yourself.
Some feminists say a lot of stupid things unsupported by evidence. The premise that "male fantasies" are "toxic" is a subjective (and arguably sexist) opinion, not an objective fact. As is the notion that porn "promotes" them in some meaningful way. This is like the video game or rap music arguments from the past. They promote violence, supposedly. It looks and sounds violent and seems to glorify, but when actually studied they can find no causation.
btw, your stats come from 2006. According to many more recent reports the porn industry has declined a lot since then. So it is not "demanded more and more", but less than it used to be.
huffingtonpost.com
I also find it surprising how much China, South Korea and Japan dwarf the US in porn consumption apparently, according to your chart.
SK and such must have a lot more "toxic" behavior by males than the US does, I guess.
Agreed. Remember how those moralizing shitlords made child labor illegal in the US back in the day? It was so insane for them to do that when so many families relied on child labor to survive.
Fuck you.
and also leave them no alternative but to accept whatever wage porky is offering over at Walmart.
adults are not children. And child labor suppressed wages of adults by expanding the labor pool. sex workers self-employing drives up wages by shrinking the labor pool, as it gives people a way to make money besides selling their labor to a capitalist.
There are fantasies indicative of masculinity, like penetration and domination which are toxic, I wasn't calling all male sexuality toxic you emotional fool.
If you want 'evidence' of the concern of feminists, just look at all these violent crimes comitted mostly by men which have a sexual nature, like rape, child molestation and exhibitionism, in trends with porn addiction becoming more popular, we see an increase in these crimes too, porn desensitises us to sexual violence, and with a decaying moral fabric in society due to neoliberalism eroding our relationship with our environment.
I don't know the last time something I read or saw actually shocked me, I'm a symptom and I would be dangerous if I didn't have self-awareness, unfortunately, most people don't.
Child labor is particularly bad because children were likely to be injured/maimed and were put into the smaller machines where adults wouldn't fit, meaning they were SOL if something went wrong. If you want to draw some equivalence here you need to demonstrate the equivalent problems involved in sex work.
well fuck guess we better stop reproducing
...
Socially necessary labor, especially productive labor.
Both of those things are quite vague.
You're so close…
that may be a troll reply, not sure, but whatever.
Trends in violent crime (including rape and child molestation) have been going down, not up. I have no idea what the trends in "exhibitionism" are.
This reminds me of the claims that "gangsta rap" desensitizes the youth to violence and would spark a crime wave, but the rise of gangsta rap actually correlated with a long decline of violent crime. (Note for those that don't get correlation/causation: this doesn't mean rap caused a decline in crime, just that it didn't promote or lead to crime as claimed by the moralizers).
1. There is no socially necessary/productive component to "sex work."
2. Consent cannot exist under economic duress. If a sexual encounter were an expression of a woman's autonomy, then money would not need to enter the equation.
3. Nobody who is for women's liberation is in favor of jailing prostitutes or forsaking them to a life of (further) poverty. That's a false dilemma.
That's true of a lot of work but nobody calls bullshit jobs sex crimes.
If this is true then all relationships are rape because all relationships involve exchanging money or material goods.
There are certainly people claiming to be feminists etc who deliberately ignore what sex workers say about sex work, which is almost unanimously that it's legitimate.
Fucking liberals holy shit. I hope he isn't married.
Then "consent" is a meaningless concept, since almost all of us are under economic duress all the time in our choices. This means that you're not saying anything meaningful about sex work, just about "work".
First world "sex workers" are a tiny minority and should be ignored.
I misspoke, I meant to say that some sexual acts are essentially masculine, like penetration and so it isn't sexist to say that something essential to masculinity is toxic.
Gangsta rap was promoted by the CIA as a psyop against the black population of america to forge greater resistance against class unity amongst all shades of the proletariat.
You see today that whites are scared of blacks, a lot of that is irrational, and it's not a coincidence that they feel that way, in a society of lies, culture is just an experimentation ground of dishonesty, we call this 'social engineering', and since workers have always been exploited, rulers have always used it to divide us.
Some essentialist feminists speak about penetration as a fact that nature oppresses women, and that this occurs throughout nature, but until we create artificial wombs, we have to accept it.
I've know some masculine ass dudes that like to be penetrated so what about them is being oppressed by nature?
Is it their prostate gland? 🤔
my how things change
Men can't get pregant.
I use the term 'nature' loosely anyway, just in the context of procreation, the fact that children can be born artificially and fetishes which carry social rather than procreative value shows that sex is basically subjective, and may be in many other animal cultures, considerably in mammals.
I think that considering the autonomy of sex, essentialism is on it's deathbed anyway, and that functional concepts like gender are social constructs, primarily.
So what's going on when lesbians finger each other?
pfhahahaha
Or you could be actually radical and consider envelopment with the vagina to also be actively participating instead of buying into the sexist dichotomy of men as subjects and women as objects.
Being penetrated and getting pregnant aren't synonymous. Are you four?
You were talking about the natural cucking of females. Procreation.
I see the complimentary nature of the sexes, I was just giving you some trivia.
I think the obvious solution here under Socialism is to just have legalized sex clubs that any adult is free to participate in as they wish on their own time instead of legalized prostitution.
what do you mean "i don't want to whore myself", prole?
it's the most natural thing, people always did this
you're just a bum who doesn't want people to have a voluntary contract to work for someone who has the money to pay them
you should be more liberal and open to the idea of an open and free market
all those proles who work for me and like their job and love me for being a job creator
do you really want to take this away?
what makes you think this is okay with my prostitutes?
and you conservative commies dare to berate me while freeing the women! i'm working really hard for their rights to prostitute themself, you should praise me as a feminist! you're just male chauvinists who are mad that nobody would pay to fuck your butt
just come to my factories and be good boys now!
dudefromtheofficepointing.jpg
It's not sex as a service which is the problem, it's the $$$
Sex positive "leftism" needs to fucking end. No one gives a fuck about what you stick in your ass.
Also it's funny that these cunts must push petty-booj white whores to the forefront whenever they talk about prostitution. Proclaiming with great smugness "See, they love their job! They just love sex!" covering up, intentionally or not, the 95% of women who DON'T like being a cum bucket to scummy men. Not to mention the sex trafficking and the fact that most prostitutes come from impoverished areas.
BUT DEM RICH WHTE CAMWHORES THO! FUCK SWERFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
How would prostitution be paid for under socialism? Why would people prostitute themselves? Don't get me wrong I am all for communal orgy centres and so on, but prostitution will be abolished. It is not real labor and it will have no place under socialism, in a planned labor voucher economy.
Didn't know he's a Christian. I read a couple articles by Hedges about prostitution and it looked pretty solid, quoting studies n shit.
Yeah, prostitution under socialism is a pretty silly idea and we wouldn't even have this discussion on a Spanish-language lefty board. This muh sex work is a UK/US student "left" thing.
I seriously, seriously doubt this.
Prostitution is fine. The problem here is that it's more dignified/less alienating than a lot of other "unskilled" work that's available now. If someone chooses to sell their body or looks after this problem is solved, they should be allowed to do so.
No they shouldn't be
Love Chomsky but he's wrong on this one.
Two retarded statments in one brief post
Kyle Kulakski
Well, he is of Polish ancestry.
Yeah, fuckhead, thats why Marx described people as wageslaves. People are coerced. Jesus fucking christ you are so incredibly fucking stupid. Fuck fuck fuck you are dumb.
Fuck radlibs.
no
this
should've added a third option stating "these polls are useless and easily manipulated when everyone already posts on Zig Forums with proxies"
uuuuuuuhhh honor system
Lol, it should be 14 imo. At that point, most girls have gone through puberty and are mature enough to have sex. 10 and 7 is just insane.
So which is preferable, poor women having the option to get money from prostitution or not having that option? It's a moot point anyway since prostitution is illegal but still happens.
In 1977, a petition was addressed to the French parliament calling for the abrogation of several articles of the age of consent law and the decriminalization of all consensual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen (the age of consent in France). A number of French intellectuals - including such prominent names as Aragon, Foucault, Sartre, Derrida, Althusser, Barthes, Klossowski, Beauvoir, Deleuze, Guattari, Leiris, Robbe-Grillet, Sollers, Rancière, Lyotard, Ponge, and various prominent doctors and psychologists - signed the petition. In 1979 two open letters were published in French newspapers defending the release of individuals arrested under charges of statutory rape, in the context of abolition of age of consent laws.
The participants, Michel Foucault, Jean Danet and Guy Hocquenghem, had all signed the 1977 petition, along with other intellectuals.[1] They believed that the penal system was replacing the punishment of criminal acts by the creation of the figure of the individual dangerous to society (regardless of any actual crime), and predicted that a "society of dangers" would come. They also have defined the idea of legal consent as a contractual notion and a ‘trap’, since "no one makes a contract before making love".[1]
Postmodernists are fucked.
Lel as if I'm gonna take the words of a succdem like Kulinski seriously, fuck him, he's just some wanker internet radio host
The thing with 10 and 7 is also that they really haven't developed their cognitive processes enough.
The period between the ages from 7 - 11 is called the concrete operational period.
It's basically when a child is able to start using logical thought, but can only apply logic to physical objects (not to ideas if you will)
when the fuck did people on Zig Forums think he was relevant to us? This guy is significantly to the right of even Jimmy "arm the poor" Dore.
A lot of first world leftists are pro-"sex work." I assume that is the reason.
chapo had a pretty bitch episode about that
This board is fucking dead
you didn't sage
...
This.
Everything under capitalism, monetism, commodification, is automatically a corruption and revolting.
Having promiscuous sex is fine by me, but selling oneself at such an intimate level is just sad.
Kyle's just an ass-hat soc-dem liberal. Thinking all it needs is "proper regulations" is so PC of him.
But I have heard self described communists call me out for this as "sex worker shaming". I told that I was only very against capitalism.
This too.
No they aren't.
Hehe
I didn't say I wanted anyone in jail.
In this nasty world one does what one can. I feel sorry for the prostitute and even the john, it's emotionless sex, not even friendly sex, it's just a business transaction. Ick.
ok, maybe you don't, but a lot of people itt apparently do.
also, fapping is emotionless sex, yet many seem to enjoy it anyway.
Nah, they are lumpen.
Because sex work appeals to some people?
Masturbation is literally self-love. Don't you smile at the end of it?
I don't want people to exchange money for sex like I don't want people to exchange money for anything else. I want free people to have sex and a free world.
Another example. There's a fashion trend going around in haute bourgeoisie couture right now for sheer and filmy tops. Some of them buy it to stuff in their closet, or wear over something of course, but I've seen some risque takers bobbing their tits around.
Now normally I'd love that kind of thing, but this just seemed trashy to me. It's their class that nauseates me of course.
It would probably resemble sexual surrogacy, and not actually look anything like today.
Great. Me too. But that's not happening tomorrow or next week or this year. So in the meantime we need to have positions on what to do while capitalism still exists. This bullshit is just a cop-out because you're too chickenshit to actually argue the issue.
Slavery is okay as long as it's consensual.
wait, I should rephrase.
Sex Slavery is okay as long as it's consensual
Surprised penile missile hasn't been posted yet
paulcockshott.wordpress.com
In a socialist society where sex has been de-commodified few people will aspire to sell their bodies for money, and if someone still really really wants to do so they can roleplay prostitution safely in their local communal sex center after performing their four hours of socially productive work
sex work is socially productive
don't reply to me
...
...
ez
This makes sense but it works under the supposed reality where the man would actually desire to be the breadwinner of said woman and that having sex without the desire of caring materially for her for the rest of his life.
Moreover it also implies that a woman is unable to achieve material and economic independance by herself and that the idea that she 'should' secure a breadwinner.
Literally the same is true for the sexual market. people with the abilities of creating attraction from the opposite sex are in a priviledged position compared to those who don't.
So then, the idea he proposed earlier, that securing a male partner and forming a monogamus relationship is actually a free choice riven by free will or not?
post disregarded, have a good day
just terrible
>paulcockshott.wordpress.com
I think there is a confusion in this discussion between what is right or wrong in the world we live in, and what would be right in wrong in some hypothetical future society that the author imagines with entirely different social and economic institutions, but which the author has no realistic plan of making a reality any time soon, if ever. At the very least not in the country where Kyle Kulinski, Noam Chomsky, or Hedges live (getting back to OP post).
Hence:
Maybe that would be so in the hypothetical future society, but the exact opposite is true in the society where we actually live, and are likely to continue living for the forseeable future. In the world we live, labor does not actually create "national wealth" or "general welfare". It creates individual wealth and irregular welfare. More laborers does not mean more collective wealth for us all to share. More laborers means more competition for available jobs, and therefore lower wages for workers and more profits for owners. Someone dropping out of the labor force to become a sex worker does not mean one less person to produce the collective wealth (while still needing to eat the collective food, etc). It means one less person the capitalists can replace you with.
"labour deserters" might be a problem in the hypothetical future society, but they aren't in the one we live in.
Even if it were true that this is something to oppose in the future society, that doesn't mean it should be opposed in this one.
This seems like a better hope for what might work in socialism. I tend to think prostitution will always be around to some extent, but it may be minimal if people have means of survival that are more desirable than prostitution. That's ultimately why a lot of sex workers choose to do it. They think it's more rewarding and less degrading than flipping burgers or mopping floors or smiling at asshole customers all day for shitty wages.
dick rocket needs to update his take a little too. prostitution often goes on without any women involved, and sometimes without any men involved.
this
tl;dr the point is to create a political economy that can abolish prostitution not formally, but for real
And so your solution is accept this
That's chicken shit.
They have a decent reason to be. There is no need to demonize women who do it since they’re either going to be victims, desperate, or do it willingly from a place of relative security for the money/as some kind of hobby. But I do think the more recent American socdem line that you can’t besmirch the good name of sex work is that kind of zeitgeist attitude towards everything in their wheelhouse. The common argument “a lot of them just like sex!” seems totally silly because we’re talking about being paid for it to make a living. There is no commodity produced in sex work, no wealth or MoP is generated. It is unproductive labor. We can imagine that if most of the women who do sex work had financial security, then what we call “sex work” would just become promiscuity and doing kinky shit for them. Imagine the vast majority of professional musicians or photographers for instance. They also like the basis of their line of work, but the weddings and events that pay their bills are probably not what they’d prefer. If they had security, they’d probably spend their time doing something completely different with their photography/music. I can’t imagine it’d be any different with sex work.
Eat my entire dick, radfem