Amnesty International Now Pro Prostitution

Amnesty International Now Pro Prostitution

youtube.com/watch?v=jNLc7AHC3Lo - Jason Unruhe

Attached: maoistrebelnews.jpg (1196x744, 132.2K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Soviet_Union
orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/
forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/become-a-prostitute-or-lose-your-unemployment-benefits.20245/#post-494302
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

We are going to have another round, aren't we?

Attached: popcorn.png (471x292, 35.2K)

Attached: petit bourgeois.webm (1280x720, 1.3M)

What's with obsession with 'real labor'? Whether or not prostitution fits into your idealistic category of 'real labor' has nothing to do with the fact that socialists do not and cannot support prostitution.

I.e. trade unions organized by sex workers needs to be sabotaged, the people denied help, and the whole - deeply Bourgeois - moralistic narrative about "fallen degenerates" supported.

Such socialism. Much wow.

Bourgeois is a faggy french word.

Use burgher or burger.

Prostitution will not exist under socialism, sex work will not exist under socialism. Sorry sexual predators!

Also we must clarify one thing: Petty-booj white cunts fisting themselves on a webcam ARE NOT representative of sex workers. Good day!

Lmao

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Soviet_Union

This is a wierd leap to make imo, what about saying that you don't support prostitution means that you're inherently antagonistic towards it? Who here advocates for the sabotage of trade unions organized by the percentage of sex workers who I assume work in legal brothels in places where sex work is already legalized & recognized? Who is being denied help? What exactly is moralistic, could you elaborate? I'll give you an example to explain my confusion here, say for example, someone stated that they're not interested in supporting Assad against US Imperialism, does this then mean that they actively shill for intervention, want Syrian Refugees to be deported, etc? I make this comparison because ultimately whether or not people on this board "support" prostitution has about as much of an effect on the real world as any other kind of "support", i.e it's literally fucking thoughts & prayers until they're doing something concrete in real organizing.

Please explain, what does such rejection of support means IRL. Is it just words, with no actions being implied?

Socialists can never support X - is a bit different, as it explicitly clarifies position of being hostile (by not recognizing people as Socialist) to those who "support" (exact meaning to be defined) X.

Marx was wrong and Bakunin was correct about the lumpenproles.

I know you're shitposting lad but in a Society with Labour Time Credits/Labour Vouchers/whatever you want to call them, as is argued for in COTGP, being that said things are non-circulatory and non-transferrable explain exactly how one would prostitute themselves in a way which wouldn't essentially be a relationship in which one party worked and the other didn't?

The only way in which you'd be able to prostitute yourself would be in exchange for your client buying things for you; and how exactly would you co-ordinate all of this without extreme organization and regular clientele? What's more why exactly would said Prostitute choose this kind of lifestyle over readily available, less taxing, more fulfilling, rewarding and better paying work that affords them more freedom or even just a relationship with 1 individual who did the same thing but didn't involve having sex with multiple strangers and constantly relying on others to meet their basic needs?

It is in this manner that we state that "Prostitution" in the concrete sense of Sex Work will fundamentally be abolished, since there is no generally recognised social need for it and if there is then it'll be handled on a completely different basis than it is now; likely just a small scale gift economy whereby those that would like to make an agreement between themselves where one has sex with the other in exchange for something else.

The reason why the USSR had prostitution is because they chose to keep the currency of rubles and operated a monetary economy; in the same way that black markets emerged because money was for intents and purposes still a commodity, prostitution would arise in the same way because it was enabled by the structure of the economy.

Fundamentally the contention is this; do women, on a wide scale, voluntarily choose to engage in prostitution as a generalized and primary means of sustaining themselves (& their families) through choice with no coercion either direct or indirect? If they do, then they are perfectly free to do so, they just won't neccessarily be provided with labour vouchers directly for it unless we as a Society decide to enable them to, and what you have to understand is, the reason for this is that everything that has labour vouchers accreditted towards it has to come from the total surplus that society makes (sex workers, as unproductive labour, just like teachers would be required to be compensated through what amounts to taxation) otherwise you aren't actually accounting for things correctly in a way that makes sense because the total labour expended doesn't equal the total amount of goods & services produced within a given economy. You cannot conjure something out of nothing.

Ah ok so what you're saying is that "Socialists can never support X" is a concrete statement that denotes a praxis? I still don't see how the 1st thing about sabotage would apply in that case, couldn't Socialist organizing simply ignore the Sex Industry as opposed to actively working against it, and what's more couldn't Socialists support Sex Workers as workers under Capitalism and still hold the position that they wish to Abolish Sex Work under Socialism insofar as they remove the underlying conditons that force individuals into it; leaving only those that wish to voluntarily engage in such for their own personal reasons? Or are we not able in a DOTP to decide which Labour as a Society we deem Socially Neccessary through Politics and individuals should be able to choose to perform whichever labour they wish irrespective of whether it contributes to the Social Good? I'm not trying to be antagonistic here I'm genuinely interested in what your positions are but it seems like you've just turned the question back on me, I think I understand a little more of what you've implied but you could elaborate on the bit about Sabotage?

How is this different from sabotage? Power of trade unions - in no small part - hinges on interaction with other trade unions. Workers present united front.

This implies that positions we are talking about suggest such exception. Can you point me to the place where such exceptions are mentioned?

I'm thinking that we might be talking about different things.

Sure its moral evil etc. but what is the alternative for prostitution for people who lack social capital to attain sex otherwise?

Attached: download.jpg (274x184, 7.19K)

Gang rape? 2 people can usually take down 1 person.

What's up with scandinavian socdem posters and being incels?

suicide

I wish i were a virgin still so I would not be aware of thing that I`m deprived from

To commit further moral wrong for such a thing hardly seems socially acceptable nor just.

The labor of prostitutes is immeasurable, in the Gulag.

Attached: 6a47de70c127f42eddad926bae99b807699fc5229d68387365ff1e78cefe11f2.jpg (460x276, 19.1K)

ever heard of an escort?

Are you implying that all Trade Unions are operated and run by Socialists? Because I can assure you that isn't the case, however I will concede that there could potentially be an issue that arises from said position in a hypothetical scenario, but I'm also wondering how often that would become a reality and how exceptions couldn't be made depending on the situation, for reasons that I'll hopefully explain in this post.

I'm not actually sure what you mean by your 2nd point, could you be more clear please? What are you talking about and how is it explicitly different from what I'm talking about? As a little thought experiment, say we achieved a Socialist Society and we voted to allocate Labour Time Credits to some proportion of Sex Work for individuals as we would with any other Socially Neccessary, but Unproductive Labour, would you still have a contention with the conception of the abolition of prostitution on these terms if no people would choose to perform said job or do you think that some people should be forced to do said things?

By the way, just so we're clear, I'm not actually decidedly of the position that Socialists can never support Prostitution, hence why I've elucidated some hypotheticals in my posts; my issue is that there seems to be a large amount of conflicting evidence on whether the Legalization of Prostitution in a Capitalist Economy and the way in which it is done ends up helping or harming Sex Workers, so I'm actually relatively unconvinced but I err on the side of caution given that I understand the vast majority of Sex Work undertaken is outside of the official economy and rests upon things like Trafficking & Organized Crime, often forcing people against their will into the line of work, and as a matter of Sexual Exploitation (which I agree, is an ethical concern mostly unrelated to Marxist Exploitation) I wish to minimize said harm.

I think that a lot of that isn't even neccessarily solved either through regulation or by our decision as Communists to "Support" Sex Workers whatever that may mean because most of these individuals wouldn't be directly affected by our support. As an aside it also concerns me that so many of those that advocate for things like full legalization are essentially self-employed people who aren't at any risk and aren't exploited either sexually or economically, I don't think I would be supportive of Sex Workers more generally if these people were the only ones that benefitted from any reforms or unionization, to the detriment of those who are essentially slaves.

As an example, in Germany there are Fully Legalized Brothels, and as I have myself been unemployed and used the services of the Jobcentre in the UK to claim unemployment benefits (JSA) in the past, some stories that I heard about concerned me. There are a certain amount of rules that you have to comply with when you get JSA, some of them are pretty obvious things like you can't earn over X from other means, you can't claim + have a job, you have to evidence your looking for work (this is fucking cancer, especially when they make you do it for 40 hours) but one thing that often happens is that you will be suggested to either go on a course for a potential job that usually involves some kind of work experience, and if you refuse, you can be penalized or have your benefits taken away from you. Now in Germany, there have been reports of this very same thing happening to women being threatened with potential penalization becasue they refused to apply or do work experience at one of these legalized brothels and this is something that genuinely concerns me, because if I were German that could be my mother or my sister, or even my brother if it were a gay brothel and the state could threaten to cut off the support available to them unless they agree to fuck strangers for a pittance, suffering a double exploitation. Now I know you will say, well we could simply make sure that the state doesn't touch those jobs or make those threats, but the reality is that in the UK jobcentres have been found to advertise and collaborate with all sorts of employers that they shouldn't have, and yet they do it anyway, even going so far as to in the past set up "Work Experience" whereby you would work a full time job for a period of X weeks just for payment of your benefits without any guarantee of a permanent job at the end of it!

Work, sexual or not, should be abolished. Production, as well as sexuality, must be a free human activity. Way to implicitly support the exploitative business that is prostitution, jackass. kys

There would be nothing stopping you from arrainging with another individual to trade some commodity you bought with your labour for sex, and whats more, we might democratically decide that some form of fully voluntary sex work could be afforded to those that have problems with socialization or are disabled or otherwise impaired.

However, and I ask you this personally, would you prefer that we decide to invest in providing sex services for this group in society or would you rather we invest in services that help you become able to attain social capital so that you can pursue relationships with others in a more "natural" way (whatever that means)

did you just not read my post? the hypothetical was would women still choose to do so without any coercion economic or otherwise (the prospect of wage labour is coercion btw, in case you weren't clear). Furthermore, could you please make an argument as to why we should decide democratically to allocate labour credits to some women so that they can choose to work full time as escorts? I would be interested as to what your reasons for such would be?

Naturally the later option is preferable but I don`t see why you could not have both systems in place at the same time.

Some escorts choose to be escorts because they don't want to work a 9-5. In the "Escorts" documentary that is available on Netflix, a highly-paid escort said that she didn't want to quit the biz because she couldn't see herself working a 9-5. She likes working flexible hours and likes the fast money lifestyle.

I have seen a recurrent theme on drug documentaries too. Drug dealers say they don't want to work for minimum wage at McDonald's. Selling drugs is much more lucrative.

Should sex be a "service" rather than something two individuals willingly agree to? The only reason people go into prostitution is out of economic need or in response to some economic stimulus – there's experiments in chimps that confirm this.

The idea that prostitutes offer services because they enjoy sex is a fallacy, and the only thing at the base of the arguments provided by the prostitution apologists (most likely men who don't "get it" often, given the demographic of this board). Prostitution is oppression just as much as any other form of wage slavery, and must be abolished in a free society.

I'm not disagreeing with you lad, I'm the guy making the big ass posts in this thread lol.

So in other words, the existence of economic coercion through wage labour motivates them to choose employment that operates outside of the regular economy?

Sorry meant to reply to you

Precisely.
I can't speak for escorts. But hypothetically speaking (and I'm not gay), if you weren't violent or anything like that and your dick didn't stink, I would rather suck your dick for $60 cash money than wage cuck 4 hours for $60 and pay taxes on it. It's easier money.

Also, small nitpick, you might want to not make comparisons between sex work and other wage labour as /oppression/, or rather make it clear that you're making a distinction between oppression & exploitation because they are different things, and whilst a prostitute isn't exploited in marxist terms, she is oppressed all the same as the other wage labourer

Oh I'm not saying you couldn't, but when you have to "fund" all this through the reallocation of surplus created by other people, things take priority, so to which would you give priority? I'd assume that most people who are "Incels" (I don't think is really a useful term tbh), or adjacent to that with some kind of barrier to them forming intimate relationships would choose the latter and I think it's this platform which would help you the most not only in the future but also now as some kind of reform which not only would directly help you, but help to humanize you in the eyes of the Liberals that seemingly despise you not because of your flaws, but because you aren't successful as an individual and you don't think it's /all/ your fault, and I say this is someone who falls more on the side of not supporting (full) Legalization of Prostitution under Capitalism as another market for porkies to profit off of and on the side of the abolition of prostitution if possible under Socialism.

Usually it's the SWERFs who say prostitution isn't "real labor" and the anti-SWERFs who say that doesn't mean anything.

That doesn't explain why prostitution is considered as a special category separate form, say, plumbing.
This implies that sexual activity isn't production, that sexual gratification isn't part of reproducing someone's labor power, which is a completely different argument.
So by this logic we should agitate to make all business illegal and leave workers to fend for themselves in an environment where there are no regulations or legal protections. That is, if you're making the argument that prostitution should be abolished on the grounds that it's work.

Labour credits would still require some form of representation, effectively making it look like currency, unless you use crypto or something

Are we talking about whether prostitution would exist under a communist or socialist society?

Some incels are going to want to have sex with Stacys. And some middle-aged married men are going to want to have sex with a hot 20 year old Stacy (up until maybe recently, the primary demographic of johns was middle-aged men. Lately I think there are more young men now who become johns because of the incel epidemic.)

So the bottom line is that so as long as there is demand for incels and middle-aged men to want to have sex with Stacy, they are going to try to negotiate some sort of arrangement to make it worth Stacy's worthwhile to have sex with them.

So as long as there is demand for sex, I think someone will be willing to provide the supply if they give them something they want in return.

Like maybe Stacy will suck your dick if you fix her computer. Or do her homework.

I just don't see how prostitution or some derivative of it would go away completely.

I saw a prostitute before. Because I wanted to know what it was like to have sex with a Stacy. A conventionally attractive slim tanned white girl in her early 20s. I ate her pussy and asshole even knowing what she was because I knew i would never get this opportunity with a Stacy without paying for it. She gave me a blowjob. I sucked her tits. I fucked her with a condom. Honestly it was a huge let down. Having sex with a Stacy that was going through the motions. I barely even remember what that was like now.

Some men enjoy seeing prostitutes. But I never enjoyed it. I did have a couple girlfriends (who weren't Stacy) later on and I enjoyed that more. Those relationships fizzled out because I'm an extremely introverted autist.

Men will always be curious to know what it's like to fuck a Stacy though. If incels actually had sex with a Stacy prostitute, it will kill a lot of the mystique they place upon Stacy.

It boggles my mind how little I actually remember about the experience with Stacy.

Discrimination against women in Sex work is Wrong because in most scenarios it's literally the only way some people are even able to get by
The correct approach is to seek better conditions for the black market and legalisation of this market as a temporary until we create an economy in which the need for this type of degrading labor is removed

plumbing doesn't involve getting raped

sure, we could use various examples in history, such as the eras of stalin, mao, kim il sung and pol pot. let's use maoist china.

in the 1950s, prostitutes, pimps and brothel owners in china were rounded up as counter-revolutionaries and anti-socialist elements and sent to new life schools (later renamed labour re-education) so they could work for the state in factories, agriculture and mining and be given political education with the intention of converting them into productive, socialist members of society

in the late 1960s, mao went a step further and launched the cultural revolution to purge "traditional" chinese elements in society in favour of a new "true" communist culture and basically a new world. a part of it included burning all literature, artworks, relics, etc. that were seen to normalise prostitution and the sexualisation of women in chinese history and rounding up all "traditional" intellectuals and artists for re-education (or bullet in the brain if they violently resisted).

of course much of it was for naught after china turned capitalist under deng, denounced the mao's cultural revolution, and greatly scaled back their persecution of prostitutes and johns to reach the same status as south korea (technically illegal, but prostitutes can be spotted basically everywhere), and chinese women are back to being sexual commodities (though not quite as bad as japanese women).

the point is, any country with revolutionary potential can have their own cultural revolution. you could easily criminalise tinder, craigslist, non-state-approved phone apps, sexuality in television, movies and advertisements (dprk and cuba don't even have advertisements since there's no need for them under planned economies), mixed gender college dorm rooms and so on. if maduro had nads he could launch a modern cultural revolution in venezuela (while seizing all private property). of course it's understandable they won't do that since there's no soviet union or maoist china to back up venezuela during this process, as they would get rolled over by a us-backed coup and petit bourg overthrow.

Attached: ‘I want to live like her (Carrying on the revolution to the End)

Oh shit, I didn't realize I was getting raped everytime I masturbate on cam for chaturbate coins.
Thanks for telling me about how my material conditions are, paternalistic communist man!

That is standard practice for liberal "human rights" organizations.

Attached: kim jong il on human rights.jpg (781x430 708.07 KB, 62.93K)

Have fun at debate club lad, all I wanted you to do was explain to me what your position is but now you're treating it like it's some kind of genuine argument to be won, and you're placing a much higher set of expectations on me than yourself whilst employing all these rhetorical devices and fallacies. If that's the case then fine, you "win" or whatever, like I actually just can't be bothered to try and have a conversation with such a massive sophist as you, when I've repeated stated that I don't have a concrete position and I'm interested in exploring your position that you never fully elucidate, you're just retreating to the same tactics that you accuse everyone else of.

Maybe because actual prostitution doesn't entail rape at all?

I almost ragequit because I think you're not really interested in answering my questions but I'll act in good faith, delete my post accusing you of sophistry and carry on, that was a mistake on my part. I looked into the specific case of German Women being threatened with sanctions from 2005, and it appears that this problem was "solved" before there were any officially reported cases of such as it was pointed out in a hypothetical, whether it has occured, there is no proof, but what we do have proof of is various employment agencies working with the job centre advertising prostitution jobs and attempting to arrainge work for jobseekers without informing them of the establishment even though they should be and those jobs shouldn't be advertised with job centres to my knowledge. Similar things have happened in the Netherlands and I'd imagine most of it is just administrative error but it doesn't surprise me in the least given that I've seen it countless times in the UK with other regulations and such being skirted or abused in jobcentres. That being said it's clearly not about Prostitution specifically.

I also came across something quoted from another article (can't find the orginal for some reason) talking about how those in the Sex Industry reacted to the German legalization of prostitution that ties into what I've said in other posts about many sex workers not wanting to move out of the Black Market, for various reasons, you can find it here: forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/become-a-prostitute-or-lose-your-unemployment-benefits.20245/#post-494302 but again the orginal article can't be found anymore.

How do we quantify this? There seems to be a contradiction here between claiming that all Socialists must support Sex Work Unionisation because to do otherwise is Sabotage when we can readily see that there are non-socialist unionisation efforts and we may be able to find many of them regarding Sex Work. Do other unions not protect the rights of their workers unless they're explicitly Socialist, or should we as Socialists aim to take control of all unions if that were even feasible. Seems like this isn't a problem that is just about Sex Workers specifically, as you note later on.

Ok so you're not interested in talking about potential future policy for Socialists in this issue and you see the current conditions of developed Western Economies as the context? Pretty sure Amnesty International covers more than just 1st World Nations so I guess what I'm saying is that there are many different conversations to be had here.

Prove what? That there may be potential problems with regulation? Prove that there isn't, there is plenty of research and literature on both sides, some of it is even LITERALLY in the video in OP. What I meant by saying that workers wouldn't be affected is that Sex Workers in grey or black markets literally cannot even be unionised without various other regulatory steps being made first, that even after such there are many different barriers that can be considered unique, so the issue is simply broader that just helping to unionise sex workers.

It's anecdotal, I never claimed otherwise although you can find testimony from various sex workers on the issue, could you explain to me why you're bringing up ad hominem when we're fucking marxists and ones position as a self-employed individual in a different kind of economic model quite literally can affect their interests and inter-class relations?

Cont. from previous post

Talked about this earlier, it was debunked yes, that's my bad for not seriously researching it

Yeah my bad again, I meant to say you "could", not that you "will"

I don't think that I am personally, I hope you're not attempting to insinuate something that would be a direct ad hominem here?

How exactly is it hypocritical, could you explain? I am also opposed to this and it's a very common criticism of #metoo by Socialists, that they don't focus on this happening and social relations between employee and employer as much as they should. I've actually made similar arguments myself on this board when the topic has come up before

Bud, think about it this way, you maybe working for a wage voluntarily but does that mean that it’s not exploititative. Would you really be working for your present employer if you have one at the same pay, in the same conditions and same position if it were totally up to you?

That’s kind of why people say that prostitution is rape, it’s not that there’s necessarily a pimp holding a knife to a woman’s throat telling her to go sell herself (though that does happen), but that the kind of men she has sex with are typically not the kind of men she would have sex with if she didn’t need money. Even if she would under different conditions you can bet that the terms of the relationship would be quite different.

Cockshott also pointed out that one of the reasons that prostitutes make so much is that they completely control the means of their “labor” unlike most workers. You are defending a class of people who do not really work but can often easily make 400,000 dollars a year if they put in the same work week as a typical people.

*typical prole

It's not rape though, even though it is exploitation. The same argument that you just made can also be made if I work a sewing machine in a triangle shirtwaist factory. The difference is your attitude about sex.

Prostitution is labor.

It's not rape though, even though it is exploitation. The same argument that you just made can also be made if I work a sewing machine in a triangle shirtwaist factory. The difference is your attitude about sex.
Imagine actually believing this

Prostitution is labor.

finally a good post in this thread. the nordic model is the only sensible solution in the current system.

dprk has pretty much succeeded in squashing the prostitution industry where china wasn't given enough time to carry out the cultural revolution. they do still have a food and scarcity issue though coupled with problems of bureaucracy and corruption from a planned economy that's in need of a cybernetic update to better meet the needs of the workers and their career aspirations so it's not like it's 100% eliminated yet in the dprk.

it decreased it immensely. you forget that china came out of basically nothing and a 20% literacy rate in 1950. by the 1970s they had almost 1 billion people. it takes time to change a country of that size. the cultural revolution was supposed to continue under the guidance of the gang of four (led by mao's wife) even if mao died. it was mao's mistake not to eliminate hua and deng.

also you use the word "repression" when referring to stamping down bourgeois elements. the correct term would be "class warfare" or "class struggle"

Attached: Mao_and_Jiang_Qing.jpg (609x708, 209.56K)

A prostitute gets paid about 200 dollars an hour last time I checked. Do the math on that.

Prostitution is labor but it isn't socially necessary and under socialism or even a decent transitional state wouldn't exist. About half of sex workers only do it as a last resort when they can't find work anywhere else (which is why prostitution and pornography rose so dramatically after the fall of the USSR and why sex work generally has increased as part of the neoliberal "gig" economy during an era of low unemployment) and the other half (give or take) are literally slaves who don't see any of the profit due to being hyper-exploited by pimps, pornographers etc

You don't have to be a SWERF to be anticapitalist but you definitely can't pretend like sex work isn't 100 percent a product of capitalism that can only exist under it that would necessarily go away with it it

Isn't this why people do a lot of work? You hardly need chimps to confirm that people need to work due to economic need or "stimulus": you already have a live experiment running called capitalism.

Most prostitutes just find that it pays more and doesn't take as much time as a normal job. The idea that they offer services because they enjoy sex is largely wrong, not exactly a fallacy, but it's one hardly anyone believes.

Oh, please. This smacks of idiotic subjectivism, hardly left-wing. Maybe next post you'll explain "wokeness" to us.

So prostitution is or isn't the same as any other wage labor?

Advocate of the devil: you are comparing apples and oranges. Under criminalization / total illegality, you impose a burden (here unquantified) on all prostitutes in an area. The negatives experienced by them have to be weighed against the additional human trafficking incurred (here quantified). You can only say that it is better re: human trafficking, not if it is better in all it's aspects.

Imagine actually believing this