i don't understand "leftists" who support prostitution
from engels to kollontai, it's been made clear that prostitution is first an exploitation of women, and secondly not a true form of labor, but all the leftist groups at my college are pro-sex work
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
logosjournal.com
twitter.com
twitter.com
It's opportunism with a dash of careerism (the end goal for these radlibs seems to be decriminalization, which would allow them to profit without being forced to work in a firm.) Prostitution will be abolished under socialism.
You like porn. You like sex. You like workers. You combime the three, add a dash of that special sauce that makes everyone terrible, and you want to be able to legally fuck women for pay to empower them.
I don't get them either. In fact, under Cockshott's socialism prostitution (and the entire black market) would be impossible to maintain since there would be no cash anyway.
My personal take is that prostitution should be legal across the board in every country. It is never going away, and it is the worlds oldest profession. You might as well make is have better health and safety regulations so that prostitutes dont get killed by pimps or johns.
Of course, in a better world, women shouldnt have to resort to prostitution. But then there are also women who just genuinely like the idea of being a prostitute for a career.
The whole thing is a complicated matter.
w*Sternoids cannot be leftists
My personal take is that exploitation should be legal across the board in every country. It is never going away, and it's been around for millennia. You might as well make better health and safety regulations so that workers don't get killed by union busters and hazardous work environment.
Of course, in a better world, workers shouldn't have to resort to selling their labour. But then there are also workers who just genuinely like the idea of being a prostitute for a career.
The whole thing is a complicated matter (for a w*Sternoid)
of being a classcuck for a career*
All work, be it sex work or otherwise, entails exploitation under the present economic order. While sex work is certainly prone to a greater degree of exploitative practices on account of most people viewing such work as unfavorable to perform, not all individuals currently partaking in it do so out of coercion (at least not any more than one is coerced to perform other forms of work as a prerequisite for survival). It would be improper to not preface that there are many sex workers who ARE in a situation where they either are forced into that industry at risk of immediate destitution or are straight up sex slaves, but such practices are observable in virtually any industry one might examine and they should be addressed no differently as how we would look at exploitation in said other industries. Many others who have escaped those extreme circumstances see sex work as being no different than any other labor one might perform: some see it as simply another means to a living, while others actively enjoy partaking in sex work (again, like any other form of labor).
Under a socialist system, if we understand it to have abolished commodity production and money, would not have explicit systemically-generated rewards for sex work. At best there might be some low-level peer-to-peer exchanges of personal goods or allocations of one's own rationed supplies, but even then it would not be a circumstance where the sex work is economically necessary for that sex worker; they would still have the same amount of access to the supplies necessary for normal life function in all other capacities. Thus, the act of sex work becomes a far more voluntary act, though one that likely is done on a far smaller scale than now.
Transitional systems whereby commodity exchange and production has not been abolished might provide some reward to those willing to partake in that industry, but ideally more-so as an alternative to those who would prefer such work to other more menial but socially-necessary tasks by way of strict regulation and/or work programs (inb4 state-granted hookers). By leaving it illegal, it invites the formation of black markets which will almost inevitably turn to the most exploitative practices available to ensure there is a labor force for those wishing to purchase sexual commodities/services.
Sex work, though taking a distinctly different shape than many other forms of work, is still work. We should be willing to champion the rights of sex workers, and functionally that is going to mean supporting their rights to continue said labor with the greatest degree of legality and guarantees of safety possible (as we would do with any other matter of worker safety and welfare).
"If you're good enough it's free"
God I can not imagine how you found this out.
This sort of talk is obfuscating. Yes, we all LOVE the liberal idea of free exchange. A sexy, smart, independent woman and a great, caring, yet busy man meet to engage in hot, passionate sex. Afterwards, the mans pays the woman a fair, respectable amount of money for her great work.
This is a great idea. It brings a tear to my eye and a chub to my pants. It is, however, just an idea.
In reality, these exchanges will be facilitated via an exploitative business environment. Women will be paid the lowest amount humanly possible for their sex, and it will be LOW. For one, in current societies, these idealized women can mostly make money through rent seeking. They are the only combination of a certain set of features that exists, and they can leverage that. Furthermore, they are a fairly rare subset of people performing sexual services, so they can leverage that as well. This is how instagram thots make momey, for example. Legal prostituion will blow this out of the water. The sheer amount of women that will be prostitutes will cause competion that will drive the rates of their wages down. The cost of recreating their labour WILL be reached, and it will be found to be basically nothing because men find LOTS of women attractive. Furthermore, it takes really nothing to be attractive. Women like to be attractive. (So do men.) All you have to have to he a prostitute is A.) Be a woman and B.) Be young.
I want to note the youngness here, because that is a huge part of it. Gone will the days be of being waitress to pay for your student loans. You are fresh out of highschool, and you are in that prime state that many men find highly arousing. These men will pay, and, again, as it takes absolutely no ability to turn 18, they will not have to pay much. There will be very little to drive the wages of prostitutes, and they will be 18-30 year old women (and men but I've left them out) who are paid minimum wage.
Not to mentiom the incredibly, incredibly coercive conditions these women will inevitably work in. To ensure the extraction of profits, these women will HAVE to have sex. They will not be choosing the men they are having sex with, at least not as as group.
We can currently imagine these prostitutes as having choice with who they have sex with. The supply of men to have sex with isn't that large, so thusly the amount of women who would have to be prositutes to have sex with them wouldn't have to be that large. (The exploitation that arises from failing to meet, exceeding this balance, and meeting it is gross already.)
But, with legalization, the number of men looking for sex would increase. If a woman gets choosy, the unchosen men will go to a woman who is not. If a woman is not working, the men will go to the woman who is. This will, as it has in EVERY mass market production, lead to the inevitable soulless, uniform exploitation of meeting demands. As the sex "industry" expands, competition will increase. Everyone will be working to get the most value out of their capital. To put this in exact terms, these sex Capitalists will be doing everything they can to make these women have the most sex for the lowest prices. The value of these women's time will be spread through as many men as humanly possible. The Capitalists who fail to do this will be pushed out of business. It will be interesting to see what will be the assembly line of the sex industry.
I am done now, post got to long.
Here is the long and short of it.
Legalizing prostitution is bad.
Have you considered the fact that some people actually like sex and under some circumstances that prostitution would be volunteery?
And if we legalized prostitution it would cut down on the harm, disease, and exploitation the women incur?
Looking at your little flag, it seems you are a christ cuck.
Sex is an affirmation of life, it is the natural instinct of humanity. To think of it is a sin or depraved is to be against life. And this has been the story of the christian west, from the more religious days to the modern secular days. Western peoples of all stripes, left, right, rich, poor. They despise sex, they despise life. Even the non religious or anti religious carry this cultural vein. (TERFS) To them it is a sin. And in Christianity sin must be overcome in order to receive reward in the after life. A wager that makes a million promises for something that doesnt exist.
In conclusion.
Hoes are for capitalist scum
The true path to socialism lies in swingers
Not even most prostitutes are women you retard. Between male prostitutes and sex-trafficked children? Nigga please. You're just a dumb cunt liberal who doesn't know dick about the world trying to moralize people. You're in the same company as puritans burning witches. I don't even disagree that sex work is mostly degrading and coerced but your ideological basis for critiquing it is so disgustingly myopic and divorced from reality that that alone makes you a danger to any presumptively scientific socialism since you so readily adopt a quasi-religious view of important social topics. I might have some respect for anti-sex-worker lefties if you had some epistemological standards at fucking all or if, you know, you made meaningful distinction between involuntary sex work (rape) and people who like fucking and are good at it so want to make a career out of performance.
But nah, you're just repeating shit that some cunt reactionary beat into your head as a kid or whatever because you're too much of a shit coward to genuinely examine your beliefs and admit that you were wrong about something re: gender politics. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you stupid bitch.
That's a massively false equivalence. The ending of child labor did not bring an end to a specific type of labor: it merely altered who was performing the work in accordance to the material conditions of the time, moving away from the pre-industrial standard of children working alongside or otherwise supplementing the income (or it's equivalent in places where money as we know it now was not the universal medium of exchange and compensation) and maintenance of he family.
Sex work, if archaeological evidence is to be believed, has existed since before the emergence of class society as we would recognize it today; before money or generalized commodity production. It will likely persist in some form or another beyond those things as well in spite of your idealistic moralizing. Again, the goal should be to remove the systems that work to exploit the work being done, not the work itself to the detriment of those who engage in it.
weird argument but ok
There are three types of prostitutes
The solutions are to legalize prostitution and create safe (for a lack of a better word) organizations for less intelligent prostitutes. And hunt down the slave traders.
ban porn, ban prostitution
it's really great when upper middle class college white girls who like to play sex worker for a few months with their friends try to speak for all prostituted women. i really like the Swedish system of helping prostituted women while arresting johns.
Lotta spooked christcoms ITT moralising about the sinfulness- I mean exploitation of women.
I think first of all we should talk about this idea of prostitution or 'sex work' as "not true labour". This idea is already contradicted in the OP. How can you be exploited if your labour is not "real"? If you are, as I certainly have heard some say here, leeching off other people? I think it's fair to say that the argument has no legs to stand on, and it says more about the sexual attitudes of the people making this it than about anything else.
As for prostitution or 'sex work' (I hate this term, but at least it includes things besides prostitution, such as porn) as exploitation, and the broader question of what place, if any, this issue has in a socialist movement or society. I think the fact that it is exploited makes its place in the movement fairly obvious. Are they not organising, forming unions, just like other trades? Shouldn't we support them in this endeavour even though we find their work 'icky'? I see a weird attitude among the anti's here where the horribleness of prostitution is seen as grounds to dismiss it, rather than as an opportunity for class struggle. When it comes to its place in a socialist society I think we should distinguish between it as a commodity and the actual sexual activities behind it. It's fair to say that selling sex has no place in a socialist society, particularly since the commodity form will be abolished, and the criminal abuse of women and girls by these industries has no place in any decent society. That said, I don't think sex as an institution (in contrast to sex as a part of a personal relationship, couldn't figure out a better term) or porn or anything like that is ever going away, at least so long as people still see a use for it, as they do now and have done for all of history. It would be very different, certainly, but to imagine it "being abolished" is IMO just projecting your own values onto this society.
Walking the street for money for shelter is one thing, but some also stay in shit relationships if they've got nowhere else to go.
The end goal should be no one having to prostitute themselves either explicitly or implicitly just for their everyday survival.
Another big problem is human trafficking, not like those victims have a choice in the matter.
So for me it is not so much supporting it, but just empathizing with the shit sandwich some sex workers have and not wanting to criminalize them. And I empathize with those walking the streets, not the ones behind a paywall.
The middle class trust fund feminists are the ones who think prostitution should be criminalised though, what do you think a working girl would say if you asked her whether she or not she would prefer to have to be afraid of getting arrested and not be able to get legitimate premises?
I'm not sure why decriminalization would be incorrect, insofar as we're speaking of advocating for reform within capitalism. For a socialist state in the making, not so much. The former implies sending the state after either prostitutes or largely working class johns (and not the wealthier ones who pay for escorts), so I don't find it tenable. The latter should address the reasons why women become prostitutes in the first place, thereby addressing also prostitution.
You w*Sternoid scum, you don't have to become a prostitute to have sex with multiple partners
just because you dislike middle class white girls doesn't mean you can make up lies about them. the sex positive pro-sex work feminism is mainstream and is the sort of liberal dogma being pushed by white women (and their white male orbiters) in the popular discourse. i know prostituted women, they're not an abstract idea for me, and these women fucking hate their lives. the sort of men they tell me about that pay to fuck them are absolutely shit human beings. these women (and girls) have all had experiences with sexual abuse at a young age often by a family member who would bribe and threaten them. almost all of them have substance abuse problems (mostly alcohol and opioids here). this is a common theme and the situation here is awful. i don't want these women arrested but i sure as hell don't want them having to suffer anymore. the only solution i see at the moment is a guaranteed income for all and a nationalized healthcare system, as well as making it easier for children to leave abusive families.
AKA educated women. They deserve a say if anyone does.
Nobody on the left advocates for arresting the prostitutes anymore, though criminalizing the whole thing is certainly preferable to legalization. The Nordic Model, which is what abolitionists support, criminalizes the buying of sex while providing public assistance to prostitutes who want to exit.
Nordic model is bullshit, not prosecuting prostitutes directly is great, but prosecuting pimps and their customers hurts them indirectly. Those benefits go to the good poor fallen Swedish women but the Ukrainian whores get deported.
Prostitution is labor, it shouldn't exist but the same is true for most labor in the West these days. Unless you're starting the revolution tomorrow you should support safe working conditions and good pay. Waitresses and hotel cleaners don't perform """real labor"''" either, but everyone applauds when they unionize.
Labor isn't Tom of Finland characters swinging a hammer, its shit you do for money. Prostitution is the grossest form of it but that means prostitutes need the most support.
Not really, its a Protestant thing. The Catholic church loves its approved form of sex and turns a blind eye to the unapproved forms. Prostitution, homosexuality, adultery and all those other vices have been accepted if not applauded in Italy and Spain.
Its not surprising that the criminalization and the slightly better Nordic model came about in Northern Europe. Nor is it surprising that Marx and Engels are from there and decided to label half the proletariat "lumpen".
It incentivizes them to exit and find another line of work. In other words, feature, not bug. The goal is not to reform the sex trade, but to get rid of it.
Thereby combating the sex traffickers.
In that case will continue to advocate my current position, since legalization has failed to deliver either of these things. Criminalizing the buying of sex has proven to be the only way.
So collecting rent is labor? Is being a CEO labor? Prostitution is obviously an occupation, but it is not labour. However, even if it were, it is so damaging to the prostituted that it would still need to be abolished. Our arguments do not stand or fall on it being labor.
I understand why people support prostitutes, I do too. I don't understand why some people think prostitution is actually noble or empowering. It seems to me like it reinforces harmful ideas about gender and sexuality while degrading the spirit of the worker.
It doesn't incentivize, it reduces their options.
Do you have some numbers to back that up?
Collecting rent is not something one works to do, other than nagging your tenants to pay you or calling the police to kick them out when they don't.
Yes. The amount of money they make is disproportionate to the labor they do, but they are still doing useful work under Capitalism.
Do you consider all service jobs to not be labor, or is prostitution somehow different?
Yes so they can be exploited in a respectable fashion as cleaners.
Do you not care what happens to prostitutes once they're deported? Is prostitution only bad if it happens in a good country?
Dutch and Australian prostitutes have it better, sorry you have to see it exist in those countries.
Yes collecting rent is labor (receiving it isn't). CEOs don't do it for the money so no it is not labor. Prostitution should be abolished by getting rid of the reason people do it.
What retard wrote these lmao kys my man
It just shows how alienated the inceliberals are that they think anything is achieved commodifying Chlamydia
The fact they're thinking in terms of financial exchange just for an orgasm means they have no faith in the concept of pair bonding and intimacy. That men and women just grunt and throw eachother down in sweaty bareback brawls for genetic dominance. Why the hell would we need to legalize protection for that? Just decriminalize rape than.
Most women suck at making you cum anyway. You wanna cum something fierce that's what heroin or something is for. There's your fucking liberal escapism pussy.
So it's not just excuses for the uncreative and inhumane isolation of liberalism, it's not even that good at it. It's another tiddly winks solution failing to take it to the natural end result and have some damn dignity while we spiral into our own destruction
what are you talking about?
...
Is English not your first language?
Not an argument.
Explain.
Easy for Engels to say, he had two girlfriends.
What did he mean by this?
Nice assumptions there, that everyone who doesn't support prostitution is a christcom who thinks peepees are icky. I don't care about the morality of sex at all and I fully support people having gay orgies in communal sex centres all day long. Prostitution isn't real labor not because it is "icky", but because it is the same as gambling, speculation and other lumpen activities. No value is created, money just changes hands. At the very least it shouldn't be glorified as proletarian labor and instead presented as a predicament that women are forced into by capitalism.
Is physical therapy real labor?
TIL that sex isn't healthy and that entertainment has no value, especially not socially necessary value, and that everyone who engages in such activity only does so because they are wayward, foolish, and poor illegalists like investment bankers, oil men, and financial analysts.
It wasn't an assumption. Half the posts have a christfag flag.
Guess grocery store workers are lumpens too, I guess.
flex on thots and incel pussies, literally the only people who would support prostitution are vapid whores who'd rather fuck than work for a living and cucks who are too pussy to get a gf or a hookup. Otherwise anyone else who would support it is exploitive. Prove me wrong, protip: you cant.
ad hominem
The idea is that prostitution should be legal under capitalism to save prostitutes from the criminal underworld. Get them adequate protections. Yes, we should ultimately strive to abolish it, but this would be foolish and counterproductive until we eliminate capitalism itself.
I don't get why this board can't understand this. It's just common sense.
I don't understand how anyone can read this and think "actually no, they're wrong, sex work is empowering" whether they're a Marxist or not. Marxists have no excuse, but how does literally anyone else believe it and not be seen as a blatant misogynist? It goes beyond "consent cannot be purchased", there are many women who choose literal sweatshops over prostitution because of how bad it is.
Paternalism is incompatible with socialism
twitter.com
Why not combine the two arguments? Me, a liberal, can't possibly see a problem with child prostitutes (because they consent to sex instead of consenting to starve)
Completely agree that it isn't empowering. The important point is that conditions worsen when prostitution is criminalized. If we can properly regulate it prostitutes will get better lives.
I really dont give a shit about roasties getting easy money sucking dicks when people are dying of hunger and lack of medical care.
I don't support punishing sex workers in capitalism, that's just cruel and hypocritical. However, in socialism, prostitution work will have to go.
Decriminalize selling sex, criminalize buying it. The Nordic model, combined with robust programs to help women exit the sex trade, is the best compromise right now.
If you believe the safety of women is of lesser priority than their supply of customers and wages.
Especially if the goal is to end/reduce sex trafficiking while minimizing harm to the women (and girls) who are forced into it.
Again, if you haven't read this and still support sex work as a concept, you have no fucking brain.
I don't "support working at Mcdonalds as a concept" either but that doesn't mean I think they should be thrown in jail for doing so
Sex work is a neccessary part of society. In an environment without coercion, men and women will voluntarily do sex work based on their and society's needs. Some people (one person on this board) think that there's literally no ethical consumption of sex work, but they're wrong. Capitalism is what causes exploitation and human trafficking. If prostitution were decriminalized under a socialist society, prostitutes themselves would
Prostitution is also a particularly useful mode of therapy under certain conditions. A socialist society that accepts sex work as legitimate would also not have incels.
Who is actually going to voluntarily fuck incels? Sounds like bullshit.
Incels wouldn't exist, because there wouldn't be a culture demonizing female sexuality.
(Most incels are 6-8, btw, so I personally would be willing to fuck any incels that needed help)
Because it's what the sex workers themselves and their unions are actually demanding and if you actually cared about improving their life situation and working conditions then you'd know this but you are just a liberal that's why you have no idea about the positions and demands of the people that are actually involved.
lmao
There will definitely be incels under socialism. If there is no reward incentive, no one is going to fuck the unfuckable.
Aren't incels 0 by default?
The liberal position on everything is literally "muh consent," "muh choicies," and "muh free market." Supporting prostitution is peak liberalism. In the real world we've already seen that the best way to help prostitutes and fight sex trafficking is to criminalize buying sex and get them out of prostitution.
No, they just think they're a zero. I'm not going to preach to the choir about how you "just need to be yourself lmao," but most incels on /r9k/ are objectively pretty bangable. Being an incel (not just someone who doesn't get laid) is a mentality rooted in defeatism and abuse.
I swear to god it's an attitude problem, not a looks problem. Danny DeVito was getting laid before he started getting paid.
...
Surely if it's 0-10 on the fuckable scale and nobody is fucking them then they're 0.
Radfemanon would ban cotton in an attempt to end slavery smh
They wouldn't be incels if they left their fucking house without talking about Chad and Stacey
...
I feel like people don't realise that just because you support sex-workers doesn't mean you support the system of sex work. You can simultaneously be against prostitution and support sex-workers.
Checks out.
Sounds good.
How would we determine the part of the social product a prostitute is entitled to? Would we measure hours spent fucking? If so, I'm alright with it. It wouldn't be very popular though.
Not the same thing. Not every prostitute is some trafficked girl waiting for a puritan white knight.
It's more like
We aren't banning sex.
that was an interesting read, i think you have a very valid point here. But is it enough to warrant prostitution illegal? Maybe by legalizing it some kind of equilibrium will be achieved within this new sex industry with simple supply/demand? The women who aren't satisfied with the pay will choose other jobs thus lowering the supply?
Anyhow, business is always exploitative, user.
Not sure how I missed this before, but this is a really good post. Legalising prostitution is a radlib position.
It would probably need to be a bit more fluid. Special need fucks are more valuable, but there's a hard limit on how much one can acquire from fucking.
You're replying to a self-identified radlib
Why are special needs fucks more valuable? I'd be much more interested in fucking a cute mongol than a pathetic incel pervert.
Oh you
Word salad.
There's your answer.
Tfw in my country it's already legal to sell sex and these prostitutes get great pay for their job. I dont see any problem with doing your dream job be it sex or whatever.
Here's how radical feminists operate
But you shee every prostitute has actually been human trafficked and enslaved. It is impossible that a man or woman would decide to do sex for pay. The unspoken assumption is of course that sex is particularly icky or sacred - and of course a bulldike radfem would be horrified at the thought of a woman having to bed any man for whatever reason.
in b4 muh unproductive labour. We'll have a look at that after we're entering into a fully planned economy. Until then it is just a fig-leaf excuse for engaging in what is essentially radfem idpol.
Hunt down them all.
Try this advice
for all still willing to undergo that sort of debauchery. All who still want to suck dick for a buck will be considered a kulak and will be given a proper tribunal to the Soviet before the gallows.
Why do you hate women so much?
can't argue antiporn or antiprostitution with a man without him losing his shit and calling you names and making up a strawman argument for threatening his access to women's bodies
you're just entitled liberal males and no woman should ever organise with you
Looks like I’ve got some good news for /r9k/
Why do you hate women so much?
entitled males who believe access to hardcore pornography is a human right
i didn't make that argument. this all comes back to misunderstanding what prostitution actually is versus what you believe it ought to be. as someone who works with prostituted women i can tell you they absolutely hate your guts. prostitution is for the ancaps.
...
you are very deliberately overestimating the number of women who want to be fucked for money. it's a completely dishonest argument. i work in a women's shelter in a shitty part of a shitty state. if the state gave these women money no strings attached trust me they wouldn't fuck you. please don't pretend you care about women.
I'm literally saying that no one should be forced to do labor against their will, and you're saying we should hang all those who disagree, but I guess supporting unions is anti-worker now because someone who pretends to work in a women's shelter is more obsessed with controlling what people do with their bodies than ending exploitation.
Is this you?
I think most people understand that, but there is some amount of suggestion that prostitution should be something remunerated with social product even into socialism. I think that is where a lot of arguments are going on too, on this whole hypothetical, because it is an argument over the broader idea of whether or not being paid to have sex is necessary. This is primarily because of all of the rhetoric used around it, like "sex work is real work" and "women enjoy sex too" etc.
So the suggestion is that people should respect women's desire to have sex as a job because doing otherwise is being a puritan, woman hating, sex hating nerd. You see how there is a dual argument here? It's both that we should bring it out in the open and regulate it to make it safer (which implies it is particularly unsafe right now and we are subjecting women in sex work to a cruel, needlessly exploitative black market), but also that the average sex worker actually really loves sex and that is their motivation so you shouldn't demonize what they do by claiming it is exploitative.
This seeming dissonance is creating a separate set of arguments about whether or not there is any need for sex work outside of the context of poverty and wage labor. As in, if there is no precariousness and poverty driving women into an exploitative black market, and we accept that women enjoy kinky sex, then why would it not be the case that they'd simply have kinky sex without being paid for it under different circumstances?
To me it appears that the answer rests more in the consumer's interests, which makes this ambiguous form of pro-sex work seem like consumer chauvinism to me masquerading as being "feminist". It's like the joke of the hippie commune that is started by men and proffers a lot of enticing imagery and rationalizing of free love as being a building block to utopia etc. *schniff* even though all of the utopian stuff and representation as a "new way to do things" isn't the real focus, just a conscious or subconscious means to get laid before eventually moving on and starting a hemp business (this organic shit will save the world man, that'll be $20).
For a woman who likes sex and isn't in precarious poverty, she can simply go on a dating app, or go to an event, or go on some other website designed to bring people together over a fetish and begin a sexual relationship with someone, maybe one among many people. But as a business, there is a big difference. Businesses are driven by selling products to as many customers as they can, they want to expand their market. They start out selling shit on a market to survive in a market economy, the mass majority of laborers know this impetus to survive in their inability to be choosy about where they work. Most laborers still work shitty jobs they don't like because they have to and it was nearby where they lived. Many businesses also have to sell to shitty customers they don't actually like serving very much. Prostitution, IN GENERAL as a business, is going to involve sale of sex to people that are not chosen based on how ideal they are a sexual partner for the prostitute, but as a matter of either how much they will pay or whether or not the prostitute is really in need of money. That means that in general, prostitution for a living in an economy built on exchange is not going to be built on enjoyment of sex. It's going to be about making money, and enjoyment of sex as a primary motivation is either for a privileged few prostitutes who are highly coveted or who are in a position of comfort that allows them to be more choosy, possibly especially on a black market, or for successful cam girls that can be in the safety of their rooms choosing how to present themselves. So there seems to be an informal alliance between these kinds of sex workers and men who could be potential consumers to glorify sex work as being about choice and sexual freedom, when without poverty it would likely be in the majority interest of women with such motivations to simply have casual sex with people of their choosing without being forced to make it their job.
All of these unspoken assumptions really give away that's its just radfem puritans reeeing. Manwhores exist, women use prostitiutes, women are often pimps (but we call them madame for some reason), and so on.
Also this post seems to indicate that kind of subconscious consumer desire to actually use women as sex workers, while also saying "but it's about empowerment and feminism":
Here the poster suggests that a socialism that pays sex workers wouldn't have incels, presumably because we would have women whose survival depends on fucking them and everyone else who is having trouble getting laid. This is clearly an expression of the interest of the consumer, of men who can't get laid but really want to fuck somebody (preferably hot please). We are given a functional reason to support sex work, because it keeps men happy. It is only loosely connected to the idea that women enjoy sex. There is nothing logically following from women enjoy sex, therefore they enjoy having their survival depend on performing for incels. It's just suggested women enjoy sex, so it is a kind of liberation struggle to make organize society such that their livelihood depends on fucking our incel population and other men who are having a problem fulfilling their sexual fantasies.
I actually don't have a problem with this suggestion, it is arguable, and it really isn't any different than claiming we need people to dive into sewers sometimes or pick up the trash, but it is not an expression of women's interests which is why it seems disingenuous to frame it that way. It is an expression of wider social interest in making sure these men who pose a problem to us because of their unserviced sexual desires are satiated, and so it is useful to us to make women do that.
I would wager the conditions of male prostitutes would be even worse than those of female prostitutes, so "manwhores exist" would probably just end up as another argument against prostitution. Women being kapos or otherwise oppressing women isn't much of an argument for it either.
were your genitals mutilated as a child or something? do you really think all women hate sex like you?