[LAF] Sex Work Part 2

[steve ash]

Joy, I don't know why you go on so much about prostitution and money. I've made it very clear I oppose prostitution based on money, just as I oppose any form of transaction based on money. In an anarchist society there will be no money so this is a false arguement. Sex Work will be as freely given as driving the bus or cleaning the sewers and all due to the satisfaction it gives the worker. But thats my ideal I cant impose that on others, it wouldnt work, and would only create misery in the process, so these things need to change gradually. 

As for people serving their own sexual needs i think thats very selfish, and maybe there's a little bit of projection in your arguement?  For me sexuality is about giving pleasure to others as much as taking it, I can get personal pleasure from wanking. So I can can easily see how sex work could be enjoyable for either sex in the appropriate conditions.

This idea of women only taking on a 'servile' supportive role also seems out of date to me, plenty of males do this too now and there will always be a division of labour I believe, as long as its voluntary. It seems to be tied to archaic notion of monogamist marriage as opposed to more communal forms of living. 

I think we aim for the same ends but our ideas and means are based on very different worldviews. In particular I cant understand why you cant separate the economic aspects of current sex work from the voluntary, money-less aspects of future sex work.

The idea that everybody would get regular sex in some free love utopia immediately after Capitalism was abolished seems ludicrous to me. And yet this is a requirement for the kind of normal human functioning and development that is required in a free society. It is also a requirement in the here and now, without which we get the kind of anti-social problems we see around us. If anything there arent enough people seeking prostitutes, there would then be more of them, they could charge less, call the shots and society would be a lot more benign as a result, and we could move towards a free love utopia even quicker. As it is we can only reform human nature in gradual steps alas.

   


Steve

p.s. the minor criticisms were those of the kind Lopes gives, i.e its more about 'survival' than 'empowerment', I agree that's the case for many, but think these are poor reasons. IUSW tends to take this view, I think in order to represent as many situations as possible and to be seen as 'realistic'. They do a good job and should be supported, but I dont have to agree with them :)