[LAF] LAF Digest, Vol 53, Issue 13

[steve ash]

On Vol's comments:

I agree with almost all of it, though I'd be cautious as to whether all sex workers are no more exploited than other workers, I'd say there was a greater exploitation than most, though perhaps not as much as say a coal miner. We can't necessarily take peoples word for it. So on that one I'd agree there is a problem with much sex work more so than most forms of work. We just need to weed out the exploiters.

On Joy's comments:

I actually agree with most too, but u've misrepresented me slightly.

For one, I didn't mean servicing or being serviced was a part of human nature, I meant some guys were so creepy and that women's nature is such they would have to be paid or be extremely charitable to shag them. I think that would always be the case. The same applies for the severely handicapped or mentally defective, but to a lesser extent.  

Sex is a human right, even for creeps, so there would need to be some charitable enterprise for this even in a moneyless society. In our society it will inevitably involve money, there's only so much charity can do.

I agree on the problems of the service mentality, but I think that can be balanced so service is only a small part of there life, just as it is for any professional.

As to the androcentricity, I would invert the genders of all my statements, and think there should be male prostitutes for women too, just as there are for gays etc. The terms I used were partly borrowed from the debate, but mainly because I'm male and it would be inappropriate for me to argue from the female position, even if it were possible, which I doubt it is. People can only see things from their own situated position.

It is obvious that sex negative feminists are repressed, as are sex negative males, but I don't think they should base their arguements on it as they do. I think its quite possible for women or men to get pleasure from 'service' sex if they are sex positive.