We are Prostitutes!

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#21
A baby sitter is paid to nurture the child, i.e. she exchanges her skill with capital to take care of the child (the child is not exploited).
A prostitute exchanges her body with capital so that the customer can have access and exploit her as sex object.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#22
No, the prostitute gets money in exchange for giving a service.

The prostitute doesnt get used, the prostitute uses her body in order to perform said service.

Same as that you dont say construction workers are getting their bodies exploited because they have to operate heavy machinery or something. No, construction workers use their body in order to do what they do. The using lays not with the person paying the money to the people, the using lays with the people who get the money so they perform the service.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#23
Construction workers => their strength and skill
Sex workers => fundamentally, their body
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
32
Likes
0
Points
6
#24
So you're basically saying that all prostitutes are fish? Not an active participant on how the service goes? By saying that sex cannot be a skill, you undermine her efforts, her decisions what can be done with her body, what she decides to do with her body, her analysis of the situation, her decisions, her thought processes, how she decides to approach the service, the experience besides sex she may give her customer, intimacy etc etc.

You are saying that all of a prostitute efforts, work, and the experience she sculpts for her customer can never amount to anything except being an object.*

Good job kaze, the most sexual objectification I'm seeing here is from you with your pre conceived notions and blanket judgement of all prostitutes.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#25
Hey, no need to get mad at me.
My position is essentially the same as all non-liberal leftists.
I'm not denying people's right to have sex.
Nor do I think prohibiting prostitution is logical within the context of our current economic structure.
But that does not change the fact that prostitution is denigrating towards women.

In an Anarchist society, prostitution cannot exist because money doesn't exist.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#26
Construction workers => their strength and skill
Sex workers => fundamentally, their body
So they just lay there, spread their legs and blanks out for the duration of sex. So essentially when you do a prostitute you might as well be doing a sack of sand with a hole cut into it.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
218
Likes
8
Points
18
#27
Hey, no need to get mad at me.
My position is essentially the same as all non-liberal leftists.
I'm not denying people's right to have sex.
Nor do I think prohibiting prostitution is logical within the context of our current economic structure.
But that does not change the fact that prostitution is denigrating towards women.

In an Anarchist society, prostitution cannot exist because money doesn't exist.
Well that depends entirely on whether or not the woman involves feels degraded during the act.

Although the societal standard would be that she would feel degraded, she very well may not.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
32
Likes
0
Points
6
#28
Not mad, just pointing out the major flaw in your argument that it in fact your claim of degeneratarion does the very same thing to these women.

And the fact that you utterly fail at supporting your argument why it is intrinsically degenerating besides "object" (which you still fail to defend despite counter claims) and it's the "same position as others." Just because others say it doesn't make it correct or a valid argument.


Lol nice imagery lexus
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#29
Lexus missed my point, construction workers fundamentally exchanges their strength and skill.
Sex workers fundamentally exchanges their body, you don't need skill or above normal strength to be a prostitute - you just need a body.

There's a fundamental differences between body and strength/skill.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
32
Likes
0
Points
6
#30
You're just digging your graze kaze with that logic. Whether she spelled out the literal translation of what you said or not, the concept still applies

Anyone has the ability to think of something funny and head over to open mic night, but that doesn't mean they are providing the same service to the audience as a professional comedian.

Anyone with 2 functioning hands has the ability to massage my back, but it's not going to be the same service as from a masseuse.

And why they are professionals is that they took an aspect of their body and mind that everyone has and turned it into a skill. The same can be said of a professional prostitute. Turning sex, seduction, and intimacy into a calculated art and skill.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#31
Professional prostitute? Calculated art and skill? You have got to be kidding me.
Apart from selection of "skilled" highly tagged escorts, most prostitutes jump into the profession due to economic reasons.
The low wages for women and the lack of opportunity to climb the professional ladder (see Walmart case for example) forced them to consider prostituting themselves rather than working in a fast-food counters.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
32
Likes
0
Points
6
#32
My point proven. I never claimed all prostitutes or ones forced into the profession.

You said ALL prostitutes were degenerated and therefore NO prostitution could be a skill... Including the ones that freely and legitametly chose this profession, which is what this whole argument is about.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
218
Likes
8
Points
18
#33
You're just digging your graze kaze with that logic. Whether she spelled out the literal translation of what you said or not, the concept still applies

Anyone has the ability to think of something funny and head over to open mic night, but that doesn't mean they are providing the same service to the audience as a professional comedian.

Anyone with 2 functioning hands has the ability to massage my back, but it's not going to be the same service as from a masseuse.

And why they are professionals is that they took an aspect of their body and mind that everyone has and turned it into a skill. The same can be said of a professional prostitute. Turning sex, seduction, and intimacy into a calculated art and skill.
Indeed, there's work that requires far less activity and talent than sex that are not looked down upon.

For example, people who pose for nude art and people who wave fans.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#34
My point proven. I never claimed all prostitutes or ones forced into the profession.

You said ALL prostitutes were degenerated and therefore NO prostitution could be a skill... Including the ones that freely and legitametly chose this profession, which is what this whole argument is about.
Freely to be in bondage, that makes no sense to me.
In an ideal society, prostitution cannot exist because there's simply no reason for it to exist.
Too bad we live in a less than ideal world, that not only allow such exploitation but also exalted it.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
32
Likes
0
Points
6
#35
Freely to be in bondage, that makes no sense to me.
In an ideal society, prostitution cannot exist because there's simply no reason for it to exist.
Too bad we live in a less than ideal world, that not only allow such exploitation but also exalted it.
But yet other professions you sell your body and mind are not bondage by the fact that you separate all of those forms from prostitution?

Now your anarchist argumenment is countering itself

And what's with this constraint of prostitution to a monetary value?
Let's say I give my husband a hand job in exchange for a backrub, is that not essentially prostituting myself?
An act such as that would still exist in an anarchist society.
 

Arachna

Spider
Staff member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
5
Points
38
#37
I would acually ignore your post like you did mine.

But since i am not like you. I ll reply to your "opinion". [MENTION=3121]crwallenberg[/MENTION]

But yet other professions you sell your body and mind are not bondage by the fact that you separate all of those forms from prostitution?

Now your anarchist argumenment is countering itself

And what's with this constraint of prostitution to a monetary value?
Let's say I give my husband a hand job in exchange for a backrub, is that not essentially prostituting myself?
An act such as that would still exist in an anarchist society.


Sex may only be exchanged for Sex, and Sex has been redefined by law to mean: Any Non Sexual Act.

Anything other than Sex of any value, is defined by law to be a consideration, which must be of exactly equal exchange for some inverse exchange of consideration other than sex, or the law may freely create artificial exchanges by interpretation.

Prostitution is when money is the critical motivation for some activity.

I don't think i like the direction of this discussion. But hell. I ll write it, just for the fun of it.

The average person in corporation is in fact a prostitute. So if i define it like that. I am also a prostitue. I sell my "service". Get it? And the service you give to your "husband" is also a form of prostiitution. :p <.<

Most people do the jobs they do only for the money, not because they actually enjoy "the work" enough to continue doing it even without a monetary reward.

You can verify this by asking them if they'd still do what they now do as "work", if they'd just won or inherited a billion dollars. Would any sane person actually continue to work any kind of a job if they just get a billion dollars? Ofcourse not. Even if they do. They would not do something they do not find pleasure in.

There are quite a few who "whore" who are not prostitutes, for they actually love what they do, and would continue to engage in promiscuous sex even without the monetary reward.

One who whores, who does not prostitute themself, is one who allows themself to be monetarily rewarded in addition to a fundamentaly appropriate choice of having sex with someone she would have sex with even without monetary reward. or to say she gives it to any bodyy cos she likes it. Go figure.

And the word "whore" here isn't an insult. Just to be clear on that.

The English language definition of it can be to : " act, or an instance of, offering or devoting one's talent to an unworthy use or cause".

And actually it would. She would give in to anyone, anywhere. If she likes it so much,she would give it for free any time someone asks of her, to do that. Cos it is the way she recives her pleasure in life. Same can apply to men. Just to say. <.< Not just women.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
32
Likes
0
Points
6
#38
@kaze And how is that?

You and still fail to explain why you put all prostitution on a degenerate pedestal among other services

[MENTION=1240]Arachna[/MENTION] your reply had no claim or argument to reply to. It was basically a copy and paste of feminist arguments.
We are not taking legal definition and yes, by definition of prostitution, it does not necessarily need money involvement.
Is a prostitute giving a blow job for some crack any less of a prostitute giving a blow job for money?
And is a prostitute who has a boyfriend and happily engages in sex with him for pure pleasure, but still makes him pay for it every now for a little extra spending money cause he is a sap like that (of course but still wants and enjoys it herself) down graded from a prostitute to a whore or is she still a prostitute?
I don't get where you are going with these classifications. Prostitution is prostitution, and yes if you want to move it out of the realm of sex, there can be considered other forms of prostitution
You can verify this by asking them if they'd still do what they now do as "work", if they'd just won or inherited a billion dollars. Would any sane person actually continue to work any kind of a job if they just get a billion dollars? Ofcourse not. Even if they do. They would not do something they do not find pleasure in.

There are quite a few who "whore" who are not prostitutes, for they actually love what they do, and would continue to engage in promiscuous sex even without the monetary reward.
And are you saying that a prostitute can't love what they do just because they take money for it? So no human on earth can love their job, because if they did, of course they wouldn't want to make any money off it?

Thats quite a dubious claim there because there are in fact people who still work despite having the money to quit
 

Arachna

Spider
Staff member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
5
Points
38
#39
Lol. You started with : " This group of Feminists say:" And it was wrong. It wasn't my fault you didn't check out what they think. :sigh:

Shall i put it like a question?

In what kind of the world do we live in? Or are we talking about imaginary world? And not real world? :huuh:

And btw. Why don't you actually read my post? You replyed so hasty, cos you are offended by the thing i said? Or? If it is any consolation. I did not mean to offend you. I just stated the obvious fault in your post. :shrug:

Will you read my post again? And tell me to look up the definition..again? Or will you actually see the "Law definition" of it?
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
32
Likes
0
Points
6
#40
Lol. You started with : " This group of Feminists say:" And it was wrong. It wasn't my fault you didn't check out what they think. :sigh:
No your post did nothing to counter my post. All you did was go into the variations of the details if what my summary said. Read it again sweetie

Shall i put it like a question?

In what kind of the world do we live in? Or are we talking about imaginary world? And not real world? :
Your imaginary world? is this supposed to be an attempt at trolling? Oh trollololo....

And btw. Why don't you actually read my post? You replyed so hasty, cos you are offended by the thing i said? Or? If it is any consolation. I did not mean to offend you. I just stated the obvious fault in your post.
It's called I'm on my phone, and I don't double post, don't think too highly of yourself now
Will you read my post again? And tell me to look up the definition..again? Or will you actually see the "Law definition" of it?[/COLOR]
From Merriam
"the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money"
Not only for money
Wiki
"To sell (oneself or one's talent, for example) for an unworthy purpose"
Encyclopedia of Public Health
"the act or practice of engaging in sexual activity for money or its equivalent"
Meaning any number of commodities or services deemed of equivalent value.