Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 511 posts

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#281

Post by tristor »

slfnflctd wrote: post #195
hackeraccount wrote: post #56

There's a libertarian ethos that says anything between two consenting adults is the their business. I'm more and more skeptical not just of that principle but the self awareness of the people who purport to support it. I know that the choices I think are correct may not be - either for myself, for everyone or for any particular person. For that reason I don't think that anyone should run my life or that I should be t…

> "What you're doing is crazy. Why would you do that to yourself? Why would you let someone do that to you? Why would you do that to another person?" People who want to amputate perfectly healthy limbs and/or submit themselves to cannibalism are some of the first things that come to my mind here. Most of us would probably agree there should be a line somewhere , especially considering the potential of undiagnosed men…

> especially considering the potential of undiagnosed mental illness.

Not a popular statement to make, but the reality is that the majority of amateur sex workers (e.g. OF models) have diagnosed or undiagnosed mental illnesses, many have been prior victims of sexual abuse. There's a strong correlation between hypersexuality and involvement in sex work, and hypersexuality is often the result of childhood sexual trauma or mental illnesses like bipolar that can result in hypersexuality as a symptom of manic episodes.

So, the question you are putting forward isn't completely limited to the most extreme possibilities. That said, I generally have taken the stance that if someone is able to turn a condition of their existence into something which makes them money and they do so consensually, it is not my business to stop them from doing so. There are definitely deeper and complicated moral and philosophical questions about that though, dealing with the nature of consent and self-actualization. Is it /really/ consensual if someone engages in sex work due to hypersexuality, which was directly caused due to prior sexual trauma? What is consent, and how does it intersect with mental state and competence?

Unfortunately, I don't think society is in a place to wrestle with these deeper questions. Mental illness is relatively commonplace, and we have created a condition of existence in the West which encourages neurosis, and often becomes clinical depression or anxiety, at minimum. Our distraction/attention economy fundamentally messes with people's minds... intentionally... to sell us more crap we don't need. It is against the nature of society to consider what the nature of consent is when you exist surrounded by various layers of coercion and depredation.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#282

Post by giantg2 »

aliqot wrote: post #217
giantg2 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. But given the practicalities it tends to be highly intertwined with a few exceptions.

> As for the pair-bonding thing, it reads like it came out of a bible pamphlet. I just want you to know your reply with the bible pamphlet thing was really stupid. To address you directly: It's scientifically proven, check out Oxytocin and see about the pair-bonding facilitation it does. I'm not a dummy, but today you spoke to me like one. You won't always get someone to re-engage you, and that won't always be becaus…

I think you're replying to the wrong person.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#283

Post by UncleMeat »

vorpalhex wrote: post #225
formerly_proven wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cake-eating-and-having exercise. To progressives: "See how progressive we are, not criminalizing sex work!" To conservatives: "See how conservative we are, endangering sex workers and making life hard for them!"

I don't think conservatives are attempting to endanger sex workers - they believe sex work is fundamentally risky and leads to abuse. There is no safe way to do sex work that doesn't result in problems. Therefore they believe it should be discouraged and made illegal, the same way many progressives believe firearms should be illegal since they are dangerous. Tribal groups are alive and well, and even if you dislike y…

I'm not sure it is this. Instead, I think it is that conservatives think that sex work is fundamentally immoral and that therefore it cannot be accepted by society, regardless of any harm or benefit created by this policy. It isn't "hey we believe that sex workers fundamentally cannot be protected from abuse" like something like child labor but is instead "sex work is moral degeneracy and must be stopped."

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#284

Post by Brian_K_White »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #263
vorpalhex wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think conservatives are attempting to endanger sex workers - they believe sex work is fundamentally risky and leads to abuse. There is no safe way to do sex work that doesn't result in problems. Therefore they believe it should be discouraged and made illegal, the same way many progressives believe firearms should be illegal since they are dangerous. Tribal groups are alive and well, and even if you dislike y…

That is easily the most wildly inaccurate categorization of conservative positions on sex work I have ever, and am ever likely to, encounter. Conservatives (in the US anyway) view sex work as grossly amoral and sex workers as sub-human and a threat to the community. Collectively they don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about sex worker safety, they just want it banned outright through any means necessary.

Fact. "for their own safety" is just the sales pitch / cover story.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#285

Post by UncleMeat »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #267
marcus_holmes wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this. Why is it destructive to society to provide an easy way for people to get laid if they need to?

Precisely because it feeds the destructive attitude that the "get laid" impulse is a sort of mechanical need that can be cleanly isolated from the "find a long-term partner" impulse. Sex work for someone who wants to get laid is like cigarettes for someone who wants to lose weight - it'll work (nicotine is a reasonably strong appetite suppressant), but at what cost? Imagine you met someone who says "yeah, I used to r…

No post body was provided.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#286

Post by TremendousJudge »

floor2 wrote: post #227
dbingham wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to point out that this is a natural consequence of a market system, and it's exacerbated by allowing capital to rule those markets. Until we recognize that, we're not going to be able to fix it. One can't just declare that "If only the market were truly free, it wouldn't be like this." We've seen this play out on the freest market that has ever existed (the early internet) and we ended up in the exact…

This statement is fundamentally flawed on two different core aspects. First, the phenomenon you're referring to is "natural monopolies" which is a well understood situation which appears in every freshman-level Economics 101 class, but that only applies to certain industries. For instance, utilities are natural monopolies because it's far more efficient to run one set of wires to every house rather than try to have 1…

I don't think your comment has exposed any flaws in GPs point.

The first point doesn't refute anything GP said. If Amazon, Google, Meta, etc, are natural monopolies like utilities, then have the state regulate them as such. If they aren't, have them broken up like Standard Oil. You yourself have pointed up that monopolies are bad for the users.

Second, even if "free market" is used by (some) economists to mean a specific thing, that doesn't mean that GP, or most people for that matter, use it that way. For many, many people (including elected policy makers), a "free market" is a market without government intervention, and the less intervention, the more free it is. Nobody owns the official definition of the term, redefining it and then calling the argument which used it in a different way "fundamentally flawed" is not correct.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#287

Post by giraffe_lady »

josephcsible wrote: post #257
pjc50 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously it depends on whether people like the activity being banned or not?

This is basically what I was thinking. The argument is never actually sound, but people only acknowledge that when it's something they like that gets banned, instead pretending that it is a good argument when something they don't like gets banned.

It's not the case that the only valid position is one that is perfectly generalizable. Supporting good or necessary things is better than supporting bad things, even if they share some functional similarities.

Sex workers not having access to reliable payment methods directly puts them in danger in real, quantifiable ways. The same is not true for letting white nationalists recruit teens or whatever other free speech/market economy intersection thing you can think of.

We are not philosopher-automatons and may, should, use our moral judgement about which things specifically are worth our support and which are not. A perfectly consistent framework here is impossible and probably undesirable in any case.

It's not that sex work is better than other things and should be endorsed because of that difference. It's that forcing sex workers out of the legitimate business process gets them killed and we have a duty to prevent that outcome.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#288

Post by Ironlikebike »

LatteLazy wrote: post #13

We're really seeing a counterrevolution around sex and sexuality. From Row vs Wade to crackdowns on pornography to this, America is getting back to its puritanical roots...

My understanding is that payment processors find themselves enforcing the Overton Window lest they run afoul of present legal trends. There's a sliding scale on what is or is not acceptable for them to be facilitating and it changes constantly.

Within sex work, where on the sliding scale of acceptability does enabling a "self employed cam model", vs facilitating a "trafficked cam model" fall, especially when a payment processor has no idea what is going on behind the scenes? Is the payment processor supposed to watch the stream and recognize a gang tattoo and conclude that one is trafficked while another is not?

I can see people on the political right in the US saying they shouldn't process payments for pornography at all, and people on the left saying "I can't believe that facilitates trafficking or victimization". I'd see the payments processors saying "It's not worth it to process any payments for any pornography at all".

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#289

Post by GekkePrutser »

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #38
GekkePrutser wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And with it a large part of the western world is following suit, sadly. Britain for example is regressing to the Victorian era. And the rest of Europe is heading the same way. Not having any serious competitors for VISA/MasterCard doesn't help.

The majority of the west isn't 'following' the US. Sex workers and their consumers have always been seen as 'lesser' or 'tainted', across most cultures. It's never been easier to sell your body and find an audience to applaud you for it. It's just not the majority.

Here in Europe I also see a much stronger moral conservatism. Like I said Britain is the strongest example. But also the Netherlands, and it really is highly influenced by American culture. Even the language on the street is half Dutch half American now :)

In the 80s it was totally normal for (regular non-porn) Dutch movies to contain exposed boobs for example. No way that happens now without very restrictive ratings. And countries like Ireland have outlawed prostitution and Spain is thinking about it.

Of course the west has always been the most open in this kind of thing, probably because we're not as religious. In the Middle East there is almost no difference between government and religion whereas we try to separate them.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#290

Post by krferriter »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #231
pjc50 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the "war on drugs" approach is pretty ineffective while at the same time inflicting significant collateral damage. It already is underground, and it already is almost illegal in most jurisdictions. (Actually criminalizing the exchange of valuable consideration for sex hits the problem that things that look suspiciously like it are endemic in hetero dating and "giving money to your tinder date for a t…

Just say you're filming a porno and in most of the western world it suddenly becomes legal.

Yeah prostitution is legal as long as you film it and sell the video. Unclear if this is a feature or a bug.
Post reply on HN