in principle i agree as this all is basic marxist theory about worker exploitation. and while libshit suffragettes do all sorts of whacky renamings and reframings, the problem remains that if it is a lifestyle, it is not work in the sense of an exploitative relationship anymore. at least they way i understand work and lifestyle. (psycho grindset sigmamorons aside - basically a propaganda meme created by rich ancap heirs…)
i mean i take issue with “work” under patriarchal domination and control over bodies in general. and yeah, womens bodies are sort of overregulated…
regarding this terminology i would would still prefer “human trafficking/sexual exploitation” as i see this is more appropriate of the actual situation of people subjected to such abuse. And yeah, in global terms they are the majority among “sex workers” (and it also concerns strippers and dancers in some regards the abuse of which often is contextual to their own economic/psychosocial backtround. I mean i know girls who love dancing and earned money for doing it in clubs & skimpy outfits. In many ways they sold their bodies and the club owner still got way richer, while they were being subjected to male fantasy of a small group of unberable morons within any given audience. but at least for them, security was provided and it was security, not a pimp. Was this situation exploitational? that’s more a case by case basis
BUT… all of them told me that the margins from dancing in mens clubs to being subjected to abuse or becomeing a prostitute/porn actress are very thin, as usually, such etablissements are ripe with all sorts of drugs, predatory men and offers of easy money. which can be considered a perfect trap to slip into some abusive dependency for anyone not of clear and sound mind, with a titanium bar for a spine and a clear vision of why they are doing it in the first place.
in principle i agree as this all is basic marxist theory about worker exploitation. and while libshit suffragettes do all sorts of whacky renamings and reframings, the problem remains that if it is a lifestyle, it is not work in the sense of an exploitative relationship anymore. at least they way i understand work and lifestyle. (psycho grindset sigmamorons aside - basically a propaganda meme created by rich ancap heirs…)
i mean i take issue with “work” under patriarchal domination and control over bodies in general. and yeah, womens bodies are sort of overregulated…
regarding this terminology i would would still prefer “human trafficking/sexual exploitation” as i see this is more appropriate of the actual situation of people subjected to such abuse. And yeah, in global terms they are the majority among “sex workers” (and it also concerns strippers and dancers in some regards the abuse of which often is contextual to their own economic/psychosocial backtround. I mean i know girls who love dancing and earned money for doing it in clubs & skimpy outfits. In many ways they sold their bodies and the club owner still got way richer, while they were being subjected to male fantasy of a small group of unberable morons within any given audience. but at least for them, security was provided and it was security, not a pimp. Was this situation exploitational? that’s more a case by case basis
BUT… all of them told me that the margins from dancing in mens clubs to being subjected to abuse or becomeing a prostitute/porn actress are very thin, as usually, such etablissements are ripe with all sorts of drugs, predatory men and offers of easy money. which can be considered a perfect trap to slip into some abusive dependency for anyone not of clear and sound mind, with a titanium bar for a spine and a clear vision of why they are doing it in the first place.