Edit:
Here is a list of resources to learn about sex worker from actual sex workers who are engaged in the struggle for worker's rights:
- https://www.nswp.org/resources/types/nswp-briefing-papers-248
- https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/white-mans-burden-revisited/
- https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/from-brothel-to-sweatshop-questions-on-labour-trafficking-in-camb/
- https://titsandsass.com/the-massage-parlor-means-survival-here-red-canary-song-on-robert-kraft/
- https://medium.com/purplerose0666/the-af3irm-agenda-b5ec31216904
- https://medium.com/@katezenjoy/dear-esperanza-5aa7db4d501a
- https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/decriminalising-sex-work-in-new-zealand-its-history-and-impact/
- https://www.mayamorena.com/anti-equality-model-campaign/2021/5/22/pscegcnr680fh4oazlmwe8i5527o9j
Bigger repo of theory / resources:
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oWxx3yodCJJGxTmqgCeB6csVAeRkllSQq_VUe78MJA4/view
Books to check out:
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36224357-sex-lies-statistics
That's nice, dear. Yes, you're very smart. Labor specialization is bad, so too is the production of surplus. We should return to monke.
You're intentionally missing my point
No, your point is puritan nonsense hiding in faux materialism.
Yours is being horny disguised as a-historical ignorance.
I'm asexual you fucking dipshit.
Okay, then it's just a historical nonsense.
Or maybe your argument is stupid. There is nothing ahistorical about asserting that the demand for sex work has existed as long as we have records. Like all labor, it has included exploitation. But you now say that the specific class of labor specialization which is related to sex is somehow special compared to other forms of specialized labor. You never justify this distinction, you just wave your hands and say "YoU'rE HoRn1111" instead of actually establishing why that specific form of labor specialization is specifically worse than any other one. You don't do that, because the only appeal you could make is to cast sex itself as somehow more dehumanizing, which is just stupid puritan pseudointellectualism hiding behind bad marxism.
I did make the disntinction. Unlike preparing food, shelter or textiles, sex does nothing to make that surplus greater. You can't eat sex, you can't plow a field better with sex, sex will not keep the rain off of you. Sex work came after that labor was specialized and certain people had control of that greater material wealth and could use it in exchange for sex. There is no way out of the fact. You said it's necessary labor and I am giving a pretty tight historical reason that it isn't.
No, you're demonstrating a complete failure to understand any form of materialism. You know what else doesn't make surplus greater? Art. A sculpture doesn't make you plow a field better. It might keep the rain off of you, but it isn't particularly good at it. Is being an artist as a profession now just as bad as being a sex worker?
What you're engaging in here is crass producerism. It is unmaterialist and unmarxist.