• AcidSmiley [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Economic coercion is a problem in sex work, but it is one that cannot ever be adressed by any policy only targeting conditions around sex work, but exclusively by policies that directly remove the coercive conditions under the rule of capital. No anti-sex work law will remove the fact that people see no choice but entering survival sex work, or migrating from the periphery into the center to work as prostitutes. The only way to prevent that is to end poverty and i know i do not have to explain to you what that entails, we’re in agreement on that.

    This comment is also not entirely directed at your reply, it’s more about the general line of thinking that started this comment chain. I’m not under the impression that most sex workers are abducted victims of human trafficking, that’s a line of thinking that is always brough tup by swerfs and never backed up with any evidence, i think that your remark towards economic coercion is much closer to the core problem at play here.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not disagreeing with your take there. I have no policy ideas to offer myself.

      My issue is with the agonizingly bad take of “buying breakfast at the cafe down the road is exactly as exploitative as soliciting (possibly) trafficked people for sex in the Phillipines.” libertarian-alert