Porn

99 posts / 0 new
Last post
Zanthorus's picture
Zanthorus
Offline
Joined: 3-08-10
May 22 2017 13:30
Rommon wrote:
As for the second paragraph, I have a Christian view of human nature, i.e. Imagio Dei

I don't think we can really get anywhere with this discussion then.

Quote:
I use it more broadly, social relationships in a Family are not alienated, you are part of the the Family (at least many families) and the work you do in that relationship is Your own, and directly relational; in the market Place Your work is alienated, it isn't Yours, it's value has nothing to do With you, and its distribution has nothing to do With you.

It seems like if we push this through to it's logical conclusion, the only way to live without 'alienation' in this sense would be to revert to living in small local communities where everyone knows everyone else directly. With the current division of labour being a global one, I don't see how that's possible without reversing the progress of technology a couple of centuries.

Of course the 'value' and 'distribution' of commodities does have everything to do with the agency of the individuals who constitute the market, the marketplace, commodity exchange and capitalism aren't 'things' which control the human actors, they are social relationships that mediate their activity and give human agency the appearance of being the property of things.

Quote:
Sex in a relationship has a different Logic than sex that a trick has With a prostitute, in the latter scenario sex is an alienated commodity.

If the only two options you can conceive of are sex in a committed monogamous relationship and prostitution, you might just need to develop a better imagination.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
May 22 2017 13:26
Zanthorus wrote:
It seems like if we push this through to it's logical conclusion, the only way to live without 'alienation' in this sense would be to revert to living in small local communities where everyone knows everyone else directly. With the current division of labour being a global one, I don't see how that's possible without reversing the progress of technology a couple of centuries.

I want more of community and less alienation (state, markets and so on), Capitalism demands that markets continously expand and take over every aspect of life ... I dont' think everything can be run by community, but I would like more of it.

By the way it's not just face to face, you can have non.market interactions without face to face knowledge of People, through moral norms, social norms and so on.

Quote:
If the only two options you can conceive of are sex in a committed monogamous relationship and prostitution, you might just need to develop a better imagination.

That wasn't my point, I'm opposed to porn for similar reasons that I am opposed to prostitution.

Sike
Offline
Joined: 25-10-15
May 24 2017 04:22
Rommon wrote:
. If any one asked me I would recommend to stay away from porn, go out and fall in love and have sex.

Yeah, and stay away from masturbation or you'll go blind.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
May 24 2017 07:14
Quote:
If any one asked me I would recommend to stay away from porn, go out and fall in love and have sex

Can we not go out and have sex, watch some porn, have more sex, then maybe at some point later if it all works out, fall in love?

mn8
Offline
Joined: 21-06-16
Jun 3 2017 10:56

Interesting to see Christian views here. I thinkk that capitalism can harm relationships like this. It perverts human relationships and this is nothing to boast about and display. Still, pornography is motivation for people to have sex love, so it will possibly stay as long as that does. Pornographic stuff was central in many cultures...

maar
Offline
Joined: 16-06-17
Jun 16 2017 10:29

I am not a huge fun but I understand why that's a huge turn-on. He who is without sin can cast the first stone. wink

Scallywag
Offline
Joined: 24-03-14
Jun 16 2017 19:00

I am not sure how I feel about porn. Its hard to say because its not all the same, a lot of it is misogynist and sexist either explicitly so, or it promotes misogynist and sexist views (worth noting that even gay porn and transgender porn does so). Not necessarily always though and I don't think its inevitable that porn should promote these views.

In general I don't have a problem with sex between consenting adults being filmed and available for others to view. I think that can be a good thing, it can be a way for people to safely explore their sexuality or sexual desires, and I think that being accepted is a good thing. I think it still does have potential to cause harm to those who engage in it though, like them deeply regretting and being embarrassed or ashamed of it in the future.

I think in a free society, where people aren't hung up about sex and pleasure, and where we aren't compelled to lead 'professional' life's and abide by a work ethic, then there is reason to think porn would still be made. It is just sex after all, it's not really a big deal, and I can sort of see why a couple might find it fun or sexy to film themselves doing it, and I would think in an anarchist society sex (all kinds of sex between consenting adults, straight, gay, monogamous, polygamous, romantic or one night stand etc.) would be much more accepted than today, not viewed as taboo or 'dirty'.

Craftwork's picture
Craftwork
Offline
Joined: 26-12-15
Jun 17 2017 15:03

I totally reject Rommon (and anyone else's) ridiculous, reactionary views on the family under capitalism, porn and sexual relationships:

1) Porn has existed for centuries.
2) The internet has simply increased its accessibility and enabled its rapid diffusion on an enormous scale.
3) The fact that it's so popular - that at any given moment, a considerable proportion of people that are online will be viewing it - tells us more about society than it does about porn.

4) There were no "good old days" of "pure, loving relationships" before commodification or capitalism undermined the family. If you scratch beneath the surface of that quasi-sacred, patriarchal/ideological construct, "the family", upheld as a source or bastion of values and stability, you'll find that it's the site of some of the worst abuses and atrocities (e.g. committed against children or women) - far worse than anything you'll see in porn.

I sometimes wonder whether men's complaints about sex being commodified or capitalised is related to the fact that, for centuries, they've effectively had free access to women (with or without consent), and this therefore represents a diminishing of their power.

5) The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.

Sure, those large factories in Asia are sites of extreme alienation/exploitation, but better to be a woman proletarian with a wage, with a chance to learn more about the world, than a woman in rural Bangladesh or China whose prospects are otherwise to simply be married young, and live a life of domestic servitude - from being the property of her parents to the property of her husband.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jun 18 2017 12:10

Craftwork #69
‘I totally reject Rommon (and anyone else's) ridiculous, reactionary views on the family under capitalism, porn and sexual relationships:’

Your ridicule is based on a series of assertions and strawmen. I hope to show your views are not as ‘progressive’ as you claim.

‘1) Porn has existed for centuries.’

I am not sure what you mean by porn. Please point me to the evidence that it has existed for centuries. My understanding is that as part of the Victorian’s obsession with classification, the word was invented to describe items of a sexual nature they considered an affront to public decency. Is this also your definition? (I define it as material meant to sexually stimulate or titillate and it comes in many forms. It may help satisfy the curiosity most people have to see the otherwise un-see able.)

‘2) The internet has simply increased its accessibility and enabled its rapid diffusion on an enormous scale.’

I fully agree with this point.

‘3) The fact that it's so popular - that at any given moment, a considerable proportion of people that are online will be viewing it - tells us more about society than it does about porn.’

Yes, though you fail to explain what it tells us. Your ‘point’ is simply word-play.

‘4) There were no "good old days" of "pure, loving relationships" before commodification or capitalism undermined the family. If you scratch beneath the surface of that quasi-sacred, patriarchal/ideological construct, "the family", upheld as a source or bastion of values and stability, you'll find that it's the site of some of the worst abuses and atrocities (e.g. committed against children or women) - far worse than anything you'll see in porn.

I sometimes wonder whether men's complaints about sex being commodified or capitalised is related to the fact that, for centuries, they've effectively had free access to women (with or without consent), and this therefore represents a diminishing of their power.’

I can find no reference to the ‘good old days’.

Rommon can defend his own ideas about ‘pure and loving relationships’, though my reading of history suggests to me these things still exist into the present day. Your theoretical idea of ‘the family’ suggests a lopsided view of human relationships. Yes, the family is the site of incest and some paedophilia, etc., though that is far from the whole story. My main objection to your construct is that it ignores the bond between parents and their children. The centre of a family unit is the children. If you cannot see the validity of these bonds, then you must find the present grief on display to London an unfathomable mystery.

Your point about men having ‘free access to women’ is fantastical. In capitalism only the rich are free. Women are/were strictly ‘private property’, as men are/were paranoid about their offspring. The discovery of DNA has partially removed this fear. The other day I read something about a woman being prosecuted for faking a DNA test. Men’s diminishing power is I fear wishful thinking.

5) The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.

Sure, those large factories in Asia are sites of extreme alienation/exploitation, but better to be a woman proletarian with a wage, with a chance to learn more about the world, than a woman in rural Bangladesh or China whose prospects are otherwise to simply be married young, and live a life of domestic servitude - from being the property of her parents to the property of her husband.'

Your first paragraph I think turns reality on its head.
Alienation is a form of freedom? Freedom to top yourself, etc.

Several times I’ve heard Judge Judy tell mothers, “Get out and work, stop being a burden on the taxpayers”.
Unfortunately no one has dared answer her back (or it was edited out). So to hell with your mothering instincts - get out and work and stop being a parasite.

Your last point regarding the situation of large numbers of women in Asia and elsewhere is partially valid. I write ‘partially’ because as a westerner my knowledge is limited and the notion that one form of exploitation is preferable to another is problematical. We will never know how many Chinese people, men and women, having been forcibly removed from their land, now exist in some Dickensian type of hell-hole.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 19 2017 07:26
Craftwork wrote:
I totally reject Rommon (and anyone else's) ridiculous, reactionary views on the family under capitalism, porn and sexual relationships:

1) Porn has existed for centuries.
2) The internet has simply increased its accessibility and enabled its rapid diffusion on an enormous scale.
3) The fact that it's so popular - that at any given moment, a considerable proportion of people that are online will be viewing it - tells us more about society than it does about porn.

4) There were no "good old days" of "pure, loving relationships" before commodification or capitalism undermined the family. If you scratch beneath the surface of that quasi-sacred, patriarchal/ideological construct, "the family", upheld as a source or bastion of values and stability, you'll find that it's the site of some of the worst abuses and atrocities (e.g. committed against children or women) - far worse than anything you'll see in porn.

1. So what? I mean rape has existed for centuries, that isn't an argument for it.

2. Yes, and it's a sad state of affairs.

3. You can say that about any consumption, except it isn't just a one way thing, when you consume and act in the world you change the world but also the world changes you.

4. Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that healthy relationships are impossible or that porn isn't detrimental to them. You're argument here is like saying "before the war in Iraq, it's not like Iraq was some hunky dory Utopia" ... so what? the war made it worse and added MORE problems to the old ones. It's not like pornography stopped domestic abuse.

Quote:
I sometimes wonder whether men's complaints about sex being commodified or capitalised is related to the fact that, for centuries, they've effectively had free access to women (with or without consent), and this therefore represents a diminishing of their power.

What does that even mean? "free Access" to women ... are you claiming that there was no such thing as rape before then? Are you claiming that womens bodies becoming commodities actually empowers them?

You don't have to "Wonder", you can ask. No, all men haven't had "free Access" to women, and no one that I know proposes that. It's not like the only two options are womens sexualities being bought and sold OR rape is legal ... that's competely stupid.

The other option is actual human relationships involving intimacy and love ... you know that is a real thing. And it isn't "free" or "at a price" ... it's not part of the market. The fact that you seem to think those are the two options really makes you look like a neo-liberal idologue who can't see the world outside of the market.

Quote:
5) The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.

Yeah, freedom in a sense, but I don't think that "freedom" that capitalism sells is a good freedom, or even an actual freedom. My view on freedom is the ancient greek philosophical view; man is free when he is living life well.

But anyway, a prostitute is technically more free than a woman in a loving relationship, the woman in a loving relationship has moral responsibilities to her parter, to her Family to her community; the prostitute does not, her sexual encounters are contractual ... I don't think the prostitute is more free, I don't think she has a better life.

Quote:
Sure, those large factories in Asia are sites of extreme alienation/exploitation, but better to be a woman proletarian with a wage, with a chance to learn more about the world, than a woman in rural Bangladesh or China whose prospects are otherwise to simply be married young, and live a life of domestic servitude - from being the property of her parents to the property of her husband.

It Depends on the rural community. There are plenty of rural communities where women are respected, and where they are valued as much as men.

I think the crux is two different worldviews:
You seem to have a rather neo-liberal world viwe of the individual. Human beings are atomized, they are most free when they are free of any non-contractural obligations and relationships, and human beings can make their own identities. So a prostitute who doesn't have to answer to anyone, but is dirt poor, alienated, alone and so on, is really more free than a woman in a Family situation who is cared for, has obligations and in community.

I think that human beings are social animals, and they can only thrive in community, and I think that a person being turned into a commodity, especially their sexuality, is one of the worst Things that can happen to them.

Are there other "bad" Things in the world of sexual relationships? Yeah sure, but doesn't make pornography a good thing.

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Jun 19 2017 19:48
Rommon wrote:
...
Are there other "bad" Things in the world of sexual relationships? Yeah sure, but doesn't make pornography a good thing.

I don't really look upon marriage and static relationships as some ideal. I think there was something to what Wilde said about 'divorces being made in heaven.' People should be free to be with whomever they wish, and I don't see anything wrong with that. In a post-capitalist world there shouldn't be the dependence on the 'breadwinner', forcing people to stay in relationships they otherwise hate. And again, I don't see what's wrong with pornography, which has existed for centuries, in its non-commodity, non-exploitative forms.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Jun 19 2017 22:31
Quote:
But anyway, a prostitute is technically more free than a woman in a loving relationship, the woman in a loving relationship has moral responsibilities to her parter, to her Family to her community; the prostitute does not, her sexual encounters are contractual ... I don't think the prostitute is more free, I don't think she has a better life.
Quote:
So a prostitute who doesn't have to answer to anyone, but is dirt poor, alienated, alone and so on, is really more free than a woman in a Family situation who is cared for, has obligations and in community.

For someone who dismissed feminism as identity politics in another thread, you sure have a lot of things about how women should make their living or what their relationships should be like. And the words you are looking for are sex worker.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 20 2017 09:57
Fleur wrote:
For someone who dismissed feminism as identity politics in another thread, you sure have a lot of things about how women should make their living or what their relationships should be like. And the words you are looking for are sex worker.

Yeah, I have opinions about what is healthy for a man, woman, or child to do ... I don't think it's healthy for anyone to be a prostitute or sex worker, I don't think anyone should join the military, I don't think People should drink soda ... yes I do have opinions about what are good and bad decisions and good and bad ways society organizes and so on.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Jun 20 2017 10:21

Yes, indeed I have noticed you have a lot of opinions on telling other people what to do with their bodies, how to conduct their own relationships, how to express their sexualities, what to do to make money how to interpret historical documents and a bunch of other things, opinions predicated upon your personal morality. What is your position of expertise which allows you to be so certain than you can tell other people what to do with their own bodies and lives?

Also fwiw, Matthew chapter 7, verses 1-3.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jun 20 2017 10:41

Fleur, are you trying to make this thread about Rommon’s opinions?

Having a pop at the Christian may please the libcom gallery, but it appears to be a sad attempt to divert attention from Craftwork’s half-baked post #69.

Rommon’s post #71 contained political content, but it’s so much easier to address something in his past posts or his choice of words. Post 69 is much admired, anyone care to explain?

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Jun 20 2017 10:50

Post 71 contains mostly Rommon's half-baked personal opinions on how other people should conduct their lives, some tired tropes about who he thinks sex workers are (pathetic women without the capacity to maintain good relationships,) that their sexualities - rather than their labour- are being bought and sold.

I pretty much agree with Crafttwork's post but there again it is possible that I may have known more sex workers than Rommon, as well as not a few Christians who don't feel the need to hector other people about how they should be living, so my opinions may be somewhat biased.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 20 2017 11:41

I don't know what your actual problem is with what I said? Yes I have opinions about what is good and healthy behavior and a good and healthy life and a good and healthy society and what is not ... who doesn't? Everyone does.

I think that just because we are talking about sex it's different. What is being bought and sold is sex, not only labor, which is why how a sex worker looks matters. I'm not "hectoring" anyone, this is a thread about pornography ... presumably it would be appropriate to talk about the ethics of pornography in a thread about pornography.

I haven't "judged" anyone, unless you equate me saying some kinds of behavior, some kinds of social institutions, some cultrual phenomenon is unhealthy and bad with "judging" People .... Would it be "judging" if someone said that overweight People should eat healthier and workout? Is it "judging" to say that no-hour contracts are wrong as an institution?

ALL ethical opinions are based on people's personal morality ... literally all of them.

As far as interpreting documents ... Yeah, there are better and worse interpretations, i.e. interpretations that make more or less sense of the text in it's context ....

I don't know what you expect, no opinions for anyone? What's the point of this thread then? Why are you even here?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 20 2017 14:08

Do you support sex workers in their struggles, Rommon?

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jun 20 2017 15:04

Thanks Fleur, you made more sense out to the post than I did. I still have no idea that Craftwork was talking about:

‘I sometimes wonder whether men's complaints about sex being commodified or capitalised is related to the fact that, for centuries, they've effectively had free access to women (with or without consent), and this therefore represents a diminishing of their power.’

The world’s oldest profession has been around long before capitalism. Capitalism has only modified the exchange. The part about men effectively having free access to women before capitalism is fantasy. What does he mean? Is he still referring the sex work? And why does it diminish men’s power?

I have only heard of the term having ‘free access to women’ once, and that was in relation to the first dust-up inside the ORA in the early nineteen seventies. Some comrades arranged to share a house, mainly to assemble and print ‘Libertarian Struggle’ our monthly paper. It quickly became clear that this ‘collective’ was not going to include ‘collectivizing’ the women. One male left in the huff, claiming the others were been selfish and not good communists. My memory is that the others formed ‘pairs’ (who knows - it was their affair).

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 20 2017 16:01
Quote:
I think that just because we are talking about sex it's different. What is being bought and sold is sex, not only labor, which is why how a sex worker looks matters.

But in this instance, sex is labor. Most types of labor in one context are activities done for pleasure or satisfaction in another. And in all types of wage labor the use of your body (or at least your bodily power) is being exchanged as a commodity. Sex work is no different in either of these aspects.

I think people are taking issue with your argument because a communist analysis of sex work views sex work as work. To say "sex is different" is adding a layer of moralism to your argument that, whether you intend it to or not, paints sex workers as victims - whether worthy victims or otherwise.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 20 2017 16:09
Quote:
The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.

I also just wanted to say that I agree with this and find it a fairly straightforward Marxist position.

The family, historically, has existed as a patriarchal institution in which women and children were considered the property of the male head of household. And while being "freed" onto the labour market does, on one hand, open your labor to direct relations of capital, it also gives women an amount of agency that didn't exist within traditional familial structure.

It's no huge surprise that when women enter the workforce in large numbers, female demands for easier divorce laws soon follow.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jun 20 2017 16:22

I am not even sure who is wrong here.

Freddom to consume is not freedom. I just drank a beer that I enjoyed, doesn't mean that the shitty day of work I just had was liberating and it doesn't make me free in any real sense.

Prostitutes sell labour, looks are a part of it but that is part of labour. People hire more attractive sales and wait staff, good-looking people tend to get more job offers, this doesn't make them prostitutes. Other physical attributes can help, for example being taller helps get management positions, having big muscles would probably help you with a labouring job, this doesn't make these jobs prostitution. If none of those jobs are prostitution simply because a physical attribute(s) is added to the job description then that probably means that the specificity of prostitution, sex sork, is due to the fact that it involves sex. I do admit that there is something that makes me a touch squeamish about sex work and it is specifically sex, because if a care worker wipes granny's arse we don't fele that the family intimacy of caring has been irredeemably tarnished. I think it is down to morality and I don't think that is a good thing. I don't think anyone should have to pay for sex and I don't think anyone should have to sell sex, but I think that about everything.

The whole unfettered access to women has some logic to it, but that depends very much on the society and usually theere was a barrier before this access was granted and not every man could gain this access. In modern timpes this is still true. I ws pretty disgusted by the relentless groping of women that happened when I was on holiday, but we were in a country where access was strictly controlled, so the unwed men we saw had in general no real access to women, so while the society was misogynistic and so were these men they weren't exactly living it up in sexist paradise, they were angry and frustrated because the only real chance they had was groping a tourist at night, and even then most didn't. To see sex workers and their clients as victims and exploiters or some similar formulation is a disregarding everything.

My main beef about prostitution is that due to societal pressures it is often a last resort that people are forced into and prostitutes are terribly mistreated, but one could say the same about rubbish tip scavengers or a lot of other jobs. I dislike the idea that prostitution can be this clean and antiseptic choice, "oh she just did it for a few years to pay for grad school, she had a few regulars and she screened out the crazy guys and made good money" Like most jobs what you have affects what you get out of it. If you have the capital (including cultural physical etc) it is a very different job to if you don't. IT's the difference between wyneth Paltrow selling stuff on goop and a working class woman trying to make money with herbalife.

In itself porn is commodification, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, pretty much all books, TV, cinema is about packaging emotion up in some way for our consumption. So Lizzie Bennet sparring with Mr Darcy, Bruce Willis shouting yippie kyay and a porn scene are in that sense similar and each has a time, a place and an audience, all of which can overlap or not.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 20 2017 17:38
Khawaga wrote:
Do you support sex workers in their struggles, Rommon?

100%, I think sex workers ought to have ready access to healthcare, protection, screenings, workers rights and everything else.

I would say the same thing about veterans and soldiers, I don't think anyone should join the military; I think it's a dehumanizing and horrible institution (just as the sex trade is), but I also think it's disgusting how veterans are treated, and I think they should get ready access to healthcare, training programs, welfare and so on.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 20 2017 17:42
Chilli Sauce wrote:
But in this instance, sex is labor. Most types of labor in one context are activities done for pleasure or satisfaction in another. And in all types of wage labor the use of your body (or at least your bodily power) is being exchanged as a commodity. Sex work is no different in either of these aspects.

I think people are taking issue with your argument because a communist analysis of sex work views sex work as work. To say "sex is different" is adding a layer of moralism to your argument that, whether you intend it to or not, paints sex workers as victims - whether worthy victims or otherwise.

The difference is the nature of sex ... sex is extremely intimate. This is why rape is so much worse than crimes like theft or assault.

EVERY analysis is going to end up being "moralistic" ... even the communist analysis is moralistic because it makes value judgements.

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Jun 20 2017 17:54

I know the issues in one industry are not the same as those in another, but if sex work is work, what then is the objection to being a customer? I'm confused.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Jun 20 2017 22:16

I find myself disagreeing with much of what Rommon has to say but I'm with him on these two

Quote:
The difference is the nature of sex ... sex is extremely intimate. This is why rape is so much worse than crimes like theft or assault.
Quote:
EVERY analysis is going to end up being "moralistic" ... even the communist analysis is moralistic because it makes value judgements.

I'm particularly glad to hear someone make the second point as despite the popular view being to the contrary, it underpins pretty much my entire position in politics.

Furthermore, I surprised but heartened to hear Miss Elizabeth Bennet being mentioned on Libcom, it's good to know I'm not the only one that appreciates a bit of "sparring".

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Jun 20 2017 22:27

Rommon:

Perhaps I'm missing some nuance in what you're saying, in part due to your idiosyncratic posting technique. Generally in internet usage capitalizing whole words for emphasis is shouting and shouting your opinions is hectoring.

Quote:
Yes I have opinions about what is good and healthy behavior and a good and healthy life and a good and healthy society and what is not ... who doesn't?

Yes, you have opinions. You seem to imbue sex with some kind of quasi-spiritual sanctity, which is only healthy when practiced by people in long-term, committed relationships. I'm glad that's working out for you - tbh it's pretty good for me too - but not everybody has the same opinion, not everybody is looking for or wants to pair bond, a lot of people have no problems or hang-ups about enjoying intimacy with someone who is not a life-partner and when you are strident in expressing that your version of sex is the only one which "good and healthy" then you are by default judging other people for not doing it the same way as you.

Quote:
Would it be "judging" if someone said that overweight People should eat healthier and workout?

Yes, it absolutely would be. Firstly, something, something, something about walking in other people's shoes before you start laying down the law about how they should live their lives. Also, gross generalizations much. Overweight people may be overweight for all sorts of reasons. they may have contributory health problems. A former Kung Fu teacher friend of mine who is very heavy, having had a catastrophic injury, which means he cannot exercise very much just loves it when people regularly tells him he should eat better ( he eats very well btw) and work out more (he can't.) People may have eating disorders - fantastic helpful advise there, way to go with contributing to people's complicated food issues. They could have mental health issues, they may live in food deserts and work three jobs and are just waiting for some smartarse to sort their lives out for themselves. Or else, they may just love themselves the way they are and have every right to tell interfering body shamers where to stick their opinions. Generally anybody's opinions on somebody else's body is a whole barrel of none of your fucking business.

You are expressing your opinion about what you think is natural for human beings, what is "good and healthy" for everyone and what constitutes a healthy society, disregarding that fact that humans are individuals, with different needs, desires, aptitudes and abilities and by very implication whatever falls outside your very narrow parameters of this is bad and unhealthy. That is pretty judgemental if you want my opinion.

Quote:
Why are you even here?

Good question. I've been asking myself that one myself.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 20 2017 22:41
wojtek wrote:
I know the issues in one industry are not the same as those in another, but if sex work is work, what then is the objection to being a customer? I'm confused.

To be honest with you Woj, I think you're slightly conflating two issues here. One is which particular way - moral or class or some combination of the two - to understand sex work and people who work in the industry.

The other is why anarchists or communists might have ideological (and, yes, even moral issues) with purchasing sexual services. For me, I'd say the main issue is consent. If sex is reduced to a financial transaction - complete with all the pressures of bosses, the market, paying rent - then consent can't taken as a given.

But I think those are two different arguments and allowing one to bleed into the other can move us away from a class understanding of sex work to moralistic conclusions regarding the industry and those who work in it.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jun 21 2017 05:26

Chilli Sauce #82
‘Quote:
The fact that capitalism, in the course of its development, has (to some extent) dissolved familial bonds in favour of a society of singular individuals confronting each other in a system of universal competition is not something to simply be lamented. It represents alienation, but it also represents a form of freedom.

I also just wanted to say that I agree with this and find it a fairly straightforward Marxist position.

The family, historically, has existed as a patriarchal institution in which women and children were considered the property of the male head of household. And while being "freed" onto the labour market does, on one hand, open your labor to direct relations of capital, it also gives women an amount of agency that didn't exist within traditional familial structure.

It's no huge surprise that when women enter the workforce in large numbers, female demands for easier divorce laws soon follow.’

Yes, I agree that Marx was describing the present capitalist reality.

However in the context in the post, it was used as a rejection of Rommon’s criticism of capitalist alienation. My understanding of Marx, is not that he approved of the current situation, rather he believed in the need to change the status quo through revolution. To somehow imply Marx was defending capitalism is a political sleight of hand.

Alienation is a blight on the working class plain and simple. Some of the posts defending Craftwork are simply pathetic.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 21 2017 08:34
Fleur wrote:
Yes, you have opinions. You seem to imbue sex with some kind of quasi-spiritual sanctity, which is only healthy when practiced by people in long-term, committed relationships. I'm glad that's working out for you - tbh it's pretty good for me too - but not everybody has the same opinion, not everybody is looking for or wants to pair bond, a lot of people have no problems or hang-ups about enjoying intimacy with someone who is not a life-partner and when you are strident in expressing that your version of sex is the only one which "good and healthy" then you are by default judging other people for not doing it the same way as you.

Yeah, I do think sex is something sacred, I'm a Christian and there are theological reasons to view sex as sacred. But I don't think it's just me, I think many People, InFact society as a Whole views sex the same way ... which is why, as I said before rape is considered such a horrific crime.

I'm sure People as individuals have no problems With many different kinds of Things, that doesn't make it healthy or good.

Let me put it this way, if I knew someone who was going to join the army, I would strongly advise him against it, even if he personally had no problem With what he was doing, I would conclude that he was just simply wrong, or confused, or morally stupid.

I'm not judging anyone in the sense that I am not saying someone who makes an unhealthy or wrong Choice or is put in an unhealthy or bad position is morally a bad person, or deserving of scorn, I AM saying their Choice, or the position they have been put in is unhealthy and wrong.

Everyone does this, it's impossible to not .... if you say ANYTHING is unhealthy, wrong or anything else you are making a moral judgement.

That's different than what Jesus was talking about, what Jesus was talking about was condemnation of People ... althroughout his ministry he made judgements on behavior and ideology, even the idea that compassion is better than condemnation is a judgement.

Quote:
Yes, it absolutely would be. Firstly, something, something, something about walking in other people's shoes before you start laying down the law about how they should live their lives. Also, gross generalizations much. Overweight people may be overweight for all sorts of reasons. they may have contributory health problems. A former Kung Fu teacher friend of mine who is very heavy, having had a catastrophic injury, which means he cannot exercise very much just loves it when people regularly tells him he should eat better ( he eats very well btw) and work out more (he can't.) People may have eating disorders - fantastic helpful advise there, way to go with contributing to people's complicated food issues. They could have mental health issues, they may live in food deserts and work three jobs and are just waiting for some smartarse to sort their lives out for themselves. Or else, they may just love themselves the way they are and have every right to tell interfering body shamers where to stick their opinions. Generally anybody's opinions on somebody else's body is a whole barrel of none of your fucking business.

You are expressing your opinion about what you think is natural for human beings, what is "good and healthy" for everyone and what constitutes a healthy society, disregarding that fact that humans are individuals, with different needs, desires, aptitudes and abilities and by very implication whatever falls outside your very narrow parameters of this is bad and unhealthy. That is pretty judgemental if you want my opinion.

You're absolutely right ... I'm talking about a friend, someone I know. I would never go up to an overweight person on the street and just make assumptions about that person.

But again, your objection isn't against judging it healtheir to be fit rather than overweight, it's just coming to conclusions without having enough data.

By the way ... ALL of your examples are People who CANNOT workout or eat healthy due to mental or physical illness .... That implies that it would be better if they didn't have those problems and thus COULD workout and eat healthy .. why? Because it would be better and healtheir if they did.

Being overweight puts you at greater risk of all kinds of illnesses, it puts more strain on your bodily systems, you are less physically capable, you may have a more difficult time in the dating game due to what People generally find attractive. These are facts.

If someone is overweight, and cannot do anything about it, and thus has decided to live With the body they have and learn to love it and make the best out of it, that's wonderful ... but it would be healthier if they were able to do something about it and did do something about it.

If you saw someone you cared for doing Things like starting to smoke, eating tons of junk Food, not getting any excercise, drinking too much and so on .... I seriously hope you would approach them and tell them they are on a bad course, that wouldn't be judgemental, it would be loving.

Being an ethical person means making other people's ills, their problems, their suffering, their condition YOUR business ...

Quote:
Good question. I've been asking myself that one myself.

Hopefully it's to hear different Points of view and try and refine your own.