Housework and compulsory heterosexuality

I have a subjective experience of working in a coffee shop.

I hate the customers and the work is terrible. I've burned myself on unsafe equipment. It's long periods of boredom interspersed with periods of overly-intense activity. My boss is an asshole, I live on minimum wage and I often get my wages late. I have irregular hours and health and safety is a joke. Customers are dicks and they take their life's frustrations out on me: they're rude and pushy, they shout at me. One even threw hot coffee in my face one time.

Should you stop consuming coffee?

Also, what about women who consume porn? (Which is an increasingly sizable percentage now that sexual moralism is on the wane--which, if anything, probably reduces the psychological strain of working in the porn industry.)

You think sweatshops will still exist after we smash capitalism? Or will the production of clothes, in fact, take a completely different form? Won't clothes makers be freely producing clothes, not because a boss told them to, or because if they don't they'll starve, but because it's an activity they enjoy and get satisfaction out of.

Why is it impossible to imagine that someone would freely want to put sex videos of themselves on the internet? It doesn't mean it would be the same conditions as now (ie workers having little decision making power etc) As long as people are freely engaging in it, why would you seek to abolish it? I agree we should support sex workers now in fighting to improve conditions and gain as much control over their work as possible. But I also don't think we should try to stop people doing it if they want to.

As to your kiddie porn comparison, what you seem to be saying is that women and children are equally unable to give consent. That the power dynamics between a boss and adult worker are the same as a paedophile and a child. Which I think is not only inaccurate, but fucking insulting on so many levels. Women are not 100% freely choosing to work in the porn industry, but for many it's a concious, considered preference to other kinds of work. Adults are also paid for their work. Children are not on any level making any kind of choice to be raped and filmed. Neither are they being employed. Neither do they have any kind of union. What you're doing is depicting women as helpless, infantisized victims.

This whole thing that porn is inherently degrading is moralizing. This "people will watch it forever" thing is so laden with morality it's almost a caricature. Who says all or even most porn actors care if people are wanking to their videos? Maybe people who don't have all these hang-ups about sex being a shameful, dirty, seedy thing don't give two shits what other people are wanking to.

In my experience of service work (mainly fast food) whether customers are nice or not is not the main issue. It's more the dehumanisation of the work that makes one resent the whole situation, including the customers. Customers (structurally) do not appear to service workers as individuals, but as part and parcel of the circumstances of their wage labour. Yes its nice to have a friendly customer. Then again, I'm sure it's 'nice' to have a friendly john. But that 'niceness' does not detract from the weird forced relationship. I think this is a comment on people who pay for sex, but in a way its also a comment on people who go to restaurants so the critique has to be broadened maybe. Essentially we have to acknowledge that paying for something we enjoy that is provided by people who are not enjoying it (be it food, sex, therapy, cleanliness, or whatever) is sort of fucked up, but that is the standard capitalist service industry relationship. Paying for sex is an extreme end of alienation, but it is not special in this regard. In fact it is hard to exist without encountering this fucked up relationship with others, like it or not. I do feel that sex is a special case, in that it has so many physical and social implications, but it is not totally apart from other service work in this regard.

None of this is to defend the porn industry, more to point out how shit other types of wage labour are as well, and how our politics should be informed accordingly.

double post

RedEd's already nailed this, but...

And I hate some customers, why aren't I enough? What about the workers in every industry who hate their customers?

Or, similarly, what about the nice johns?

Again, it's this thing of trying to argue the exploitation in the sex industry is somehow fundamentally different from any other industry. It's different, of course--workers in any given industry experience their exploitation and oppression differently. But as RedEd says, "paying for sex is an extreme end of alienation, but it is not special in this regard."

DA,

I think the self organization of sex workers, much like the self organization of other workers, throughout history really speaks to the extent that however different the experience of the exploitation, the most effective response remains the same, collective and class based. Have some decency and simply understand that if your gonna be fixated on the sex industry at least make your activity organizing inside (if your a worker) or alongside to build class confidence rather then spouting that the industry should be destroyed with a tactic that has never worked. Then, once your there in the shit, try talking about your boycott crap and see how far it gets you.

always worth a check...

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/

Yea great job arguing with the opposite of what I said. I didnt say that the "sex industry is an extreme example," you did by dissing 'punters'. If prostitution is like any other job then buying sex from a prostitute is perfectly fine. You ignored my point that prostitution and pornography are one and the same. Yet you would not stigmatize someone with a porn collection the way you did punters. And if, like you claim, porn will be around in a anti-capitalist society, then it follows so will prostitution.

Re: exhibitionism. There is nothing absurd about psychology. Or moralistic, for that matter. And I was asking a question. About the 'searching it out'- thats irrelevant in terms of whether its a disorder or not, its the same gratification at exposing oneself to the public. And what a stupid cheap shot re the 'classism.' It was in quotations and I was describing a "trope," as in popular images and motifs used in popular culture.

See my last post.

Soldiers are conscripts, it is not their chosen job. Your confusing/equating mercenaries with soldiers. And no most soldiers/state mercenaries in almost all nations in the world live out their whole time in the army without ever engaging in a war. Nor does a standing army/militia need warfare to continue to exist. You must be from one of those barbarian countries that's been pillaging the world over lately. But that situation shouldn't be confused with as the norm for capitalist nation states today.

Here's an idea: reply point-by-point instead of trying to condense and conflate different point in order to weasel out of a corner.

Also, I find tropes are a great way to have debate. No need for informed class analysis, just go with the 'popular images and motifs used in popular culture'

No, it doesn't. Two people can choose to have sex and put on the internet. That's not the same as having your job being having sex on demand for money with strangers. Pretty basic logic.

Also, without the threat of war, armies/mercenaries/militias whatever would have no point in existence. So the point still stands.

teh said@ #179: You can’t say that sex work is just like any other wage labor and then go on to say that people that solicit sex are doing something heinous and are bad people.

Chilli Sauce said @ #181: Yes you can.

I say: No you can't: either the sex industry is fundamentally the same as, say, the textile industry, in that it supplies a perfectly legitimate and acceptable service or product and becomes coercive and exploitative only because of the capitalist context of its existence - in which case it should be as acceptable for anarchists to procure sexual services, as it would be to buy a $5 Tee-shirt from H&M, even though that Tee-shirt may very well have been part of the last consignment to leave the Savar-Building before its collapse.
Or we accept, that the purchase of Tee-shirts is acceptable regardless of the fact that they were produced in sweatshop conditions, but the purchase of sex is, for whatever reason, not acceptable. But that begs the question, doesn't it? I mean, what are you arguing: all industries are equal, but some are more equal than others?
There are obviously serious ethical implications with buying sweatshop products, as there are with the purchase of possibly coerced sex services, but what is the solution: make my own Tee-shirts, and make my own sex - in other words: get off the grid and become a lifestyle anarchist? Yeah, maybe! But I don't like the Tee-shirts that I would be able to make for myself, and I don't like the sex I have by myself...

O.k., so let us look at the anti-capitalist hypothetical: assume that in the voluntary gift-economy, some people specialise in making garments, and they are widely and routinely accepted as their contribution to the greater social good. Does it follow that those who specialise in having sex will have their activities also accepted as contribution to the greater social good? If not, why not?

Sorry, but there are a lot of industries that will cease to exist after capitalism--they are far from 'legitimate and acceptable' in any sort of rational world.

As has been pointed out time and time again on this thread, the sex industry is equal in terms of capitalist exploitation. It's, again to quote RedEd, on the "extreme end of alienation". And given the any with any sort of class analysis ought to also have a gender analysis in which unqualified consent is a fundamental aspect any sexual encounter, that means anarchists have no place in purchasing sex.

And, even to take your logic and the logic or Teh, what is so fundamentally different about the sex industry? Is it that sex is this sacred thing? Is it that workers are forced to use their bodies in a way they would not freely choose outside of the constraints of wage labor?

If it's the first, well that's moralism. If it's the second, well how is that different from any other industry?

Because, to be honest, I'm not sure what you're actually arguing? Are you saying that it's okay for anarchists to purchase sex ("in which case it should be as acceptable for anarchists to procure sexual services"/"If prostitution is like any other job then buying sex from a prostitute is perfectly fine")? I don't really think you think that, I think you're trying to do this weird reverse-arguing thing to prove that somehow the industry is fundamentally different--although you're obviously doing a pretty lousy job of it.

Who's arguing for a 'gift economy'?

Guess what? Prostitution will mostly likely be one of many, many jobs that won't exist after the revolution--or if it does, it will be in a fundamentally altered form.

You do understand that communism is not simply the same thing as capitalism, but under workers control, right?

Your last post doesn't remotely begin to touch on the points I made. And I'm not sure why the boys get actual responses, and I get a one line bullshit response to a 4 paragraph post?

I understand communism to be a form of socio-economic organisation that has done away with the concept of property. People make things as they need and want them, freely, creatively, generously... In the morning I hunt, midday I fish, afternoon I make garments, and in the evening I make love! So there is no difference between making garments and making love in communism - so where is the fundamental difference between the textile industry and the sex industry coming from, that, according to you, makes it acceptable for me to buy Tee-shirts, but not blow-jobs?

Again:

The sex industry is equal in terms of capitalist exploitation. It's, again to quote RedEd, on the "extreme end of alienation". And given the anyone with any sort of class analysis ought to also have a gender analysis in which unqualified consent is a fundamental aspect any sexual encounter, that means anarchists have no place in purchasing sex.

And again:

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing? Are you saying that it's okay for anarchists to purchase sex ("in which case it should be as acceptable for anarchists to procure sexual services"/"If prostitution is like any other job then buying sex from a prostitute is perfectly fine")?

And again (presuming you're not actually arguing it's okay for anarchists to solicit sex):

what is so fundamentally different about the sex industry? Is it that sex is this sacred thing? Is it that workers are forced to use their bodies in a way they would not freely choose outside of the constraints of wage labor?

Here is one for you, commie princess. Your posts throughout this thread are really useful, insightful, clear and concise contributions, except over the last two pages. Between you and Chilli, you seem to run yourselves around the same circular conundrum. Either the sex industry is the same as any other, in which case a self-respecting anarchist can avail himself of its services. Or anarchists may not use prostitutes, in which case the sex industry must, of logical necessity, be in some fundamental way different to all other industries... which conclusion has repeatedly howled down by you and Chilli as insulting and moralising infantisation of grown women. All teh, deck and I are saying is that you can't have it both ways.
On the subject of consent to sex, I have long since come to the conclusion, that basically women are not capable of rendering it to any meaningful degree. Neither can men, if that is any consolation...As Anarchist, I have seriously high standards, as far as consent is concerned. It can't just be enthusiastic consent, it would ideally always be fully informed consent in the presence of numerous equally viable alternatives. Hence, before relying on a sex workers consent, I would have to fully examine here on her understanding of her situation and the general condition of the sex industry - with reference to Das Kapital, and fully cross referenced with La Conquete du Pain, etc. etc. Then I would have to enquire about all sorts of equal opportunity issues in her life, right back to her early childhood etc. etc. This is obviously impossible, and I therefore cannot assume her full, frank, informed and un-coerced consent to any act we might negotiate. You yourself seem to have said as much in various posts.
The point of this rant? Neither can I rely on a Bangladeshi garment workers consent to produce Tee-shirts for me, so we still have not established the difference, if any, between the sex industry and the garment industry.

Hey Chilli,
no, I do not intend to buy sexual services from sex workers. But I consider that to be an entirely personal choice, that does not arise of logical necessity out of this or that interpretation of anarcho-communist doctrine. What I want to establish is how I am to interact with sex workers, if I run across one. The simple fact remains that I can't insist that her (or his) life choices are totally, fully, unreservedly acceptable whilst at the same time insisting that I would never ever myself avail myself of her services. The latter carries with it some implicit disapproval, however small. I can honestly not see, how that would not amount to hypocrisy and condescending moralising.
What say you?

Teh and Journeyman's argument seems to be that the sex industry is either exactly the same as the textile industry, or else it is totally different in every way from the textile industry. Following on from that, you either accept that the sex industry is completely different from the textile industry, or you accept that there's no real difference between buying clothes and buying sex. I'm not really sure, from their posts, whether they are arguing along these lines to try and discredit the notion that sex work is work, or to try to prove it's ok to buy sex. But either way, it seems like there's a pretty gaping hole in their argument: it's possible for sex work to be like other kinds of work whilst still being unique in a number of ways.

One of the ways prostitution specifically is unique, compared to say mining or making clothes, is that it's impossible to buy sex from someone without being directly supervising their labour (having sex with you). As well as being their customer, a prostitute's client is also effectively their boss. Unlike buying clothing, where you probably never even see the people whose exploitation produced the commodity you're purchasing, the prostitute's client has to oversee the production process directly. This difference matters: whilst I don't think we should make a fuss about people buying clothes in primark or whatever, I don't think many anarchists would be accepting of a supposed comrade who ran his own sweatshop to make his clothes. Nor should they be of those who buy people for sex.

A second way prostitution differs is that it involves non-consensual sex (or at least sex where consent is not given freely and without coercion). Regardless of other considerations, this alone means buying sex is unconscionable for anyone with any kind of liberatory sexual politics.

~J.

I think maybe the issue is that you see people's line of work as a "life choice" rather than as exploitative wage slavery. I don't feel the need to defend supermarkets to my friend who works I the Coop, because I don't expect him to identify particularly with the industry or be that protective of his employers.

I think if you actually knew any sex workers, you'd be much less worried about them feeling sighted if you mentioned that you wouldn't ever buy sex.

~J.

I find my job at a coffee shop stressful and boring and your very presence as a customer--making me have to work--makes my day worse. It leaves me more stressed and, if you will, 'hurts my feelings'

In any case, Jolasmo has really hit the nail on the head and I don't think I have anything more to say that quoting and responding to this:

So it's irrelevant whether you're exposing yourself to people who are willingly seeking it out?

Because I think what's deviant (another loaded term, I know) is the getting off on forcing yourself upon people without their consent. If you can't see that's where the problem lies--and instead medicalise all people who enjoy a more public sex life--well, then I think you need to reevaluate your understanding of a whole host of sexual issues.

And of all the organised sex worker groups, do you know of any who 'feel' abolition and boycotts are the best course of action?

jolasmo, really awesome posts.

Journey -

I think this was dealt with in jolasmo's post.

Firstly I don't know why you are characterizing my posts as howling? Secondly, I said teh was infantilizing women by equating their ability to consent to that of children. Not in response to the wider argument.

I don't know if I understand you correctly - are you saying it's not possible for sex workers to freely give consent, or people in general?

We can't rely on the fact that any workers have freely given their consent to do their job, as you say. Nothing to do with people's childhood etc and everything to do with capitalist relations. In this way sex work and other kind of work are the same.

So you are suggesting a boycott, however useless, in solidarity with workers who's feelings might be getting hurt at work? That is a lot of workers in a lot of industries. When sex workers organize, I've never heard them going after that issue, perhaps they've got bigger fish to fry? Perhaps this whole thing is just you dealing with your own issues surrounding sex work and your trying to superimpose your conclusions on sex workers themselves? Sorry to be harsh, its just winding down, you've got to drop this.

Absolutely, and I think we'd be absolving ourselves of the responsiblity to consider how consent applies to the non-commercial sex we have if just look down on people who hire sex workers, and fail to think about the pressures, other than money, that will lead people to have sex that they don't want to have.

These issues are discussed quite a lot in feminist writing, and I think in relation to this the problem at this point in feminism seems, in my opinion, to be more the disconnect when it comes to sex work. Current feminist ideas recognise that coercing someone into consenting to have sex is wrong but don't comment on how this applies to sex that a person has been coerced by poverty into consenting to, on the grounds that it might appear as anti sex worker. This comes from the idea that to be valuable as people we need to be paid for doing something valuable. We might forgive liberal feminists for thinking that calling a workers occupation problematic is some sort of insult to them, but as communists I would hope that we could admit that our jobs result from and feed into all sorts of problems in society. It's not our responsibilty to justify the industries we work in.

It doesn't makes sense to see it as merely ethical consumerism to not hire prostitutes. There are a lot of things we discuss the political implications of outside of the economic sphere. I would judge someone, not just as an anarchist but in general, if someone didn't want to have sex with them so they tried to pressure them into it, and I would also judge them if instead they waited until that person wasn't able to pay their rent and offered to pay it for them in return for sexual favours. The fact that I don't think that's acceptable is not something I need to crowbar in to a plan for how to achieve anarchist-communism.

I don't think Deck's flyer is that bad, but I don't think it really gets to the heart of the issue. I'd like to see a model of ethusiastic consent promoted. I've seen anti-rape flyers that very clearly aspire to a higher level Iof consent than just "not rape". If it caught on it would probably reduce the demand for prostitution but don't think we need to promote every part of every industry for the sake of workers in that industry. As I mentioned earlier, the English Collective of Prostitutes include demands for alternatives to prostitution.

It might be interpreted as such by some people, but I don't think it necessarily has to be. I make my living having sex with people I don't want to have sex with and I prefer to surround myself, in my social life, exclusively with people who wouldn't "avail themselves of my services". I wouldn't hire a prostitute myself and I don't think there's anything hypocritical about that.

Spot on.