|
Borneo Jimmy posted:The numbers thrown around have been repeatley debunked. http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-29/news/real-men-get-their-facts-straight-sex-trafficking-ashton-kutcher-demi-moore/ The numbers, like numbers for any criminal and illicit activity, are highly debated. There's huge discrepancies in the valuation and amounts of drugs in the US. Doesn't mean we don't have a big ol' drug problem. That article doesn't use a better methodology.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Kaal posted:A thread that starts off with a big long article bashing the idea of portraying prostitutes as "economically coerced victims who are basically white sex slaves" is actually the best possible place to make those sorts of arguments. "Economic coercion" as a concept seems strangely limited to prostitution, in spite of it clearly applying to every single human occupation. You never really see it used in other fields, legal or illegal, even when it might be useful to progressive advocates. This is because it's a bunk concept that acts as a stand-in for a bunch of politically-incorrect morality arguments about prostitution. Economic coercion is pretty much the mainstay argument about many progressive arguments. For example, about why right-to-work sucks: because employers have greater economic coercive power than employees.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
Kaal posted:But that's precisely it - it's a completely different interpretation of the concept of economic inequality when you get away from sex work. It's not really that different, no. Where do you see the difference? quote:You'd rarely see progressives saying that employees in anti-union states are being economically coerced, equating that with literal slavery, and arguing that the employers should be imprisoned and the "victims" should be sent to social workers. You'll see progressives saying that employees who are illegal immigrants are being economically coerced, equating that with slavery (though, that'd be rare, they'd more draw an analogy to the position of blacks in the south post-Civil War, but anyway) and arguing that employers of illegal immigrants out to be imprisoned and the victims sent to social workers. Economic coercion is a very frequently used concept. You asserted: Anyway, progressives don't have a coherent position on sex work. There's a deep division. You said: quote:"Economic coercion" as a concept seems strangely limited to prostitution, in spite of it clearly applying to every single human occupation. You never really see it used in other fields, legal or illegal, even when it might be useful to progressive advocates. This is false. Economic coercion as a concept is not limited to prostitution, but included in progressive protests against a ton of other stuff, including employment of undocumented workers, ordinary workers, etc. You're now claiming you mean some particular aspect of the reaction to this form of economic coercion, and I'd say it is true that some progressives treat economic coercion that results in repeated rape differently from economic coercion that doesn't, and I don't really have a big problem with that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Kaal posted:What "progressive" are you talking to that thinks employers of undocumented immigrants should be imprisoned and the immigrants should be sent to social workers? That's not a very progressive idea. Oh, I think where we may be talking at cross-purposes is that i"m not claiming this of all employers of undocumented aliens. However, in the cases where the economic coercion results in an abusive and highly exploitative environment, then definitely. To be clear, you don't think that someone who hires undocumented aliens and then uses economic coercion in order to deny them raises and disallow them from leaving should be put into prison? I bet you do, and that's economic coercion. quote:There is discussion of illegal trafficking and slavery in regards to undocumented immigrants, but typically when the coercive force is a coyote workhouse and all the things associated with that (physical abuse, imprisonment, the language barrier, withholding documents, etc.). There's also a discussion of just using the undocumented status and the threat of deportation. quote:You're simply engaging in equivalency, which isn't a very useful thing to do. It's quite clear that sex workers are treated uniquely when the concept of "economic coercion" gets introduced, and that indeed "economic coercion" as an idea is quite specific to the topic of prostitution. This makes it quite distinct from the concept of "economic inequality". If you can't see the difference there, at least as presented in a conceptual form, then you're unequipped to be discussing these sorts of issues. As I said, I do think prostitution is treated differently because economic exploitation in sex work winds up with lots of people getting raped. I do think that makes it different, because we generally regard rape as different from other physical assaults and injuries. As I said, I think that you can argue against this viewpoint, but it's hardly some weird, bug-eyed inconsistency, it's based on the fact that we tend to hold rape and sexual abuse to different standards than physical abuse. If you want to argue about that, go for it..
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That isn't economic coercion at all, since the coercive element is the abusive boss and lack of documentation, not the paycheck. The word for what you're describing is blackmail, and it's completely separate from the idea of economic coercion. Okay. The result is that they're coerced into an economic situation against their will. Can we agree on that? quote:Again, this sort of objection is founded upon concepts that are tangential to the concept of economic coercion. Yes, prostitutes who are being constantly raped are being exploited - but at that point it isn't "economic coercion" so much as it is simply physical coercion. No. I'm talking about prostitutes who don't want to be prostitutes but don't have or feel they have any other economic option.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 16:49
|
|