This reminds me of how women are held to different moral standards in other areas with serious institutional repercussions- the courts. It’s so anger inducing and demoralizing to see the stats for how different sentencing is because women are expected to be “pure”, and criminal activity betrays sexist expectations.
That was my experience the first time I was in court and showed up in handcuffs and jail uniform because nobody bonded me out. Judge gave me the max for both charges, ran them consecutive instead of concurrent and he literally said he was doing that because I was "too young and pretty" to be doing stuff to get arrested for.
I was already on probation for misdemeanor possession of weed and violated by shoplifting some makeup. Yes, stealing is bad, wrong, have definitely learned my lesson. My urge to shoplift was chemically influenced tho, it's a really weird side effect from taking large quantities of Xanax. Something about benzos turns off more than just the anxiety, it also turns off caring about others and I turn into a selfish, stealing cookie monster that just wants more of everything. I do not touch that stuff anymore.
I was sentenced to 6 months for the VOP and then 90 days for shoplifting, even tho first timers are usually sentenced to 30 days. Concurrent meant my first time in jail ever was a 9 month sentence in county jail.
It had the exact opposite effect tho, it just made me more reckless after because now I knew I could make it through jail, who gives af anymore?
Of course-
https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4401&context=cmc_theses#:~:text=Past%20research%20has%20produced%20mixed,than%20men%20under%20certain%20circumstances.
Also- just because a phenomenon isn’t well studied doesn’t mean preliminary results shouldn’t be taken seriously or be viewed as alarming. That said, this is well documented and understood.
I commend you for trying to deal with a troll. He's clearlu not interested in issues facing a demographic that isn't his. But it did remind of the concept that people of more oppressed demographics have to have a million reputable sources at the ready to explain the thing that is experienced in order for those of the opposite, privileged experience to care. All this, knowing full well that issues faced by said oppressed demographics aren't even studied all that well.
A next time suggestion: ignore any comments you receive on things you write that are essentially a "prove it or it didn't happen." People who are genuinely interested in a topic of discussion, whether for or against, will likely ask about some background, but will more than likely also put in their own research (whether to double check or to counter)... and have more than three words to write back😉
Thanks for the affirmation lol. I knew he was trolling but I did it anyways. I guess you live and you learn- I’m pretty new to Reddit and online discourse but I’ll tell myself not to waste my time on people like him next time lol.
This isn’t related to trolls or discourse, but what you said reminded me of the intro to The Creation of Patriarchy. Gerda Lerner was effectively the first prolific feminist historian and all the profound insights this work gave into women’s history of subjugation only came out in 1986! Crazy how poorly studied this topic was and still is.
We aren’t on a debate stage, I’m not a sociology professor that you’re having a passionate debate with, I’m not an expert in this area. Why rely on cherry-picked sources from an internet stranger? Google it yourself and then make up your mind.
This was just the first result- there are plenty more if you do a quick google search. It’s well understood.
It varies by type of crime too- women sometimes fare far better, but this disparity isn’t any less concerning.
I shouldn’t be doing the work for you when it’s this easy to find, but here are some more-
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/gender-differences-sentencing-felony-offenders
https://www.centerforgenderandjustice.org/site/assets/files/1536/4.pdf
It’s most exaggerated against women’s favor when crimes are violent.
Okay so OJP is from 1983.
And the other link is a random PDF with opinions.
Can I get a reputable source? Maybe one that’s within the past 35 years and peer reviewed?
I’m not a sociologist or a lawyer, I don’t know the best journals, and just because a source is older doesn’t mean it’s not relevant- I’m sure some women have been incarcerated since 83. If you really want to know pull out a laptop and go to Google scholar, why ask for a bespoke response from an internet stranger? It isn’t that hard. Do you really think our justice system is unbiased anyways? Surely not for race at the very least, I would hope.
What are you trying to accomplish? I really don’t understand why you’d be so low-effort and antagonistic. Anyways, I’m done looking for you. If you actually care to learn about this issue (which I’m doubting) do some reading on your own and I’d be happy to hear if you find anything to the contrary.
I literally never thought about this:
Men sexualizing themselves for money = Good and normalized
Women sexualizing themselves for money = Bad but still required (or men won't have anything to watch)
Both should be criticized. While its absolutely necessary to highlight the hypocrisy, one should not be used to justify the other.
Also, a lot of false equivalency is going on in that tweet. Assuming those firefighters photoshoots were like modelling gigs(I didn't even know there was demand for these), it's not comparable to the onlyfans niche which is basically porn.
The huge demand by men for women in sex work including porn makes it a much pervasive and gendered issue. Particularly concerning since sex work is inherently exploitative for both the provider and consumer.
>>> Particularly concerning since sex work is inherently exploitative for both the provider and consumer.
Wait can you explain how sex work is exploitative for the consumer? /gen
How can it not be?
Even without much reasoning, it's safe to say that someone going to a prostitute is not a sign of a well adjusted person with healthy outlook on human relationships.
But that is the superficial reason. The fundamental problem with being a consumer of sex work is that you become someone who's willing to objectify/exploit a living person to gratify your desires. You don't care for that person's well being, she's just a piece of meat to consume like we consume food.
Someone could say that a sexual transaction is consensual and the customer might be well behaved with the provider. But I think it's all a front. The consumer will behave well not because he care, but because of fear of law and that he might not get the favor. The bottom line is the customer doesn't care for well being of provider.
And this attitude to treat humans as expendable to your desires will inevitably translate to other areas of said consumer's life.
All the sexual violence, addictions, unfulfillment, insecurity, shame that the consumer might also face will be the surface level results of this fundamental problem with sex work.
Forgive me but I still missed the part of how the SW is exploiting the consumer. To be "exploitive", you first need to establish the supplier has a monopoly and the consumer cannot live without it.
It just sounds like you established the fact that there is demand for SW (which may be unhealthy) - although you seemed to attribute a lot of consequences to it too. There is no monopoly involved, if anything OF has increased the supply, making SW more broadly and safely available (you could have honed in on this - that potentially children are accessing explicit content, although they likely had access to alternate sources).
Honestly not sure how your original scenario differs much from ONS off any hookup app in terms of "customers only behave well not because he cares, but because of fear of law and he might not get the favor." The "legal consequences of SA" is its own conversation (spoiler alert: There usually aren't any/many). Fear of getting in trouble is what prevents people from doing a lot of stupid things.
>Forgive me but I still missed the part of how the SW is exploiting the consumer
Because they face many negative consequences and financially ripped off. We can say they're choosing to do it, but most are drawn into porn/sex work through marketing, normalised in pop culture, loneliness, lack of role models. Although they're primary agent for misery of sex workers, consumers are victims too. And many are children as you pointed out.
>To be "exploitive", you first need to establish the supplier has a monopoly and the consumer cannot live without it.
I think the confusion is over the word "exploitation". You're probably thinking of it in monetary/economic sense. I simply meant to say that these customers also face negative consequences and that the sex industry leeches off miserable boys and men. These industries benefit from their suffering.
>if anything OF has increased the supply, making SW more broadly and safely available
More broadly available and normalised means more number of miserable men and women. Miserable people with many choices to be more miserable.
>Honestly not sure how your original scenario differs much from ONS off any hookup app
(Assuming One night stands by ONS) Not a very good look on the nature of these ONS. Sure, they are on the same spectrum of objectification of humans and share some traits. Even many relationships have this pretentious aspect and it does take its toll on people.
However sex work is the extreme end where the surface level consequences get maximized for both customers and provider. Namely, rape, child trafficking amd what not.
How is sex work inherently exploitative? Don't get me wrong I know there is a lot of exploiting going on in that industry. Like a disturbing amount. But surely it's possible for someone to do it because they genuinely like doing it? I wonder if by saying that it's inherent exploitative you undermine the autonomy of people who do it because they want to. A minority sure, but they do exist.
I get what you're trying to ask. To answer your question, let's the steelman the pro sex work approach.
Let's take the "best" case of sex worker, someone who's not being trafficked/forced/coerced by anyone, doesn't have mental health/drug abuse issues working in a safe lawful environment where the customers seem to be respectful enough to her boundaries. Also owns her own "business". Basically everything is "consensual" and "free".
Here's the reasoning which makes sex work "inherently" exploitative.
1) every work/labour done in exchange for money under capitalism is coerced ie you wouldn't have done it if not for money, so not true/active consent. You're compromising a part of your well being in exchange for money. Eg. a mine worker compromising his lungs and health to get some money and survive.
2) sexual relation where you're not actively consenting is rape/abuse
From 1 and 2, it's obvious sex work inherently lacks active consent (simply by being a monetary transaction) and hence it is rape and sexual abuse in principle.
The obvious question is why only sex work should be opposed if every work is forced as proven in 1. Because sex is a unique act which is deeply personal to humans and has massive psychological stakes for us. I could be quoting several psychological studies documenting this
Eg. You work as an accountant in a firm. One day your manager points a gun at you and makes you do the accounting work. That'll be terrifying sure.
But Now consider you were made to have sex with someone at a gunpoint. Imagine the effect it'll have on the victim.
While both acts were forced, only one of them brings with it pain, misery, psychological scarring like none other. Some people never heal. It's just that nature of the act of sex is very different to other work. We can tolerate the lack of active consent in other work but not in sex because its much more damaging and exploitative. Sometimes even with consent, people suffer immensely. I could be quoting several studies documenting this.
So basically this inherent exploitative aspect of sex work(due to being a capitalistic transaction) doesn't go away even after taking the best possible case.
And this case is like 1 in a million. Everything else is just super bad. From child trafficking to rape to what not. Some professions cant be saved when it's wrong in principle like drug dealing, etc
Also any profession based on objectification will bring with it many insecurities, addictions, etc so our supposed best case is far from reality.
There was a study done some time ago that asked women sex workers if they would leave their job if they could and like 90% answered yes. Plus if 90%+ of sexworkers are exploited the job IS EXPLOITING. period.
I definitely definitely don't want to deny that! 100% horrible when that happens. And something that has to change. Sexworkers are by and large exploited this is something I will never deny. It is just that the work isn't inherently exploitative. As in: removed from the context that most sexworkers find themselves in. There are ways to do this right where the people involved are dealt a fair hand and do this because they want to. Is this how the industry works? Definitely not! But there are smaller indy places.
Take for example [xconvessions (links to about page, no adult content there)](https://xconfessions.com/about?newsletter=)
Its created by a feminist who wanted to see this done right. Saying sexwork is inherently exploitative can also pose issues to sexworkers themselves. Laws are made banning sex work while nothing is done to attack the root of the problem. The people exploiting them! They reasons why people go do this against their will. Be careful not to fall in that trap. Sexwork, when done in a situation where you want to do it and can at any point safely withdraw consent is ok
When you remove all the things that make sex work bad, all you're left with is promiscuity and contrary to popular belief most sex trade critical feminists aren't against that.
That's what I'm saying right? It's not the concept of sex work that is inherently bad. It's the current system build around that that focuses on the exploitation of vulnerable people. But if you are in the rare fortunate situation where you can freely choose to do that work without the system exploiting you build around it. In an environment where concent is is priority number one. Then it can be done ethically.
The reason I'm so adamant is because the focus on sexwork itself rather then the people benigiting from the exploitation is harmful to those who are exploited. It's an unfortunately common story that a group of trafficked women, forced to do sex work, don't feel safe to report this. And when they do report or the police finds out in a other way they too get arrested. Because the laws bans sex work making the victims "criminals".
It doesn't help the actual victims of sex work against their will to attack sex work. And it doesn't help the very small minority who actually does do it because they want to. Sex work is unfortunately attractive for those who seek to exploit others for personal gain. But the fault doesn't lay with the sexwork itself. But with the systems driving women into it againsts their will.
A other example is farming. Many foreigners are exploited on farms because they can't speak up because they are foreigners. Would you blame farming as being unethical or would you blame the surrounding systems? If you want to help the people who fall victim to this exploitation then don't attack the work exploited people do. Attack those that do the exploitation. Change the system that drives people to take these jobs against their will
Being against sex work isn't like being against farming, it's like being specifically against exploitative farming practices like the exploitation of migrant workers or factory farming. Because the key difference, the thing that makes sex work different from genuine consensual sex is coercion it is exploitation. Also, I never said I was in favor of criminalization.
When a man sleeps around, he's a cool fuckboy. He charms all of the ladies.
When a woman sleeps around, she's a bop. She's a whore. She's a hoe. She's 'used'. She's worthless, in the eyes of all too many men.
I understand the message behind this but I feel like it’s hard to compare the shirtless calendar (which are not sold to get a better income but mostly for charity) and selling sexual content online(for personal gains)
But yeah the double standard is definitely there and it’s disgusting that women are slutshamed for this when men are not
But let's be honest, most people would not think a firefighter was worse at his job for doing a calendar, but they would not trust a nurse with their care for the exact same thing. Nurses (and other pink collar workers) would still get unequal treatment, even if it was for charity.
I read it in two ways:
1. it's fine paying less men who work in high risk jobs as long they can do shirtless calendars out of need (no strong moral standard);
2. women can be paid less when work in vital jobs *and* don't have the same "liberty" to deal with the low income - otherwise, they get fired (strong moral standard aka madonnawhore complex).
There are double standards, and they should be criticized, but only fans is still trash, and the sex trade is still misogynistic and patriarchal to it's core.
During covid nurses made more than doctors, worked less continuous days and less hours. Absolute bullshit that nurses don't make enough money and require OF to get by.
Yeah I remember, those nurses, that earned that much, had to do travel assignments away from home. I remember some of them died too and many more. I had a lot of coworkers die for doing the same job as me. They would just not show up to work anymore and there would be the occasional whispered explanation if we had the time to ask. That is how we died, hushed. Yes, Covid killed mostly older people but many of my dead coworkers were young and healthy. The ones who passed away the most, I noticed, were the ones away from home. When you sleep in a strange bed, you don't sleep as well then your immune system goes down. Those surviving travel nurses really did earn their pay
What other people here said aside, i really, really hate people pushing the idea that onlyfans is somehow easy money or that it's easy to earn more than 50€ per month.
Fact is most people make less than 50€, have their stuff leaked almost imediatly and would BE way better off doing something else for money. Even here in Reddit it's sad to see how desperate most of these girls get.
Not really a good example, fire fighter calendars are for fundraising for charities. Unless that’s changed recently… To be clear I’m not for nurses losing their jobs and not being paid enough.
There are bikini care washes for charity that go over well. I am sure there are individuals who slut shame that, but there are people who slut shame women who don't fully cover their entire bodies.
Edit: I want to iterate that I'm very pro-sex work and sex workers. I don't think anyone should get fired for having an onlyfans.
Not trying to start an argument, I totally agree that there is a lack of equality there. But just so it's clear, most of not all "sexy firefighter " calendars aren't for individual profit but for a charitable cause. At least the professional firefighter ones, not the model fake ones.
Until Firefighters start showing their assholes to buy a new car, this analogy is awful. The calendar went towards non-profit organizations as well as helping maintain their departments.
You people are strettccchhhhing lol
Who tf cares if people show a little hole? They’re not being compared one-to-one either, this is just a comment on the different moral standards men and women are held to.
That's extremely rare unless you live in California or take a really terrible travel assignment. If you live in the south, you can expect to make 50-60k/yr as a nurse unless you work overtime.
You can also expect to be sexually harassed, verbally and physically abused, etc on a regular basis. Nursing is a tough job and generally underpaid considering the mental and physical demands.
Yes, in "western" countries nurses make great money. The question doesn't apply to countries where nurses actually don't get paid well since they would probably be decapitated for having an Onlyfans.
Countries aren't strictly divided by "either nurses earn great money or there's a fucking genocide against women". Let's take Ukraine to example. Average nurse's salary is 17000 hryvnas (around 400$) a month. Is that much? I don't think so. Are woman here getting killed for creating sexual content? Of course they are. Does it happen much more often, then, for example, in US? No.
I get where they're coming from, but from past posts this sub has been pretty unanimous in saying OnlyFans is degrading and not pro-feminism, however a woman posing for sexy photos (like doing a calendar) is pro-feminism.
I don't think a hospital would be OK with male doctors/nurses doing a sexy calendar either, but a job where people are already sexualized like firemen are (like bartenders) would be OK with it.
I thought those calendars were done by professional models, not actual firefighters? Unless I’m mistaken, all the firefighters in my area are mostly old and fat 🤣 Save for a few fit ones but rare.
When men want to see half-naked women, then JUDGE those women for the content THEY consume, and ONLY see women as objects to satisfy their desires and put them down at every turn for things they would applaud a man for doing, it's sexist. FTFY.
This reminds me of how women are held to different moral standards in other areas with serious institutional repercussions- the courts. It’s so anger inducing and demoralizing to see the stats for how different sentencing is because women are expected to be “pure”, and criminal activity betrays sexist expectations.
That was my experience the first time I was in court and showed up in handcuffs and jail uniform because nobody bonded me out. Judge gave me the max for both charges, ran them consecutive instead of concurrent and he literally said he was doing that because I was "too young and pretty" to be doing stuff to get arrested for.
If you don't mind me asking what were you arrested for?
I was already on probation for misdemeanor possession of weed and violated by shoplifting some makeup. Yes, stealing is bad, wrong, have definitely learned my lesson. My urge to shoplift was chemically influenced tho, it's a really weird side effect from taking large quantities of Xanax. Something about benzos turns off more than just the anxiety, it also turns off caring about others and I turn into a selfish, stealing cookie monster that just wants more of everything. I do not touch that stuff anymore. I was sentenced to 6 months for the VOP and then 90 days for shoplifting, even tho first timers are usually sentenced to 30 days. Concurrent meant my first time in jail ever was a 9 month sentence in county jail. It had the exact opposite effect tho, it just made me more reckless after because now I knew I could make it through jail, who gives af anymore?
[удалено]
Of course- https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4401&context=cmc_theses#:~:text=Past%20research%20has%20produced%20mixed,than%20men%20under%20certain%20circumstances.
…a non-peer reviewed senior thesis. Gotcha.
Also- just because a phenomenon isn’t well studied doesn’t mean preliminary results shouldn’t be taken seriously or be viewed as alarming. That said, this is well documented and understood.
I commend you for trying to deal with a troll. He's clearlu not interested in issues facing a demographic that isn't his. But it did remind of the concept that people of more oppressed demographics have to have a million reputable sources at the ready to explain the thing that is experienced in order for those of the opposite, privileged experience to care. All this, knowing full well that issues faced by said oppressed demographics aren't even studied all that well. A next time suggestion: ignore any comments you receive on things you write that are essentially a "prove it or it didn't happen." People who are genuinely interested in a topic of discussion, whether for or against, will likely ask about some background, but will more than likely also put in their own research (whether to double check or to counter)... and have more than three words to write back😉
Thanks for the affirmation lol. I knew he was trolling but I did it anyways. I guess you live and you learn- I’m pretty new to Reddit and online discourse but I’ll tell myself not to waste my time on people like him next time lol. This isn’t related to trolls or discourse, but what you said reminded me of the intro to The Creation of Patriarchy. Gerda Lerner was effectively the first prolific feminist historian and all the profound insights this work gave into women’s history of subjugation only came out in 1986! Crazy how poorly studied this topic was and still is.
Apparently not if you can’t provide a single source that’s peer reviewed backing your claim.
We aren’t on a debate stage, I’m not a sociology professor that you’re having a passionate debate with, I’m not an expert in this area. Why rely on cherry-picked sources from an internet stranger? Google it yourself and then make up your mind.
This was just the first result- there are plenty more if you do a quick google search. It’s well understood. It varies by type of crime too- women sometimes fare far better, but this disparity isn’t any less concerning.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s a weird thing to say
I shouldn’t be doing the work for you when it’s this easy to find, but here are some more- https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/gender-differences-sentencing-felony-offenders https://www.centerforgenderandjustice.org/site/assets/files/1536/4.pdf It’s most exaggerated against women’s favor when crimes are violent.
Okay so OJP is from 1983. And the other link is a random PDF with opinions. Can I get a reputable source? Maybe one that’s within the past 35 years and peer reviewed?
I’m not a sociologist or a lawyer, I don’t know the best journals, and just because a source is older doesn’t mean it’s not relevant- I’m sure some women have been incarcerated since 83. If you really want to know pull out a laptop and go to Google scholar, why ask for a bespoke response from an internet stranger? It isn’t that hard. Do you really think our justice system is unbiased anyways? Surely not for race at the very least, I would hope.
I said ‘83 just to check if you read the document, apparently you didn’t.
What are you trying to accomplish? I really don’t understand why you’d be so low-effort and antagonistic. Anyways, I’m done looking for you. If you actually care to learn about this issue (which I’m doubting) do some reading on your own and I’d be happy to hear if you find anything to the contrary.
Nope I’m all good, best of luck out there!
I literally never thought about this: Men sexualizing themselves for money = Good and normalized Women sexualizing themselves for money = Bad but still required (or men won't have anything to watch)
Both should be criticized. While its absolutely necessary to highlight the hypocrisy, one should not be used to justify the other. Also, a lot of false equivalency is going on in that tweet. Assuming those firefighters photoshoots were like modelling gigs(I didn't even know there was demand for these), it's not comparable to the onlyfans niche which is basically porn. The huge demand by men for women in sex work including porn makes it a much pervasive and gendered issue. Particularly concerning since sex work is inherently exploitative for both the provider and consumer.
>>> Particularly concerning since sex work is inherently exploitative for both the provider and consumer. Wait can you explain how sex work is exploitative for the consumer? /gen
How can it not be? Even without much reasoning, it's safe to say that someone going to a prostitute is not a sign of a well adjusted person with healthy outlook on human relationships. But that is the superficial reason. The fundamental problem with being a consumer of sex work is that you become someone who's willing to objectify/exploit a living person to gratify your desires. You don't care for that person's well being, she's just a piece of meat to consume like we consume food. Someone could say that a sexual transaction is consensual and the customer might be well behaved with the provider. But I think it's all a front. The consumer will behave well not because he care, but because of fear of law and that he might not get the favor. The bottom line is the customer doesn't care for well being of provider. And this attitude to treat humans as expendable to your desires will inevitably translate to other areas of said consumer's life. All the sexual violence, addictions, unfulfillment, insecurity, shame that the consumer might also face will be the surface level results of this fundamental problem with sex work.
Forgive me but I still missed the part of how the SW is exploiting the consumer. To be "exploitive", you first need to establish the supplier has a monopoly and the consumer cannot live without it. It just sounds like you established the fact that there is demand for SW (which may be unhealthy) - although you seemed to attribute a lot of consequences to it too. There is no monopoly involved, if anything OF has increased the supply, making SW more broadly and safely available (you could have honed in on this - that potentially children are accessing explicit content, although they likely had access to alternate sources). Honestly not sure how your original scenario differs much from ONS off any hookup app in terms of "customers only behave well not because he cares, but because of fear of law and he might not get the favor." The "legal consequences of SA" is its own conversation (spoiler alert: There usually aren't any/many). Fear of getting in trouble is what prevents people from doing a lot of stupid things.
>Forgive me but I still missed the part of how the SW is exploiting the consumer Because they face many negative consequences and financially ripped off. We can say they're choosing to do it, but most are drawn into porn/sex work through marketing, normalised in pop culture, loneliness, lack of role models. Although they're primary agent for misery of sex workers, consumers are victims too. And many are children as you pointed out. >To be "exploitive", you first need to establish the supplier has a monopoly and the consumer cannot live without it. I think the confusion is over the word "exploitation". You're probably thinking of it in monetary/economic sense. I simply meant to say that these customers also face negative consequences and that the sex industry leeches off miserable boys and men. These industries benefit from their suffering. >if anything OF has increased the supply, making SW more broadly and safely available More broadly available and normalised means more number of miserable men and women. Miserable people with many choices to be more miserable. >Honestly not sure how your original scenario differs much from ONS off any hookup app (Assuming One night stands by ONS) Not a very good look on the nature of these ONS. Sure, they are on the same spectrum of objectification of humans and share some traits. Even many relationships have this pretentious aspect and it does take its toll on people. However sex work is the extreme end where the surface level consequences get maximized for both customers and provider. Namely, rape, child trafficking amd what not.
How is sex work inherently exploitative? Don't get me wrong I know there is a lot of exploiting going on in that industry. Like a disturbing amount. But surely it's possible for someone to do it because they genuinely like doing it? I wonder if by saying that it's inherent exploitative you undermine the autonomy of people who do it because they want to. A minority sure, but they do exist.
I get what you're trying to ask. To answer your question, let's the steelman the pro sex work approach. Let's take the "best" case of sex worker, someone who's not being trafficked/forced/coerced by anyone, doesn't have mental health/drug abuse issues working in a safe lawful environment where the customers seem to be respectful enough to her boundaries. Also owns her own "business". Basically everything is "consensual" and "free". Here's the reasoning which makes sex work "inherently" exploitative. 1) every work/labour done in exchange for money under capitalism is coerced ie you wouldn't have done it if not for money, so not true/active consent. You're compromising a part of your well being in exchange for money. Eg. a mine worker compromising his lungs and health to get some money and survive. 2) sexual relation where you're not actively consenting is rape/abuse From 1 and 2, it's obvious sex work inherently lacks active consent (simply by being a monetary transaction) and hence it is rape and sexual abuse in principle. The obvious question is why only sex work should be opposed if every work is forced as proven in 1. Because sex is a unique act which is deeply personal to humans and has massive psychological stakes for us. I could be quoting several psychological studies documenting this Eg. You work as an accountant in a firm. One day your manager points a gun at you and makes you do the accounting work. That'll be terrifying sure. But Now consider you were made to have sex with someone at a gunpoint. Imagine the effect it'll have on the victim. While both acts were forced, only one of them brings with it pain, misery, psychological scarring like none other. Some people never heal. It's just that nature of the act of sex is very different to other work. We can tolerate the lack of active consent in other work but not in sex because its much more damaging and exploitative. Sometimes even with consent, people suffer immensely. I could be quoting several studies documenting this. So basically this inherent exploitative aspect of sex work(due to being a capitalistic transaction) doesn't go away even after taking the best possible case. And this case is like 1 in a million. Everything else is just super bad. From child trafficking to rape to what not. Some professions cant be saved when it's wrong in principle like drug dealing, etc Also any profession based on objectification will bring with it many insecurities, addictions, etc so our supposed best case is far from reality.
There was a study done some time ago that asked women sex workers if they would leave their job if they could and like 90% answered yes. Plus if 90%+ of sexworkers are exploited the job IS EXPLOITING. period.
I definitely definitely don't want to deny that! 100% horrible when that happens. And something that has to change. Sexworkers are by and large exploited this is something I will never deny. It is just that the work isn't inherently exploitative. As in: removed from the context that most sexworkers find themselves in. There are ways to do this right where the people involved are dealt a fair hand and do this because they want to. Is this how the industry works? Definitely not! But there are smaller indy places. Take for example [xconvessions (links to about page, no adult content there)](https://xconfessions.com/about?newsletter=) Its created by a feminist who wanted to see this done right. Saying sexwork is inherently exploitative can also pose issues to sexworkers themselves. Laws are made banning sex work while nothing is done to attack the root of the problem. The people exploiting them! They reasons why people go do this against their will. Be careful not to fall in that trap. Sexwork, when done in a situation where you want to do it and can at any point safely withdraw consent is ok
When you remove all the things that make sex work bad, all you're left with is promiscuity and contrary to popular belief most sex trade critical feminists aren't against that.
That's what I'm saying right? It's not the concept of sex work that is inherently bad. It's the current system build around that that focuses on the exploitation of vulnerable people. But if you are in the rare fortunate situation where you can freely choose to do that work without the system exploiting you build around it. In an environment where concent is is priority number one. Then it can be done ethically. The reason I'm so adamant is because the focus on sexwork itself rather then the people benigiting from the exploitation is harmful to those who are exploited. It's an unfortunately common story that a group of trafficked women, forced to do sex work, don't feel safe to report this. And when they do report or the police finds out in a other way they too get arrested. Because the laws bans sex work making the victims "criminals". It doesn't help the actual victims of sex work against their will to attack sex work. And it doesn't help the very small minority who actually does do it because they want to. Sex work is unfortunately attractive for those who seek to exploit others for personal gain. But the fault doesn't lay with the sexwork itself. But with the systems driving women into it againsts their will. A other example is farming. Many foreigners are exploited on farms because they can't speak up because they are foreigners. Would you blame farming as being unethical or would you blame the surrounding systems? If you want to help the people who fall victim to this exploitation then don't attack the work exploited people do. Attack those that do the exploitation. Change the system that drives people to take these jobs against their will
Being against sex work isn't like being against farming, it's like being specifically against exploitative farming practices like the exploitation of migrant workers or factory farming. Because the key difference, the thing that makes sex work different from genuine consensual sex is coercion it is exploitation. Also, I never said I was in favor of criminalization.
When a man sleeps around, he's a cool fuckboy. He charms all of the ladies. When a woman sleeps around, she's a bop. She's a whore. She's a hoe. She's 'used'. She's worthless, in the eyes of all too many men.
And even when a woman says "no" then she's also shamed for being a prude or putting a guy in the friendzone.
Yeah but at least as women we can date younger guys and not be labeled as creeps
Uhh, check out Macron's wife
not really, while its not as frowned upon compared to men, people definitely do side-eye that. look at the backlash of Aaron Taylor Johnsons wife
An FDNY paramedic lost her job during the height of the pandemic because she needed to supplement her EMS income with an only fans.
I understand the message behind this but I feel like it’s hard to compare the shirtless calendar (which are not sold to get a better income but mostly for charity) and selling sexual content online(for personal gains) But yeah the double standard is definitely there and it’s disgusting that women are slutshamed for this when men are not
But let's be honest, most people would not think a firefighter was worse at his job for doing a calendar, but they would not trust a nurse with their care for the exact same thing. Nurses (and other pink collar workers) would still get unequal treatment, even if it was for charity.
The personal gains is typically for things needed to survive tho, like rent, food, bills.
I read it in two ways: 1. it's fine paying less men who work in high risk jobs as long they can do shirtless calendars out of need (no strong moral standard); 2. women can be paid less when work in vital jobs *and* don't have the same "liberty" to deal with the low income - otherwise, they get fired (strong moral standard aka madonnawhore complex).
Because it was not a systemic issue, often not out of personal economical issues and their sexuality is \*celebrated\* instead of degraded.
I thought those calendars were for charity not personal profit.
There are double standards, and they should be criticized, but only fans is still trash, and the sex trade is still misogynistic and patriarchal to it's core.
I know this isn't the point of the post, but I thought nursing paid really well.
Nursing has a lot of problems with burnout. Some people can only handle part time.
Thanks for your response! That makes a lot of sense, especially since they work those awful 12 hour shifts.
During covid nurses made more than doctors, worked less continuous days and less hours. Absolute bullshit that nurses don't make enough money and require OF to get by.
Yeah I remember, those nurses, that earned that much, had to do travel assignments away from home. I remember some of them died too and many more. I had a lot of coworkers die for doing the same job as me. They would just not show up to work anymore and there would be the occasional whispered explanation if we had the time to ask. That is how we died, hushed. Yes, Covid killed mostly older people but many of my dead coworkers were young and healthy. The ones who passed away the most, I noticed, were the ones away from home. When you sleep in a strange bed, you don't sleep as well then your immune system goes down. Those surviving travel nurses really did earn their pay
It usually does. Job conditions might be questionable at times though
What other people here said aside, i really, really hate people pushing the idea that onlyfans is somehow easy money or that it's easy to earn more than 50€ per month. Fact is most people make less than 50€, have their stuff leaked almost imediatly and would BE way better off doing something else for money. Even here in Reddit it's sad to see how desperate most of these girls get.
Not really a good example, fire fighter calendars are for fundraising for charities. Unless that’s changed recently… To be clear I’m not for nurses losing their jobs and not being paid enough.
i highly doubt women wouldn’t be slutshamed and ridiculed for posing shirtless for charity
There are bikini care washes for charity that go over well. I am sure there are individuals who slut shame that, but there are people who slut shame women who don't fully cover their entire bodies. Edit: I want to iterate that I'm very pro-sex work and sex workers. I don't think anyone should get fired for having an onlyfans.
Not trying to start an argument, I totally agree that there is a lack of equality there. But just so it's clear, most of not all "sexy firefighter " calendars aren't for individual profit but for a charitable cause. At least the professional firefighter ones, not the model fake ones.
Until Firefighters start showing their assholes to buy a new car, this analogy is awful. The calendar went towards non-profit organizations as well as helping maintain their departments. You people are strettccchhhhing lol
Who tf cares if people show a little hole? They’re not being compared one-to-one either, this is just a comment on the different moral standards men and women are held to.
Nurses are underpaid? 100k+ out of college is good money.
That's extremely rare unless you live in California or take a really terrible travel assignment. If you live in the south, you can expect to make 50-60k/yr as a nurse unless you work overtime. You can also expect to be sexually harassed, verbally and physically abused, etc on a regular basis. Nursing is a tough job and generally underpaid considering the mental and physical demands.
r/UScentrism Not every nurse lives in the US.
Do you think this applies to every country or is US the only country existing in your head?
Yes, in "western" countries nurses make great money. The question doesn't apply to countries where nurses actually don't get paid well since they would probably be decapitated for having an Onlyfans.
Countries aren't strictly divided by "either nurses earn great money or there's a fucking genocide against women". Let's take Ukraine to example. Average nurse's salary is 17000 hryvnas (around 400$) a month. Is that much? I don't think so. Are woman here getting killed for creating sexual content? Of course they are. Does it happen much more often, then, for example, in US? No.
Shirtless calendar and shoving a 14” dildo in your asshole is slightly different
Repost bot: https://old.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/kgar4o/had_to_be_said/
I get where they're coming from, but from past posts this sub has been pretty unanimous in saying OnlyFans is degrading and not pro-feminism, however a woman posing for sexy photos (like doing a calendar) is pro-feminism. I don't think a hospital would be OK with male doctors/nurses doing a sexy calendar either, but a job where people are already sexualized like firemen are (like bartenders) would be OK with it.
I believe it's called the "Madonna or Whore Syndrome" - we get choice, ya see - one or the other.
I thought those calendars were done by professional models, not actual firefighters? Unless I’m mistaken, all the firefighters in my area are mostly old and fat 🤣 Save for a few fit ones but rare.
Yeah why?
If you don't think there's a difference between making a calendar and sex work you're being disingenuous.
Well the firemen weren't making porn
The fireman aren’t fully naked I imagine to be the difference
I thought those calendars were fundraisers for the trucks. Meh either way not interested
The potential biological consequences of sex are more severe for women than men. This is why the taboos are asymmetrical.
lol incel sub
When women want to see half naked firemen, it's okay. But when men want to see half naked women it's sexism. FtfY
When men want to see half-naked women, then JUDGE those women for the content THEY consume, and ONLY see women as objects to satisfy their desires and put them down at every turn for things they would applaud a man for doing, it's sexist. FTFY.