This thread was originally going to be solely on the class nature of prostitutes, and which class (economic, Marxian or other) prostitutes would/could fit into. However, after doing a quick search, I came across posts (below) making the point that the actual work of a prostitute isn’t much different to that of masseur. So, the thread just got a little broader.
This isn’t a thread about whether anything is moral/immoral, illegal/legal, should be illegal/legal or similar, merely class.
Now, my brief thoughts on the matter suggest to me that prostitutes and massage therapists could be some sort of "petit-bourgeois". They "own" the means of making money (their own body and skills). However, they may well have to pay others to act as a contact (an agency) or for a room and a bouncer.
They make money by using their own body and skills. Isn’t that everyone? So, I guess I answered my own question.
For the sake of completeness, here are some quotes on the matter (which helped me make up my mind):
http://www.revleft.com/vb/prostituti…x.html?t=15867
Quote:
Originally Posted by redstar2000
In a real communist society, of course, there is no money, no commodity exchange, and hence no economic motive for prostitution.
It can only exist in a class society.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by redstar2000
All forms of wage-slavery are degrading…there’s nothing "special" about prostitution in that regard.
Whenever we sell our labor-power, we are all "hos". Yes, that’s a shameful thing to be…and is why Marx called shame "a revolutionary emotion".
It serves only the interests of the ruling class for workers to "look down" on other workers or adopt an attitude of "moral superiority" to other workers.
We’re all in the same boat.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by redstar2000
What is the "great crime"? In bourgeois society, everything is for sale. Why single out prostitutes or pimps?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by redstar2000
Everyone "sacrifices their dignity" if they are wage-slaves.
In fact, only the self-employed individual–including prostitutes who work without pimps or madams–can claim even a semblance of "dignity" in monopoly capitalism.
|
http://www.revleft.com/vb/prostituti…x.html?t=45870
Quote:
Originally Posted by VermontLeft
all labor is exploitive, thats the way that capitalism works. but theres nothing "specially" exploitive about the sex industry.
i mean whats really the difference between stroking a dudes back for money (massage "therapist") and stroking his cock for money (whore)?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSD
Besides, if a girl’s working independently (not contracting with an agency), she effectively "runs her own business" and "owns the means of production". That would make her, in Marxist terms, a "petty bourgeois" and hence, while not particularly economically powerful, hardly among capitalism’s worst victims.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSD
Are escorts exploited by capitalism? Of course. But if you don’t utilize their services, they will nonetheless still be exploited. That’s just the way that capitalism works; unless you’re born wealthy, you’ve pretty much got to accept exploitation to get by.
Obviously, we should continue to fight against the institutions of slavery and oppression and encourage working-class organization and unity as much as possible. But escorts still need to make a living; and a blanket condemnation of their occupation is pure conservative moralism, nothing more.
There is nothing inherently wrong about having sex for a living; the only "exploitative" relationship that exists here is between the escort and her boss. The same exploitative relationship, incidently, that exists with every other working-class job.
If you want to critisize the way that the sex industry is currently run or argue for escort unionization, that’s one thing; but to imply that all sex work is "nescessarily" "wrong" is buying into puritanical sexual mores and has nothing to do with progressive politics.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VermontLeft
sucking a dude off is a service just like any other capitalist service. the guy gets something out of it (pleasure) and the worker gets paid. what the fucks the difference between stroking a back (massage) and stroking a cock (whore)?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicky Scarfo
Prostitution, when done by an independent contractor, or when done in a decriminalized, regulated and unionized environment, is one of the LEAST exploitative labor relationships under capitalism. What other jobs to people make $200/hour* for their labor power?
It’s when pimps come into the picture that it’s exploitative. The only reason pimps exist is because prositution is criminalized.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicky Scarfo
In any case, I’d say materially, if we were to remove the social and legal implications, that a prostitute is akin to a restaurant worker. Both provide a non-essential "luxury" service for a fee.
Were it not for the normative social/cultural considerations and the law crafted around them, I should see no difference in having sex with a prostitute and dining at a restaurant.
|
http://www.revleft.com/vb/whore-revo….html?t=101583
Quote:
Originally Posted by apathy maybe
OK, but more to the point, prostitutes aren’t selling their bodies. They are hiring them out for a night (or a few hours, whatever). They are, as I said above, like hairdressers or masseurs. They sell a service for a time, they don’t sell their body, because they continue to have control over their body at the end of the time.
|
Their actions at the moment are placing the public at risk unnecessarily 