Let's get this straight. The person blessed with what is basically a panhandling superpower -- an attractive female body -- somehow says her marks, the ones paying $80, have an entitled attitude toward sexual attention. Pause and think about that. Do you think these guys had a Plan B to buy them an English degree?
These places conduct zero-sum economic activity. One person loses money, one person gains money, and nothing of value is created. Draw a control volume around an economic activity to understand it. China: Opium in, silver out. Congo: Guns in, rubber out. This place: Money in, nothing out.
A hallmark of exploiters is that they have contempt for their marks. Well, I sense more than a little contempt here. Don't trust this person around children or small animals.
Of course she justifies herself eloquently; did you not just see what she spent the money on? An English degree.
Moreover, she admits that she understands what she was doing:
> my livelihood somehow still depended on men employing bad judgement.
So don't get distracted. Draw a control volume. And stay away from these places, and these people.
Most people here commenting, even those praising this writing, who will surely rush to defend her, must at some level clearly understand this. Like -- do you frequent prostitutes? ... Didn't think so. So you know I'm right.
If this is the crux of the issue for you, I assume you don't frequent the following places:
- bars
- arcades
- any entertainment venue (concerts, etc)
The impression she seemed to be making was that many of their patrons weren't there for physical gratification but rather a sort of emotional catharsis. Yours is a highly judgmental and uncharitable take.
She's sneering at a bunch of schlubs and you're calling me the uncharitable one? You can frame this kind of stuff as therapy if you want, as something involving a pathetic kind of dignity, even as valuable work, but her essay does none of that. The only people with whom she evinces any solidarity are the convenience-store clerks and the taxi drivers. She basically says that this is not a good thing to be doing, which paradoxically means that her essay is in more logical agreement with my own condemnation of it than it is with your post. If there is to be an end to judgment and condemnation it has to begin with the author. She and I agree that exploitation is happening; we only disagree about whether it is good (or, "radical", she says). The catharsis you speak of, if real, is not something she cares about, because the people who experience it are not people she values.
I guess art, music, professional sports, and fine dining are all essentially zero-sum and useless as well then? What tangible benefit does a museum visitor get for their ticket?
I presume your job must be much more important for the good of society than sex work.
> I presume your job must be much more important for the good of society than sex work.
It sure is and I think it would be hard to deny that. Everyday I go to work I generate a large amount of value for the economy, far more than I get paid for.
Sex work simply isn’t very valuable. Anyone can do it, you don’t need any intelligence or skill to make a buck via sex.
All animals can have sex, most without thinking. It’s the definition of skillless work when even a mouse can figure it out and most humans get it for free.
Some guys are lonely and will pay for any hole to stick it in, but that doesn’t mean the work has any real value.
Make no mistake that’s what they see her as, some random hole to enjoy and she’s trying to cope with that.
Agreed, and I think your points will be missed amongst the cacophony of praise for the admittedly-entertaining article. Reminds you that you can dress anything up and people will accept it if it's eloquent and entertaining enough.
Fairness in society quickly becomes a can of worms. It is unfair that someone can make $80/h in the gig economy because of their body, but what about $80/h the coder makes because they can think a certain way, which carries on being paid as they slam that fusball into the goal, or snore in a meeting.
How many people do you know that get paid just because they “think” certain way? Most of the time it’s combination of education, determination and practice to achieve something.
In this regard more accurate comparison would be sport, where you have to actively work on your body, unlike sex where being born with certain body and features is enough.
These places conduct zero-sum economic activity. One person loses money, one person gains money, and nothing of value is created. Draw a control volume around an economic activity to understand it. China: Opium in, silver out. Congo: Guns in, rubber out. This place: Money in, nothing out.
A hallmark of exploiters is that they have contempt for their marks. Well, I sense more than a little contempt here. Don't trust this person around children or small animals.
Of course she justifies herself eloquently; did you not just see what she spent the money on? An English degree.
Moreover, she admits that she understands what she was doing:
> my livelihood somehow still depended on men employing bad judgement.
So don't get distracted. Draw a control volume. And stay away from these places, and these people.
Most people here commenting, even those praising this writing, who will surely rush to defend her, must at some level clearly understand this. Like -- do you frequent prostitutes? ... Didn't think so. So you know I'm right.