Thinking about this because of a greentext I saw earlier complaining about OF models.

It feels like a lot of the stigma surrounding sex work in the modern day (that doesn’t just boil down to misogyny/gender norms/religion) is based on the fact that selling intimate aspects of one’s self places a set value on something that many see as sacred; something that shouldn’t have monetary value.

Not to say anything about the economic validity of a society without currency, but I think that, hypothetically, if that were to exist, sex work would be less stigmatized since this would no longer be a factor. Those engaged in sex work would be more likely to be seen as doing it because it’s something they are good at/enjoy, and less because it’s an “easy” way to make money, as some think. It would also eliminate the fear of placing set value on social, non sex-work related intimacy (not that those fears were well-founded to begin with).

7 points

There’s evidence for this.

Trans priestesses attended temples in Mesopotamia and were very highly regarded.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

So like… cut her lawn for sexors?

permalink
report
reply
0 points

It really depends on the culture of the area, but yeah overall it’d probably be less stigmatized on average. It would certainly be stigmatized though—some people forget that many people consider sexual acts in general (that others can see, like posting pictures on the Internet, porn work, etc.) wrong in the first place. A lot of people online don’t interact with these people a lot—not necessarily because they ‘don’t touch grass’ but because these are often the people who chose not to be active in social media. When you consider that they see a woman posting a steamy picture of herself online as wrong, it makes sense why.

Many people have grown up with a very conservative (sexuality wise, at least) mindset, and that’s just the way they were taught to see things.

I think that because of that, it’s not unlikely that a large portion of people would still see person doing these things, even if not for monetary gain, as “sluts” or something similar.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Interesting thought. I think most issues stem from bigot assholes who consume the produce but are not allowed to due to their background/upbringing/social “norms”. And those within their normative set not willing to provide, because of the same background/upbringing/social context.

Also, w/o currency there will be other forms of compensation, like a certain amount of work time, or… (p.e.) a handful of apples… due for a certain set of services.

Additionally there is always a percentage of plain idiots who would socially not be able to ascertain this kind of services w/o paying, and these seem to need to demonize the servicer to feel better about themselves.

Sry if I busted this comment, brain is fried after work.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

What?

A prostitute that isn’t paid…

Isn’t really a prostitute are they?

permalink
report
reply
8 points
*

There can be other forms of compensation in currencyless societies, so not necessarily. There’s also just the personal fulfillment aspect, which is supposed to be the main thing motivating people to work in this hypothetical.

Edit: Other forms of compensation would re-introduce ethical questions, so that’s probably a bad suggestion. It would have to be a post-scarcity society, as others have pointed out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It seems like you mean a post-scarcity society rather than a currencyless one. Sex work done to earn a living is still done to earn a living if it’s in a society that distributes goods and services in another way. I’d hope that the sex worker in question is getting personal fulfilment from it, but unless their basic needs are covered regardless then it seems foolishly optimistic to assume that it’s the case

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Post-scarcity is more accurate for what I was imagining, yes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

There’s also just the personal fulfillment aspect,

Yeah, that’s the reason lots of people have sex for no money…

Like, if there’s no money changing hands, it’s not a free prostitute, it’s just someone willing to have sex with you

It doesn’t make any sense to still call them a prostitute.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

It does if they formally define it as their career path and treat it as such.

Sex work is more than just having sex with people for fun. There’s layers, specializations, and skill to it. Not all of it is strictly physical. Someone might want to just go on a date after their spouse passed away, for instance. Handling that situation requires a lot of emotional maturity and your skill in those situations improves with experience.

Edit: better examples would be sex surrogacy or porn creation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

So instead of being a ‘whore’ for money, Jane can be a ‘whore’ for a meal? Or a whore for a new dining set?

Unless we are in a post scarcity world there will be ‘currency’ even if it’s not ‘money’.

Anything that made sex transactional would just be more of the same old shit we see today.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

True, it would have to be post-scarcity to be ethical then.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Showerthoughts

!showerthoughts@lemmy.world

Create post

A “Showerthought” is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you’re doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

  • All posts must be showerthoughts
  • The entire showerthought must be in the title
  • Posts must be original/unique
  • Be good to others - no bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia
  • Adhere to Lemmy’s Code of Conduct

Community stats

  • 6.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 935

    Posts

  • 8.5K

    Comments