RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

McBeefâ„¢ · **11-06-2015, 03:49 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:46 AM)PkThunda Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 03:36 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 03:30 AM)PkThunda Wrote: I should add something important:

Sexworkers are allowed to reclaim the language if they want to. If you know a sexworker who is alright with you saying certain words in private, then go ahead! The issue comes up when in a public setting like a forum here.
There are an estimated 42 million sex workers in the world. Most of them are poor women of color.Â

What makes you think you have the authority to speak for them, and say what words the group should be referred to as?

I am a transgender woman, however I don't feel I have the authority to speak about the community at large, only my own opinions.

However you think you have this right? How so? Are you the head of a large group? Did you give a survey? Have you been petitioned?

I'm very curious as to your answer.

http://titsandsass.com/the-p-word-101/
http://junkee.com/sex-work-analogy-prost...slur/43410
http://sexworkerhelpfuls.tumblr.com/post...-and-slurs
http://leighalanna.tumblr.com/post/10870...r-the-term

I actually read articles that are written by those in the sex-work advocacy community and talk to a handful of actual, real life people who have chosen to get into sex-work and do not want people to use these words.
I do not have to be the head of a group to relay the message.

Ah, a handful.

Well then, I respect the opinion of your "handful", though I disagree with it.

How many people would a handful be?

Gabineaux · **11-06-2015, 03:50 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:46 AM)PkThunda Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 03:36 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 03:30 AM)PkThunda Wrote: I should add something important:

Sexworkers are allowed to reclaim the language if they want to. If you know a sexworker who is alright with you saying certain words in private, then go ahead! The issue comes up when in a public setting like a forum here.
There are an estimated 42 million sex workers in the world. Most of them are poor women of color.Â

What makes you think you have the authority to speak for them, and say what words the group should be referred to as?

I am a transgender woman, however I don't feel I have the authority to speak about the community at large, only my own opinions.

However you think you have this right? How so? Are you the head of a large group? Did you give a survey? Have you been petitioned?

I'm very curious as to your answer.

http:///the-p-word-101/
http:/r/43410
http:///post/90478067686/sex-workers-language-and-slurs
http://leighalanna.tumblr.com/post/10870...r-the-term

I actually read articles that are written by those in the sex-work advocacy community and talk to a handful of actual, real life people who have chosen to get into sex-work and do not want people to use these words.
I do not have to be the head of a group to relay the message.

I kind of find being totally degraded to just being 'tits and ass' or 'junkee' worse than being called 'the p word'.. but.. well, ok.Â (â—•â€¿â—•âœ¿)

..and also don't under age people view this website? Shouldn't those links ...maybe be in a PM? I should edit those out of my post maybe. Yeaaaah.

synaesthetic · **11-06-2015, 03:51 AM**

There is never a point in time where slurs areÂ notÂ offensive, unless the following conditions are met:

a) it's being used by the marginalized group it describes

and

b) they're attempting to reclaim it.

It may stop being a slur entirely after it's reclaimed. "Queer" is a good example. It used to be a deadly insult to homosexual people, but now it's used commonly by just about everyone as a short-form word to describe the LGBTQIA+ umbrella.

"Dyke" is another one that's in the final stages of reclamation and is losing its slur status. I actually like the idea of trying to reclaim the word "slut" and strip away its negative connotations.

But until that's done, "slut" is still a derogatory term to describe a woman who has "too much" sex. Also, what the hell does that even mean? I mean, that's like saying "too much money" or "too much chocolate" or "too much GPU power." Is there even such a thing?

Zhavi · **11-06-2015, 03:52 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:46 AM)PkThunda Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 03:36 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 03:30 AM)PkThunda Wrote: I should add something important:

Sexworkers are allowed to reclaim the language if they want to. If you know a sexworker who is alright with you saying certain words in private, then go ahead! The issue comes up when in a public setting like a forum here.
There are an estimated 42 million sex workers in the world. Most of them are poor women of color.Â

What makes you think you have the authority to speak for them, and say what words the group should be referred to as?

I am a transgender woman, however I don't feel I have the authority to speak about the community at large, only my own opinions.

However you think you have this right? How so? Are you the head of a large group? Did you give a survey? Have you been petitioned?

I'm very curious as to your answer.

http://titsandsass.com/the-p-word-101/
http://junkee.com/sex-work-analogy-prost...slur/43410
http://sexworkerhelpfuls.tumblr.com/post...-and-slurs
http://leighalanna.tumblr.com/post/10870...r-the-term

I actually read articles that are written by those in the sex-work advocacy community and talk to a handful of actual, real life people who have chosen to get into sex-work and do not want people to use these words.
I do not have to be the head of a group to relay the message.

No, but you should clarify that this is your personal preference, and the preference of others within this work -- and not globalize it to read as if this is objective fact. That was my point. The point of the articles I linked was not to disagree that there are those who feel this way, but to prove that this isn't everyone's opinion.

Also, if you're dismissive of peoples' opinions just because they aren't in a specific industry, then you're really setting people back pretty far in terms of how rights movements have gone -- alliances don't happen by being combative and insinuating that people who are not actively involved know jack shit. That's not how you garner support.

LiadansWhisper · **11-06-2015, 03:53 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:51 AM)synaesthetic Wrote: There is never a point in time where slurs areÂ notÂ offensive, unless the following conditions are met:

a) it's being used by the marginalized group it describes

and

b) they're attempting to reclaim it.

It may stop being a slur entirely after it's reclaimed. "Queer" is a good example. It used to be a deadly insult to homosexual people, but now it's used commonly by just about everyone as a short-form word to describe the LGBTQIA+ umbrella.

"Dyke" is another one that's in the final stages of reclamation and is losing its slur status. I actually like the idea of trying to reclaim the word "slut" and strip away its negative connotations.

But until that's done, "slut" is still a derogatory term to describe a woman who has "too much" sex. Also, what the hell does that even mean? I mean, that's like saying "too much money" or "too much chocolate" or "too much GPU power." Is there even such a thing?

If you ascribe to the viewpoint that a woman should come to the marriage bed a virgin (even if the man is not), any is too much. >.>

McBeefâ„¢ · **11-06-2015, 03:53 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:49 AM)V Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 03:46 AM)Oli! Wrote: That doesn't make a difference regarding cultural situation or innocent unknowing, so no.

I'm not talking about cultural or innocent ignorance.

I'm talking about someone who holds a full understanding of the history and cultural implications for the word, and who chooses to use it regardless for some arbitrary or subjective reason (they like how it rolls off the tongue, say) with the intention of simply using it as a descriptor with no ill intent or malice.

It doesn't work like that :c

Let's say there is a coworker, her name is Saundra. She's a mtf transperson.

You have many many ways to refer to her, 'She', Â 'Her' 'Saundra', "that woman in marketing" Â "that bitch"

If you decide to refer to her as "That Tranny", aka to single out one possible attribute out of many, and then pick an insulting one out of all the descriptors, it is likely not "Because you like the way it rolls off the tongue."Â

It was picked with purpose and meaning, and is meant to signify your disdain for the woman to anyone you speak with. Otherwise, why speak it? Because regardless of your intent, that's how others will interpret it.

V'aleera · **11-06-2015, 03:58 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:51 AM)synaesthetic Wrote: But until that's done, "slut" is still a derogatory term to describe a woman who has "too much" sex. Also, what the hell does that even mean? Is there even such a thing?

Sex is like video games, gambling, or alcohol.

If you're doing it to have fun and enjoy yourself, it's good.

If you're doing it to cover up an emotional hole in your life, it's bad.

(11-06-2015, 03:53 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: Because regardless of your intent, that's how others will interpret it.

This is the crux of my argument: laissez faire word choice is not practical. Effective communication demands not only knowing what words mean, but knowing how they will be heard.

McBeefâ„¢ · **11-06-2015, 03:59 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:58 AM)V Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 03:51 AM)synaesthetic Wrote: But until that's done, "slut" is still a derogatory term to describe a woman who has "too much" sex. Also, what the hell does that even mean? Is there even such a thing?

Sex is like video games, gambling, or alcohol.

If you're doing it to have fun and enjoy yourself, it's good.

If you're doing it to cover up an emotional hole in your life, it's bad.

I 100% disagree.

Sexual satisfaction is a biological need for most.Â

It's not filling up a hole any more than eating is.

synaesthetic · **11-06-2015, 04:00 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:49 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: I had a female friend who lives in Jersey now and she was talking about being street harassed in NYC and creeped on on public transportation, and it was just so damn foreign to me. Â I've lived in poor/lower middle class neighborhoods all my life, but I can't recall ever being creeped on here. Â I asked her if guys up north are just unmitigated creepers, and another friend who lives in NYC said that they're just exceptionally blatant there. Â I guess that's true in SF, too. Â It's just so damn weird. Â ._. Â I don't understand how parents can raise their kids to be so rude in public.

Yes. This is true. They are so much more boldÂ here.

When I lived in Tulsa and Athens (Georgia, not Greece) I barely had any trouble with creepers, and I was way more into dressing sexyÂ back then than I do now. I developed foot problems so I don't wear high heels often anymore, but back then I was basically always in a short skirt and heels unless it was cold (in which case I was in a short skirt with winter tights and heels).

And I was rarelyÂ harassed on the street. I mean, even wolf whistles were rare!

But here? I love so much about living in the bay area, but I get creeped on constantly. Even when I'm just wearing jeans and a hoodie.

Though honestly I will take the extra creepers creeping over all the other crap I had to deal with in the South, like not being able to use a public restroom without risking arrest or assault (or both). Also I like having healthcare! And having my HRT covered by insurance! And being in the process of getting my surgery dates secured!

Yeah. The creepers may be scary, but I wouldn't leave. I can't leave. Here, at least, I am (mostly) treated like a person.

Verad · **11-06-2015, 04:05 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:43 AM)V Wrote: Is it inherently insulting by established definition, or because society has deemed it to be so?

If the former, Umi's argument has merit. If the latter, my argument has merit.

Surprise! There is no "or." They both have merit.

Umi mentioned that the word had inherently degrading roots. This is quite true. Since people have already bandied about dictionary definitions, let us use the best dictionary, the OED.

There, we learn "prostitute" as a verb is the oldest written form of the phrase in the English language*, stemming from the latin of "Prostitut": I quote: "past participial stem ofÂ prÅstituereÂ to offer for sale, to prostitute, to put to an unworthy use, to expose to public shame, dishonour".

So the root word was inherently a pejorative. Its continued use, both as a verb and as a description of a profession, is likewise as a pejorative. Part of its staying power as a verb is in its euphemistic nature. It does not literally describe sex-work, but selling oneself for advantage. We refer to people doing something against their principles for gain as "prostituting" oneself. This is not meant to be a compliment.

How is it the case, then, that as a verb, this is an insult, but as a noun, a completely appropriate technical description of a profession that is entirely acceptable? Because we have the etymology backwards. Prostitute was not used to describe sex workers as a profession first; the term existed as an insulting verb first, and began describing a profession second.**Â

Part of the utility of "sex worker" in this case is also that it strips away the euphemistic nature of the term by not acting as a verb. You are not going to sex worker your principles in order to get a promotion or get elected. It's a small change in the process of destigmatizing sex work, but a useful one.

*One of the downsides of the OED is it can only work with the written word, not the spoken, so take terms of origin with a grain of salt.

**Sidenote: Prostitute did, briefly, have a positive connotation, in the sense of "To offer with complete devotion," based on a presumed connection to "prostrate." This is now an obsolete form of the term. Damn shame.

McBeefâ„¢ · **11-06-2015, 04:05 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:58 AM)V Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 03:53 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: Because regardless of your intent, that's how others will interpret it.

This is the crux of my argument: laissez faire word choice is not practical. Effective communication demands not only knowing what words mean, but knowing how they will be heard.

Yes, and the vast majority.Â

VAST

View prostitute as a non offensive descriptor. For many, it's the only non offensive way to describe someone who has sex for money that they know.Â

Thus, my argument from the start that this is not a slur. Because almost no one views or understands it as such.

Oli! · **11-06-2015, 04:06 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:58 AM)V Wrote: This is the crux of my argument: laissez faire word choice is not practical. Effective communication demands not only knowing what words mean, but knowing how they will be heard.

This was never part of the argument, and is therefore irrelevant.

The ideas presented in this vein so far are twofold:

1.) One group of people does not mind a word. Another group does. The group that does mind the word is saying that it should never be said to anyone, ever. Is this an invalidation of the other group's viewpoint?

2.) Someone says a word without knowing its connotation, or intending to use it in a different light, despite knowing that it may cause offense to certain people. Is this person therefore a bigot, regardless of their intent or actual understanding of the word?

No one is using either of these points to argue that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want.

V'aleera · **11-06-2015, 04:06 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:59 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: Sexual satisfaction is a biological need for most.Â

It's not filling up a hole any more than eating is.

Too much eating is another thing people will do to escape life's problems.

The purpose of my post was not to suggest that sex is vestigial, but that sometimes we can do good things for bad reasons with bad results.

Verad · **11-06-2015, 04:07 AM**

(11-06-2015, 03:53 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: If you ascribe to the viewpoint that a woman should come to the marriage bed a virgin (even if the man is not), any is too much. Â >.>

This is a viewpoint that needs to go away, or at least not be in a position where it can do anything more threatening than shout at kids to get off of its lawn.

Verad · **11-06-2015, 04:08 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:05 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: Yes, and the vast majority.Â

VAST

View prostitute as a non offensive descriptor. For many, it's the only non offensive way to describe someone who has sex for money that they know.Â

Thus, my argument from the start that this is not a slur. Because almost no one views or understands it as such.

And now they know another one. Is this one less effective somehow? Or are we appealing to linguistic tradition?

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (16): « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 16 Next » Jump to page:

Sex-work and Harmful Language

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes