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

Lydia Lightfoot · **11-06-2015, 04:31 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:26 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: To play devil's advocate for a moment, Barista's don't get murdered, trafficked, and raped at much higher rates than the populace at large.

I don't agree with parts of the 'Crusade' either, but your comparison is disingenuous.

...and if they did, I bet you a lot less people would decide to undertake a career as a barista, wouldn't they?

Sorrynotsorry, but I can't be sympathetic to the consequences of a life someone is choosing to live. Unless we're talking literal sex slavery, this is a choice to undertake those risks as a part of the job. In every country in Western Civilization (and a majority of countries elsewhere in the world) humans are able to choose what to do for a living. Yes, there has to be demand for workers in a given field in a given region. We're also capable of relocating to other places where there's more demand for work of a type that we want to do and which has a risk level we're willing to tolerate.

Zhavi · **11-06-2015, 04:32 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:24 AM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 04:19 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: As Marx and Engels say, the definition of being a "Worker" is the inability to refuse work.Â

That a worker must accept the best work they can find, or perish.Â

I would not judge anyone too harshly for their line of work, friend. If they could find a better paying/safer job, they'd probably do it. However life is not always so kind.

I'm unclear as to where I judged her line of work. I'm pretty sure I judged her for claiming her choice of work is a justification to claim social injustice is occurring towards her.Â

If the guy at Starbucks wants to get butthurt because some people don't call him "barista" and instead refer to him as "coffee dude", that's not social injustice either and also doesn't warrant a PC crusade.

I think the issue at hand is that coffee dude is not being marginalized or at risk for injury, death, or inappropriate legal ramifications based on an old moral point of view that is changing.

I'm particularly persnickety about language, and you know, maybe I'm wrong or whatever. Fine if people disagree with me -- but people in the sex industry are being victimized. It's your choice if you think they deserve it or whatever, but it is a bit of a rights thing. If a person decides they want to use their body for sex, does that make it okay to injure or kill them? Is it the government's place to tell someone what they can or can't do with their body? Is it okay to use hate speech against someone just because of their line of work? Those types of questions, which are directly related to the point of trying to minimize harm to people who choose (or are forced via bad socioeconomic conditions) this line of work.

I just disagree about the language and the presentation. But I do believe there is an issue with sex and morality that is dated and no longer relevant that is harmful not only to people in the sex industry, but .... pretty much everyone. Some much more than others.

Verad · **11-06-2015, 04:33 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:31 AM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 04:26 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: To play devil's advocate for a moment, Barista's don't get murdered, trafficked, and raped at much higher rates than the populace at large.

I don't agree with parts of the 'Crusade' either, but your comparison is disingenuous.

...and if they did, I bet you a lot less people would decide to undertake a career as a barista, wouldn't they?

Sorrynotsorry, but I can't be sympathetic to the consequences of a life someone is choosing to live. Unless we're talking literal sex slavery, this is a choice to undertake those risks as a part of the job. In every country in Western Civilization (and a majority of countries elsewhere in the world) humans are able to choose what to do for a living. Yes, there has to be demand for workers in a given field in a given region. We're also capable of relocating to other places where there's more demand for work of a type that we want to do and which has a risk level we're willing to tolerate.

Thank you for your honesty! Never be in a position to determine policy.

LiadansWhisper · **11-06-2015, 04:33 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:30 AM)Verad Wrote: They can, and do, and have. That they are not advocating here en masseÂ does not say that somehow sex worker rights groups are scattered and leaderless, roaming the land in anarchic tribes. Rather, not many of them are also RPers in FF14.

As for accuracy, I don't know how doÂ you measure credibility? What is the standard of evidence that would say "Okay, my friend of ten years is wrong"?

When y'all organize and actually can show that Umi's opinion does represent the majority of those in the sex industry, then I'll accept that my friend's opinion is not accurate.

McBeefâ„¢ · **11-06-2015, 04:34 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:31 AM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 04:26 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: To play devil's advocate for a moment, Barista's don't get murdered, trafficked, and raped at much higher rates than the populace at large.

I don't agree with parts of the 'Crusade' either, but your comparison is disingenuous.

...and if they did, I bet you a lot less people would decide to undertake a career as a barista, wouldn't they?

Sorrynotsorry, but I can't be sympathetic to the consequences of a life someone is choosing to live. Unless we're talking literal sex slavery, this is a choice to undertake those risks as a part of the job. In every country in Western Civilization (and a majority of countries elsewhere in the world) humans are able to choose what to do for a living. Yes, there has to be demand for workers in a given field in a given region. We're also capable of relocating to other places where there's more demand for work of a type that we want to do and which has a risk level we're willing to tolerate.

That's the thing though, it's often not a job, as it's illegal in 49 states.

Those prostitutes who physically sell sex for money are criminals in the eyes of the state, and generally are doing so because they have no other option.Â

I'm not sure where you live, but to view prostitutes as any other form of mobile labor is a happy thought here in America.

Verad · **11-06-2015, 04:35 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:33 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 04:30 AM)Verad Wrote: They can, and do, and have. That they are not advocating here en masseÂ does not say that somehow sex worker rights groups are scattered and leaderless, roaming the land in anarchic tribes. Rather, not many of them are also RPers in FF14.

As for accuracy, I don't know how doÂ you measure credibility? What is the standard of evidence that would say "Okay, my friend of ten years is wrong"?

When y'all organize and actually can show that Umi's opinion does represent the majority of those in the sex industry, then I'll accept that my friend's opinion is not accurate.

Are there any hidden stipulations in this? I do not mean to accuse of goalpost shifting, but it gets really annoying posting a statistic that meets criteria and then find out, "Oh, well, that doesn't really count because . . . "

Lydia Lightfoot · **11-06-2015, 04:35 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:26 AM)Verad Wrote: You ever see a guy at Starbucks get the shit beaten out of him for making a latte wrong, and then the cops at best don't pursue charges because he was asking for it, working in that job, or, at worse, arrest him instead?

If you did, god damn, you have some hardcore coffee shops.

Nope, I can't say that I've ever seen that happen to a barista. I've heard of it happening to plenty of people in plenty of job types, though, and every single one of them was working in that job because they chose to do that job and did so with an understanding of the risk they were accepting in the process.

Are we next going to have a forum topic about how it's unacceptable to call a soldier a soldier, and we have to refer to them as "government civil defense personnel" or some nonsense? Hey, those guys accept jobs where risk of injury or death are a part of their job, too. Let's include them in this discussion if that's your basis of argument.

Verad · **11-06-2015, 04:36 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:35 AM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 04:26 AM)Verad Wrote: You ever see a guy at Starbucks get the shit beaten out of him for making a latte wrong, and then the cops at best don't pursue charges because he was asking for it, working in that job, or, at worse, arrest him instead?

If you did, god damn, you have some hardcore coffee shops.

Nope, I can't say that I've ever seen that happen to a barista. I've heard of it happening to plenty of people in plenty of job types, though, and every single one of them was working in that job because they chose to do that job and did so with an understanding of the risk they were accepting in the process.

Are we next going to have a forum topic about how it's unacceptable to call a soldier a soldier, and we have to refer to them as "government civil defense personnel" or some nonsense? Hey, those guys accept jobs where risk of injury or death are a part of their job, too. Let's include them in this discussion if that's your basis of argument.

Sure, why not? What do they prefer to be called?

Edit: Oh, wait, you're trying to argue it's absurd, okay. Yeah, but it's not, because people get really mad when soldiers are called babykillers and not what they prefer to be called.

Val · **11-06-2015, 04:38 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:29 AM)Berrod Armstrong Wrote: As a former sex worker and someone who has been called the n word more times than I can count, this thread boggles my mind. OP, I appreciate where you're coming from, and thank you for trying to educate people.Â

Just...I honestly don't feel the same way about those words, they're very 'whatever'. They were always 'whatever'. When I got into the business, I accepted that some of those words would be used against me, and through that, I armored myself to make sure they had no power. I didn't have any 'community' to stand with, it was just me and my boss. That language would only be harmful to me if I let it harm me (and when some dude is delighting in calling you a 'Big d**k n*****r w***e' and you gotta keep it up, yeah...).

It's understandable if you find the words harmful, but using the group of sex workers you know to speak for all of us is uh -- I dunno it puts me off a little.Â

However! Take my words with a grain of salt, since I did it more as an outlet for my own condition than to make a living. Apparently that plus being male severely decreases the value of my opinion on the matter, according to the angry first world internet.

Awareness is good though, and I enjoyed reading most of your post.

I'm just going to quote this and put it out in the open because apparently we're all too busy arguing with each other to see the entirely valid points that Berrod brings up.

Lydia Lightfoot · **11-06-2015, 04:38 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:34 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: That's the thing though, it's often not a job, as it's illegal in 49 states.

Those prostitutes who physically sell sex for money are criminals in the eyes of the state, and generally are doing so because they have no other option.Â

I'm not sure where you live, but to view prostitutes as any other form of mobile labor is a happy thought here in America.

Plenty of people choose other options. Don't give me that.Â

Bringing up the illegality of it is a good point. If that's the basis of your argument, let's include other types of criminals who feel offended by terminology. Instead of bank robbers, let's be PC and refer to them as "finance industry alternative withdrawal strategists".

V'aleera · **11-06-2015, 04:39 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:35 AM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote: Are we next going to have a forum topic about how it's unacceptable to call a soldier a soldier

If you're calling someone a soldier, you better be talking to a member of the Army (in the US at least). Otherwise you will have a mildly amused/offended airman/sailor/marine on your hands.

Faye · **11-06-2015, 04:39 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:31 AM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 04:26 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: To play devil's advocate for a moment, Barista's don't get murdered, trafficked, and raped at much higher rates than the populace at large.

I don't agree with parts of the 'Crusade' either, but your comparison is disingenuous.

...and if they did, I bet you a lot less people would decide to undertake a career as a barista, wouldn't they?

Sorrynotsorry, but I can't be sympathetic to the consequences of a life someone is choosing to live. Unless we're talking literal sex slavery, this is a choice to undertake those risks as a part of the job. In every country in Western Civilization (and a majority of countries elsewhere in the world) humans are able to choose what to do for a living. Yes, there has to be demand for workers in a given field in a given region. We're also capable of relocating to other places where there's more demand for work of a type that we want to do and which has a risk level we're willing to tolerate.

Yeah, people deserved to be beaten/raped/slandered/murdered for their harmless choices just because other people disagree with them, you're right. That makes total sense. Let's exclude the offenders of any blame and put it all on the victims instead.

Is the sarcasm here palpable? I really hope it is.

Yes, prostitution is a dangerous field of work. (Though, funny enough, that's largely because it's illegal in most states in the US so it can't be properly regulated, and removing the negative stigma could help make it be legalized, as well as help erase the mindset that sexworkers somehow "deserve" violence against them because they're doing something "bad.") I would not recommend anyone go into it. They're putting themselves at risk. However why the fuck should anyone just accept that and not try to change it? Why should we just accept that as something that's okay? It's not. It's not at all. Just because you've put yourself at risk for something, while it may be a poor choice on your part, doesn't mean you "deserve" anything harmful or illegal to happen to you.

Verad · **11-06-2015, 04:39 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:38 AM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote: "finance industry alternative withdrawal strategists".

Bankers also get called by whatever they want. What's the problem here?

Lydia Lightfoot · **11-06-2015, 04:40 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:36 AM)Verad Wrote: Sure, why not? What do they prefer to be called?

Edit: Oh, wait, you're trying to argue it's absurd, okay. Yeah, but it's not, because people get really mad when soldiers are called babykillers and not what they prefer to be called.

Did said soldier kill a baby? If not, then he is not factually a babykiller. End of discussion on that.

Verad · **11-06-2015, 04:41 AM**

(11-06-2015, 04:40 AM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote:
(11-06-2015, 04:36 AM)Verad Wrote: Sure, why not? What do they prefer to be called?

Edit: Oh, wait, you're trying to argue it's absurd, okay. Yeah, but it's not, because people get really mad when soldiers are called babykillers and not what they prefer to be called.

Did said soldier kill a baby? If not, then he is not factually a babykiller. End of discussion on that.

So we've moved from the legalistic to the technical? Let me know when we shift back around to the moral.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (16): « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 16 Next » Jump to page:

Sex-work and Harmful Language

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