cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18475086

I’m not against those who work for sex, but the idea to earn for a living doesn’t seem nice. IMO, sex should be for 2 people (or more for others who prefer polyamory) who wants to be intimate/romantic with each other. My point is money should not be the purpose.

  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    40·
    4 months ago

    Sex work is work, and work (tying your capacity for labor to your continued survival) is bad. Sex workers should be supported like any member of the proletariat

    Sex labor on the other hand? Sure as long as you have removed the exploitive element that comes with work.

    • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      7·
      4 months ago

      Can you elaborate on the work vs labor dichotomy?

      I’m not familiar with the concept, especially because in my language the two would be almost exact synonyms in this context (unless you are Hercules or what not). And Latin languages just get the one.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        2·
        4 months ago

        Labor is when you do a thing that has value to society.

        Work is like, a job, where you do labor (or not) and that pays you so that you can spend money to sustain your existence. If you get disabled you can be fired and not have money long term to continue existing.

        People, ironically enough, are more efficient laborers when they aren’t doing it in the trappings of work, so there isn’t any reason for work to exist.

        • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          3·
          4 months ago

          Are you the only person using that definition?

          Because traditionally English speaking Marxists use them the other way around, as far as I remember, (work is useful, produces use value, labor is economic, produces economic value) if they make that distinction at all.

          See for example:

          https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/download/546/598#:~:text=In the Marxist tradition%2C the,(Fuchs and Sevignani 2013).

          (Posted without endorsement)

          EDIT

          Apparently the English edition includes a footnote by Friedrich Engels:

          As has been stated in a previous note, the English language has two different expressions for these two different aspects of labour: in the Simple Labour-process, the process of producing Use-Values, it is *Work; *in the process of creation of Value, it is *Labour, *taking the term in its strictly economic sense. — F. E.

          Which reads very much like you are using them wrong.

          • InputZero@lemmy.ml
            4·
            4 months ago

            They are not the only person who uses the words for each other. When I was doing my undergrad I found that myself and my fellow students used them pretty loosely goosey. As a native English speaker I’ve never had any difficulty telling which way a speaker intended labor and work to mean. The context provided enough. I can see how for people who are not native English speakers, but this isn’t an academic institution. In casual conversation either or are appropriate.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            1·
            4 months ago

            This isn’t in the context of utility value vs exchange value. This is separating value creation from the mode of production. Work as in workplace not work as in physical process

            • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              2·
              4 months ago

              Be that as it may, your ad hoc definition in your first comment was spurious and finds no basis in English language Marxist literature.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                1·
                4 months ago

                Can you phrase this as constructive criticism for which are the proper words to use in this seperate use case or do I need to refer you to the constructive criticism handbook?

                Also, establishing working definitions for use in casual conversation is a thing. Please note that I established definitions for their use.