neolog

The four women I quoted are pointing out that workers prefer to have safer venues for doing business, more community connections, and better legal support for their business. To avoid cases of exploitation, improving social welfare is a good response.

Sex work by itself is neither liberating nor exploitative, just as any other domain of work isn't. That determination applies to the circumstance of the work, not the domain. Better policies can improve protections for sex workers and prevent coercive abuse as they have done in other industries.

The NSA's mandate concerns sigint, so that's what they do. Other entities (eg the PCLOB and federal courts) can constrain it, and the NSA constrains itself proactively to avoid embarrassments. The current result is a tradeoff between surveillance/security and privacy: NSA policy is that they can listen to foreign suspects' conversations, including if Americans are on the call. Metadata is collected on calls two "hops" from a suspect. Whether it's the right tradeoff is an interesting debate.

It wasn't supposed to be a gotcha. Coerced work is bad, especially so if the work is damaging to the worker. My point is that this isn't specific to sex work. Products produced by workers under wage slavery can be avoided using supply chain management, while promoting ethical labor practices that permit workers security and independence. A tradeoff exists between reducing risk of nonconsenting work while enabling consenting work.

Similarly, policies are available that can enable safe and consensual sex work. Supposedly "well intentioned" policies that reduce workers' social and financial support system are moves in the wrong direction: abuse is enabled by isolation and marginalization.

I don't think that distinction is useful on this question. Lots of non-sex physical work involves just being present, and lots of sex work involves skill.

Do you think enjoying the product of all coerced labor is wrong, or only sexual coerced labor?