anarchists-for-big-government:
anarchists-for-big-government:
Cause like you get paid for fucking, childcare, and domestic work. It’s just a non stigmatized form of sex work. So like these dudes wives are really sex workers in a sense too, so like if we can arrange solidarity between sex workers against dudes that’d be really cool
I mean yeah traditional housewife? You’re basically a full time full service worker with one client, but society doesn’t think of you as a whore so you try to distance yourself from sex workers. Being a sex worker isn’t a bad thing, it’s just a thing.
You can’t be serious. That is not sex work at all, that is so fucking insulting and can you not do this?? You can be in solidarity with sex workers without claiming to be one because you’re a housewife, and “wh*re” is a slur against sex workers so unless you’re a full service sw you shouldn’t be saying it. But god this is incredible. Housewives are sex workers now. Civilians amaze me. 😒
I’m a professional dominatrix and pso, not a civilian and I’ve heard various things re: wh*re, like some full service workers say refusing terms like wh*rephobia is lateral wh*rephobia because we’re distancing ourselves from full services workers.
I’m not and have never been a housewife. I support a househusband actually.
I have to disagree, peacockangel. Wives aren’t necessarily expected to be at the sexual beck-and-call of their husbands. If they are, I’d consider that to be more an issue of rape or domestic violence. A housewife is primarily just an unpaid laborer, who does the cooking and cleaning and childcare. Sex is just kindof part of a romantic relationship, which is what the husband-wife pairing is supposed to be. If the husband expects sex when his wife doesn’t want to, that’s rape, I wouldn’t consider it part of a housewive’s duties or anything to submit like that when she doesn’t want to.
The implication isn’t “at the sexual beck and call” sugar babies receive allowances from sugar daddies, and sex is expected but when is usually at least to some extent up to the SB, from what I understand.
True, but still, isn’t the essence of sex work doing sexual things with someone not because one is intrinsically motivated to do them, but because one is being paid, and in which case wouldn’t do them if they weren’t being paid? Yes one might have an arrangement like a sugar baby where you have a measure of control over the particulars of the when, where, and how of the sex, but the bottom line is that one wouldn’t be having sex with the client if there was no payment. I feel like unless you’re in an abusive relationship, the sex between a husband and wife is always a result of intrinsic motivation by the wife (and husband), not a tit-for-tat where the wife expects to be financially supported on the condition that sex be provided to husband.
In some cases yes in some cases it’s more “I would like to preform this service for free but I can’t and still afford to eat” like with my trans woman clients I would talk to them for free for hours but I need the money and I don’t think you understand how many women have sex they don’t particularly want to keep their partners happy. Like it’s consent but it’s transactional consent. Most relationships are transactional to some degree. Like love and care can be part of those transactions.
Women historically traded sex and domestic labor for security, and many women still do. Like financially I take care of my husband financially, in return he looks after me and makes sure I eat and sleep and what not, he does this because he loves me, but he wouldn’t be able to do it if I didn’ financially support him (I’m a lot of work because I’m fundamentally incapable of taking care of myself)
Like yes, the love matters, the love matters a lot, but there’s still the fact that I’m paying for him to be at home instead of working elsewhere. Having a stay at home spouse is in some respects a purchase of labor power, though in my case it could be argued that the cost of maintaining someone to look after me is part of the cost of keeping me in working condition so the capitalist who purchases my labor power is also purchasing his by proxy (which is often the case in history, housework was much more time consuming and so keeping a factory worker in cleanish clothes and things involved having a wife to launder and cook and deal with all that crap)
But the thing is, sex work isn’t always doing something you have no intrinsic motivation to do, comforting people, listening to problems, and telling dirty stories? I love doing all of these things, hell I love giving a good whipping, but I can’t provide them for free because I have to pay the bills, and also dudes who try not to pay sex workers are demonstrating an extreme lack of respect for our work, like I like doing this, and I like how the “professional” keeps clients out of my personal life, I don’t want these interactions to be personal, I like popping into someones life like a fairygodmother, fulfilling a wish, and not having them expect me to be getting off on it, or think it involves any intimacy on my end. Basically, I like being on the receiving end of intimacy from other people and not displaying anything intimate about myself in response. I like the boundaries of the interaction in my work, I find male submissives sexually disgusting but I do have fun whipping them, and humiliating them.
People let me see into their dark corners in ways I would never get to see if I was a muggle. I love those dark corners, I love seeing these most vulnerable parts of people and not being vulnerable in return, but instead offering kindness, patience, understanding… and an outside perspective. My favorite interactions with people are often professional or otherwise structured, without that distance I feel very uncomfortable in many cases.
and, @anarchists-for-big-government, the nasty implication that non-sugaring fssw aren’t consenting to sex is gross, whorephobic and encouraging violence towards sex workers.
Clients of full service sex workers are emphatically not buying the consent of the provider. They don’t throw a handful of bills at a random worker at any time and expect that worker to drop their pants. Receiving compensation is one factor among many that impact someone’s decision to consent to sex. Other factors may include: whether or not I’m working at the time the client wants to session, whether they pass whatever screening protocols I have, whether I feel like working. If a client pays a sex worker and she says no to sex, forcing sex on that worker is still rape. Go read charoshane’s “Getting Away With Hating It” essay on unenthusiastic consent for a more thorough discussion (I’d link you but I’m on mobile).
So, if you’re trying to prove that home workers aren’t sex workers, you’re going to have to do better than “home workers get to decide when to have sex and sex workers don’t.”(for the record, while I think that most sex can be viewed as transactional on some level, I’m unconvinced of the value of framing home workers as sex workers – at least, not without a big nuanced discussion. The ability to carry the value you created with sex away from your client (in the form of money, goods, shelter, etc) is p crucial to the hatred sex workers face. But that’s a big gray area anyway, and it’s certainly good to ask civilians to interrogate their model of “loving consent” and look more closely at the factors that make it up.)
I mean, I can see where there could be some comparison between the two, but almost exclusively in edge cases. Like, If you are the proverbial ‘gold-digger’ (let’s say here, Anna Nicole Smith for example), how is that dramatically different than more ‘sex work-y’ sugar babies, regarding intent, actions, or societal perspectives. Sure.
However, I think that like it doesn’t make sense to compare them in any larger or more concerted way because the only reason that it makes sense to look at ‘sex work’ as a coherent umbrella (when in fact, that umbrella can actually be unhelpful sometimes) is because sex workers hypothetically face some similar issues in society. Like, the stigma that is placed upon sex workers re: employment, relationships, etc. is shared by sex workers and is in no way the same problems or social treatment that house spouses face. Like, that way of looking at it is completely ungendered too, which makes no sense since so much of the trials that sex workers face are highly influenced by patriarchy (whether that be sexism, homophobia, or trans misogyny). Like, are we going to honestly act like my tranny hooker life and my approaches to sex with clients has any connection to a man who stays at home? Because gender influences how sex is approached almost absolutely.
Secondly, this expansion even more dilutes the major concerns I have regarding my sex work, which is why I’m a bit wary of ‘sex work’ as an umbrella in the first place: danger of unaccountable physical violence and interaction with Law enforcement. Like, not only are housewives/househusbands not facing anything near the legal sanction that I do, but they are actively juridically encouraged.
So like, sure if we are playing some sort of juristic definition game, then maybe or something? but at the same time, I think these terms exist to describe certain types of social perspectives/treatment/oppression, and so including people who face basically none of the same descriptive harms and dangers that I do for my sex work just feels politically unwise and pragmatically untenable.
I was saying that there’s a socially respectable way to sell sex, and that’s interesting. Like the point is they don’t face any of the same stigma, but if we’re playing the jeuristic definition game they do a lot of the same stuff, while remaining socially acceptable
also because housewife is traditionally “the appropriate job for women” and housewives are perceived as “pure and good” in opposition to sex workers there’s kind of a “neener neener your system of sexual morality is internally inconsistent”
Thoughts From The Peacock Angel 