aerdil posted:sex sure produces a lot of surplus.... something w/ me....
well all cry sometimes, it's fine.
babyhueypnewton posted:sorry but sex does not produce surplus value
humans
mongosteen posted:babyhueypnewton posted:sorry but sex does not produce surplus value
humans
Despite feminist revisionism, reproduction costs of the worker are not productive. There's been a trend to call having sex, living at home, going to school, sitting on a computer, and other petty-bourgeois pastimes 'productive' or 'contributing to the production of surplus value', but this is mostly first world feminists and bourgeois revisionists disguising their own irrelevance.
getfiscal posted:a nice sweater is a commodity that makes us happy - it keeps us warm, looks pleasing, etc. so why is a priest's sermon not something of value - it's produced, it keeps us warm, it's pleasing, and we're willing to pay to hear it. man does not live by bread alone, marxists.
Many men do u fuck. Ufking houmo.
babyhueypnewton posted:mongosteen posted:babyhueypnewton posted:sorry but sex does not produce surplus value
humans
Despite feminist revisionism, reproduction costs of the worker are not productive. There's been a trend to call having sex, living at home, going to school, sitting on a computer, and other petty-bourgeois pastimes 'productive' or 'contributing to the production of surplus value', but this is mostly first world feminists and bourgeois revisionists disguising their own irrelevance.
lol
babyhueypnewton posted:Despite feminist revisionism, reproduction costs of the worker are not productive. There's been a trend to call having sex, living at home, going to school, sitting on a computer, and other petty-bourgeois pastimes 'productive' or 'contributing to the production of surplus value', but this is mostly first world feminists and bourgeois revisionists disguising their own irrelevance.
*slams your face into an open copy of caliban & the witch until it's a gurgling bloody pulp*
babyhueypnewton posted:cleanhands posted:I prefer sex worker to prostitute bc the work is demeaning enough w/o giving it a demeaning name (whether or not it should be work, it is work (especially with me))
sorry but sex does not produce surplus value and therefore is unproductive labour. calling prostitutes 'workers' is incorrect, a more valid term would be sexual aristocracy. read marx
objet petit a or something im through w/ marxism and psychoanalysis except when its funny
getfiscal posted:a nice sweater is a commodity that makes us happy - it keeps us warm, looks pleasing, etc. so why is a priest's sermon not something of value - it's produced, it keeps us warm, it's pleasing, and we're willing to pay to hear it. man does not live by bread alone, marxists.
Actually men do live by bread alone because all other crops are shhipped to lazy first world unionists who laugh and spit the food out of their mouths as they laugh and they're all drunk. Have you ever heard of something called Maoism Third Worldism?
babyhueypnewton posted:mongosteen posted:babyhueypnewton posted:sorry but sex does not produce surplus value
humans
Despite feminist revisionism, reproduction costs of the worker are not productive. There's been a trend to call having sex, living at home, going to school, sitting on a computer, and other petty-bourgeois pastimes 'productive' or 'contributing to the production of surplus value', but this is mostly first world feminists and bourgeois revisionists disguising their own irrelevance.
well how do we categorize tasks that while necessary might not directly and immediately produce surplus value? My marxisms is rusty, remind me where service industry jobs and entertainment fit into an analysis of productive labor
discipline posted:This is a mistake many socialists make while trying to approach the subject, as they assume that using a labour analysis will necessarily translate into a leftist one. While Frase notes that there are problems with the end of the debate “that revels in sex work as a source of independence and self-expression while glossing over its less glamorous aspects” because it “can neglect the coercive and violent parts of the sex,” he glazes over the abolitionist position (that is, feminists who want to work towards an eventual end to prostitution) as though it were irrelevant. In this effort to make prostitution just a job like any other (possibly crappy) job (as Frause writes: “it’s work, and work is often terrible”), the left abandons women to the whims of men and the market, something you’d think we who desire a more equal world would want to move beyond.
i wanted to critique this paragraph as pretty incoherent but then i went and read the article it references and it too is pretty incoherent. is it really so hard to say: abolish all wage labor, because it's terrible--start with sex work, because its the worst??
discipline posted:The most feasible way to address this violence is to decriminalize prostituted women, criminalize johns, and educate the police to this regard. If pimps and johns are criminalized, sex workers will at least be able to go to the police if they are raped or assaulted and the police will be able act easily.
And we all know that the American criminal justice system can be trusted to be fair and impartial.
MadMedico posted:discipline posted:The most feasible way to address this violence is to decriminalize prostituted women, criminalize johns, and educate the police to this regard. If pimps and johns are criminalized, sex workers will at least be able to go to the police if they are raped or assaulted and the police will be able act easily.
And we all know that the American criminal justice system can be trusted to be fair and impartial.
that;s a strawman and you know it.
besides, i don't see how wanting to reform the criminal justice system to deal w/ things more fairly means we "trust" it. quite the opposite, really.
gyrofry posted:If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive labourer when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a productive labourer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a misfortune. In Book IV. which treats of the history of the theory, it will be more clearly seen, that the production of surplus-value has at all times been made, by classical political economists, the distinguishing characteristic of the productive labourer. Hence their definition of a productive labourer changes with their comprehension of the nature of surplus-value. Thus the Physiocrats insist that only agricultural labour is productive, since that alone, they say, yields a surplus-value. And they say so because, with them, surplus-value has no existence except in the form of rent.
i think marx himself changes his mind on what is productive and unproductive between volumes and based on whatever abstractions he is making at the time. that quote is from volume 1, I believe in volume 2 he says the opposite when talking about what qualifies as part of the the production period vs. the work period (feel free to correct me, it's been a long time since i actually read them. I'm going through the harvey lectures that just came out where he specifically talks about this)
the specifics don't matter too much, you could easily make the case for a housewife being part of the production cycle, or a cab driver, or any specific example. I liked caliban and the witch a lot actually. what I have a problem with is the general abstraction that all labour is productive (the position of Federici and the autonomous school which is all the rage atm), which leads to incoherent politics and liberal, humanistic marxism over scientific classifications.
making a case that housewives are part of the proletariat is fine, if you can come up with a historical analysis and a revolutionary strategy. that is the room marx leaves us, the work of the historian and the political party. but marxist-feminists are rarely satisfied, and everybody has to explain why marx was wrong nowadays, which usually leads to a mess.
Squalid posted:babyhueypnewton posted:mongosteen posted:babyhueypnewton posted:sorry but sex does not produce surplus value
humans
Despite feminist revisionism, reproduction costs of the worker are not productive. There's been a trend to call having sex, living at home, going to school, sitting on a computer, and other petty-bourgeois pastimes 'productive' or 'contributing to the production of surplus value', but this is mostly first world feminists and bourgeois revisionists disguising their own irrelevance.
well how do we categorize tasks that while necessary might not directly and immediately produce surplus value? My marxisms is rusty, remind me where service industry jobs and entertainment fit into an analysis of productive labor
its a big question. marx goes back and forth on what aspects of the credit system are productive vs. unproductive, and thought he says that capital that is not in motion is fallow or dead (and therefore not producting surplus) he never says that those involved in the movement of capital are productive. turnover time of capital is in vol. 3 and is a collection of ideas more than a real system of thought. also heavily edited and influenced by engels, take from that what you want.
obviously people have gone back and forth, but to claim that housework and female reproduction is productive is way too ambitious, it dissolves the categories entirely. this is often the point, once "immaterial labour" or "reproductive work" become productive, it's easy to forget that the 1st world is mostly unproductive and the 3rd world is productive, something 1st world marxists are loathe to admit.
discipline posted:Agustin muddies things further by stating that “there is nothing inherently male about exchanging money for sex,” as though this has been argued. “By whom?” one might ask. Indeed this is what feminists have been arguing for decades – that there is nothing ‘inherent’ or ‘natural’ about men buying sex from prostitutes, rather it is a product of our unequal culture and male power.
By ignoring feminist perspectives on sex work and erasing the gendered nature of the industry; by focusing only on the ‘work’ aspect of sex work, women and the feminist movement are done a huge disservice, as is the reader, who is left with a completely confused and inaccurate understanding of the reality of the industry as well as the discourse.
thanks for posting this and i hope you can listen to the interview with MM at some point. this angle is the most important to me right now. guernica, newstatesman, the nation, dissent, and other lefty press deserve a thrashing over this. what in the world is acceptable about ignoring 40 yrs of discourse on the above issues just so people can shit on anti-prostitution advocates? slapping feel good trade unionism all over sex work isn't going to do shit for women at present, either.
aerdil posted:sex sure produces a lot of surplus.... something w/ me....
posts?
HenryKrinkle posted:thing is, it is true that if you went after johns more aggressively you'd still have a massive disparity by race & class in the number of arrests, charges and convictions. that's not an argument against criminalizing johns tho, it's an argument for prosecuting white upper-class johns more aggressively.
besides, i don't see how wanting to reform the criminal justice system to deal w/ things more fairly means we "trust" it. quite the opposite, really.
targeting upper class johns is basically impossible though since they're not soliciting on the street but rather buying "time" with women at places that can cover their asses. There was an ask/tell thread by a prostitute at one of these joints and from what I remember there was no way for police to actually prosecute these places
Men selling sex to women
published: Monday | December 19, 2005
Tesi Johnson, Staff Reporter
ARE YOU a lonely and unhappy woman who desires some good company, or better yet, some good sex? Have you ever considered hiring an escort to wine and dine you, then 'wine' you in whole new way? If you answered in the affirmative to the former question, you might have answered the same to the latter - or not. Regardless, there are women who are willing to pay a man for his attention, love and 'loving', for an hour, a night or more, especially if they are unable to attain it otherwise.
Now more than ever, women are aware of their sexuality and realise that they have as much right to sexual pleasure as any man does. Coupled with an increased economic power, women are now very assertive and aggressive in pursuing their desires. They are becoming more sexually liberated, the oldest profession known to for men who wish to offer their 'services' to to include openings for men who wish to offer their 'services' to women.
This should not come as a surprise, as Jamaica is no stranger to the notion of heterosexual men in the sex industry. For many years female tourists have been visiting resort towns like Negril to be chased and romanced by the handsome, hard-bodied, well-endowed, sweet-mouthed Jamaican man. How else do you think the term 'Rent-a-Dread' was coined? However, this practice is not limited only to foreigners who seek 'chocolate boyfriends' but also, Jamaican women who are in tune with their desires and willing to actively seek to have them met.
In essence, male prostitution is a little different from female prostitution, as being a gigolo is not only about giving sex. Women do not necessarily seek the same things that a man would. Many just want the nice dinner date and good company and may even consider the sex itself an added bonus, if they do go through with that part of the transaction. Besides, the female libido differs from the man's where stimulation is concerned, as it takes a lot more to get going. So a man who is attractive and debonair, who will make her feel sexy and desirable, will be the one being paid for his company. Of course, it goes without saying that he must be versed in the art of giving pleasure; otherwise it would be pointless.
A few years ago, a local soap opera touched the issue of women having paid escorts. Two major characters in the drama each had their own 'chapsie' - an attractive and physically fit young man who would fulfill their sexual desires in return for fancy gifts and money. It is said that "art imitates life", so this is a clear indication of how the landscape of the sex industry is changing, as men's and women's roles are being reversed.
WHERE ARE THEY?
The question then arises, where do these women find such men? If you peruse the classifieds of one of Jamaica's newspapers or tabloids, you just might come across advertisements placed by men who offer 'sensual massages' to women only. As one such 'masseur' explained to Flair, "the massage can be as sensual as you are willing to pay". Hint hint! Though these advertisements are buried among many that advertise girls who give massages to men, if you look hard enough you will find them - they are there. The market is still small, but it is growing.
Next week part two will feature one man who uses 'sensual massages' as a way to offer sexual services