Thinking about this because of a greentext I saw earlier complaining about OF models.

It feels like a lot of the stigma surrounding sex work in the modern day (that doesn’t just boil down to misogyny/gender norms/religion) is based on the fact that selling intimate aspects of one’s self places a set value on something that many see as sacred; something that shouldn’t have monetary value.

Not to say anything about the economic validity of a society without currency, but I think that, hypothetically, if that were to exist, sex work would be less stigmatized since this would no longer be a factor. Those engaged in sex work would be more likely to be seen as doing it because it’s something they are good at/enjoy, and less because it’s an “easy” way to make money, as some think. It would also eliminate the fear of placing set value on social, non sex-work related intimacy (not that those fears were well-founded to begin with).

  • DharkStare@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t think you’d have prostitution in a currencyless society. They wouldn’t be prostitutes at that point.

    • Plopp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      You don’t need currency for it to be prostitution. Prostitution is exchanging sex for goods, services or currency.

    • ryathal
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      So if I paid in chickens then it’s not prostitution?

        • ryathal
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Chickens aren’t currency. Trade and currency are two different things.

          • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’d counter that prostitution is sex work in exchange for something of value, and chickens still 100% qualify. I don’t think splitting hairs on currency vs. chickens changes anything here

            • ryathal
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Exchanging things is trade. Currency is a medium of exchange. Not having currency doesn’t stop trade, it just makes it more difficult.

                • qarbone@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Yes, and that would not be currency. It might be useful to think of this as a tiered system.

                  ‘Trade’ is a top-level idea, an exchange between entities. On a tier below that, i.e. a closer specification of ‘trade’, exists ‘barter’ (trading goods for other goods or services) and ‘money’ (trading some representational, notional item for goods/services). ‘Chickens’ as a payment is a further specification of bartering, while ‘currency’ is a further specification of ‘money’ (being ‘money’ defined/in use by a specific power/state).

    • Ibaudia@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      There are more forms of sex work than just prostitution, though. Porn, sex surrogacy, etc. People can find those rewarding outside monetary incentive.