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).
Chickens would be the currency in this scenario.
Some bang for your buck-awk, if you will.
Chickens aren’t currency. Trade and currency are two different things.
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
Exchanging things is trade. Currency is a medium of exchange. Not having currency doesn’t stop trade, it just makes it more difficult.
Chickens would be a medium of exchange in this scenario.
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).