lapimpinelaescarlatta - Tumblr blog

lapimpinelaescarlatta · 4 days ago

Note

Agree mostyl with everything but boxing being used ad an example, Every sport which the objective is to beat the shit of another human is almost as barbaric and exploitative as prostitution , what it makes it slightly less abhorrent is basically that the participants both train for the event and are phisycally potentially equal , but boxing mma an all this shit, are a modern spin of the galdiator thing. poor people that beat the shit out of each other for peoples entertainment, no fair society will find that people tryng to injure other to the point of unscociusness, because of the promise of getting rich and famous is entertainnment. Also it encourages the idea that violence is a cool pastime , that is normal to want to beat another humane being for fun, in some situations wehter be the ring or the bed this social script is bad for everybody. it commodifies literal acts of violence

I don't quite get the delineation between a body performing labour and labour performed by a body, especially with regards to non-penatrative sex work. How is paying someone for a hand job different to paying them to perform stunt work? To me the latter seems way more dangerous and bodily harmful, but still morally acceptable.

Hi thanks for the ask! This is going to be longggggg, so sorry in advance. TL;DR under the cut at the bottom

I actually love that you asked this because that's something I've never thought about before, regarding stunt work. The argument I usually hear is that it's no different from regular service jobs or sports.

You make a good point in that stunt work can be dangerous. And upon further thought there's more things, like boxing, that people get paid to do with their bodies that is dangerous. And stuff like modelling, which one might compare to selling erotic pictures.

But if you think about it just a little bit further, you'll realise that we are coming from 2 different perspectives.

You're thinking in a consequentialist way i.e “what’s the harm done?” or “what are the outcomes?” So, if stunt work causes more physical injury than non-penetrative sex work, and we accept the former, why not the latter?

Totally fair line of reasoning. But the argument I’m making is more deontological. That is, it’s not just about harm, but about what kinds of actions are acceptable in principle. Not just “did anyone get hurt,” but “what exactly are we permitting people to buy or sell?”

And from that perspective, the core issue isn't injury or even danger, even though those are key concerns about sex work. it's the nature of the transaction. It’s about what’s being bought. What’s being sold there isn’t the performance of a skill, it’s intimate access to a person’s physical self, usually in a context that would otherwise require consent rooted in mutual desire. That’s where I draw the line: the transaction turns what should be mutual and personal into something contractual and one-sided.

So, this is where the distinction between “labour performed by a body” and “the body performing the labour” really matters imo.

When a stuntperson gets paid, they’re offering a performance. their body is a tool they control to do something. Even in work like boxing, modelling, or nursing, the labour is being performed by the body. The client isn’t buying the body itself, or the right to do something to it. The service depends on the worker’s active skill, decisions, movements, techniques.

Now compare that to a hand job for money. The buyer isn’t paying to watch you flex your hand muscles. They’re not admiring your technique. They’re paying to experience sexual access to your body. And that’s a different kind of transaction.

It’s not that sex is “sacred” or that touch must be romantic. It's that, deontologically, once you allow bodies themselves, especially sexual access to them, to be bought, you've crossed into a kind of commodification that’s fundamentally different from renting labour. Even if no one gets hurt, the worry is: what are we normalising by making that kind of transaction legal and acceptable? What does it say about what a person is allowed to sell? Or more precisely, what someone else is allowed to buy?

There’s a quote attributed to a woman called Françoise Héritier that I like, “Arguing that women have the right to sell their bodies is an attempt to hide the argument that men have the right to buy women”.

People get real uncomfortable whenever that’s brought up. Everyone likes to focus on the right of the woman to do whatever, whether they’re for or against sex work. But few people like to think about what it means in a society that a man can trade money for access to a woman’s body. Because thinking about this shows us what a society that legalizes sex trade teaches men about entitlement, and what they are entitled to when it comes to women.

The convo around sex work legalization often centers on the idea that it’s about giving people the chance to make a living or have more control over their own bodies, it’s easy to forget that the majority of sex workers will not truly benefit from this shift. It’s one thing to think about legalization in terms of making sex work safer or more legitimate, but for many, it will just be another layer of bureaucracy and regulation that doesn’t address the core issues of exploitation, poverty, or violence. Those who are already the most marginalized will still face the same risks and systemic barriers, whether it’s because they can’t access legal protections or because they’re not in a position to benefit from a more ��regulated” system.

And I think the modelling comparison is actually useful here—not to flatten the differences, but to highlight them. Because modelling is bodily and sometimes sexualised. Models often pose in ways that accentuate physical features, perform desirability, even eroticism. And yes, modelling can absolutely be exploitative—it’s an industry famous for eating up young people, encouraging eating disorders, sexual harassment, the works. But there’s still a core difference in the kind of transaction that’s happening.

In modelling, the product is image. The model is paid to sell a look, a vibe, a brand. They’re performing a lifestyle or aesthetic. “this is what elegance looks like,” or “this is what rebellion looks like in leather boots.” The buyer (usually a brand or photographer) is licensing the image, the curated moment, not the person. And while that doesn’t erase exploitation, the object of exchange is visual and symbolic—it’s performative, not tactile. It’s the difference between saying, “You can look at a version of me I curated,” versus “You can do something to me, and I’ll accept that because you paid.”

With erotic content like nudes or porn, the line gets blurrier, but it is still commodification of a woman’s body, even though it might look like modelling on the surface. The product is still image-based, but now it’s explicitly sexual, and the body isn’t just a way to display a product, it’s the central feature. The seller might retain physical autonomy: they decide what to show, when, to whom. The body stays with them. But think back to what is being bought and sold. Unlike in modelling, where its an aesthetic, the woman who sells nudes sells her body. Digitally, but it’s still selling her body, even though control is not surrendered. (Of course, the boundaries aren’t perfect—there’s a spectrum—but the point is what the client is actually paying for and how that defines the role of the seller’s body in the transaction.)

And while I am against it, because the basis of my argument is about principle, I can recognize it is inherently less harmful for the seller than a hand job. But ultimately, principles do have consequences. The kinds of ideals we build our society on will bear fruit, and even from a consequentialist stand point, the fruit of legalisation can be very harmful for society at large.

In my country there’s a saying that goes along the lines of “an egg that has been broken can’t be scooped back up”. I’m sure you’ve heard something that expresses the same sentiments, but that sums up the bigger and more important concern about sex work - legalisation might offer short-term comfort to a fraction of sex workers, but at the cost of long-term harm to all women. Because once you make this kind of bodily access formally acceptable, not just tolerated, but legally regulated and socially endorsed, you’ve handed patriarchy a permanent contract. You’re saying, “Yes, women’s bodies can be sold, and here’s how to do it ethically.”

When we start seeing sex work as a legitimate job, like any other form of labor, it normalizes the idea that women’s bodies can be a commodity, something to be bought, sold, and consumed. think about young girls growing up in a world where sexual access is increasingly viewed as a tradeable asset. Think of how young girls will view their own bodies and their worth.

What does it say to them when we, as a society, start to treat sex as just another job? Is it just another gig? Do we start valuing sexual access like any other service on the market, complete with stock market valuation and a price tag on someone's desirability? Is a woman worth X more for being blonde, and Y less for a facial scar?

Are we telling them that their worth can be measured by their sexual appeal, that their bodies are commodities to be bought and sold? This kind of messaging creates a dangerous precedent where women’s bodies are seen as a resource to be exploited in whatever way is deemed profitable or desirable.

I’m not saying sex work can’t be empowering for some people, but we have to be careful with how we frame it. Legalizing sex work doesn’t just solve the immediate issues for workers; it also opens up a much larger conversation about consent, autonomy, and the fundamental values of society. It's not just about the individual workers involved.

Also does this advance feminism? Does it really move the needle forward in terms of women’s liberation, or does it simply create a new framework for patriarchy to operate within? Idk how something can advance feminist ideals when it ends up contributing to a system that ultimately reinforces objectification and commodification—where women’s bodies are valued based on their sexual appeal or willingness to provide services. It’s one thing to say we’re working toward equality, but it’s another to legitimize a system that allows the same exploitation of women to continue, just within a more “acceptable” legal structure.

And again, this isn’t about purity or shame. The whole point is that there’s a meaningful difference between using your body to perform labour (modelling, boxing, massage, etc.) and selling access to your body as the service itself. The former is expression through the body; the latter is transaction of the body. And when the transaction involves deliberately removing the boundary of bodily intimacy, it raises a different kind of ethical concern.

And that’s a deal you can’t easily walk back. Legalisation might win a little ease now, but you make it almost impossible to build a future where women’s bodily autonomy isn’t for sale. It’s a trap disguised as progress. It’s hustling backwards.

And the buyers—the people who benefit most from legal access to women’s bodies—will always frame it as a win for freedom. But whose freedom? And at what cost?

Because if your feminism doesn’t include a vision of a world after commodification—if it doesn’t aim to dismantle the structures that make selling your body feel like the most viable option—then it’s just neoliberalism with glitter on it.

Even if there’s no coercion, no violence, and no visible harm, legalising or commodifying that transaction invites society to treat access to bodies the same way we treat access to, say, a haircut or a yoga class. should we want to live in a world where we view bodily intimacy that way?

Think about how we treat organ sales. It’s not just that selling a kidney could hurt you—lots of people survive it. The deeper issue is whether turning organs into products to be bought and sold undermines something about the dignity of persons. Society generally recoils at the idea of organs becoming commodities. Why? Because some parts of our body, and some forms of access, are seen as too personal to be sold. The same argument is being made about sexual access. And I am trying to carve out that line very carefully: not saying sex is sacred, not shaming sex workers, but questioning whether this specific kind of bodily access is compatible with a society that respects people as ends in themselves.

Because we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in a society that already commodifies women’s bodies. We already objectify, reduce, brand, and sell femininity back to itself. So, when we argue for legalising the full purchase of sexual access in that same context, on a feminist platform, we’re not just offering women short-term protections—we’re offering the whole system a shiny moral cover.

That’s what radfems against sex work are guarding against. Not just harm, but normalisation. Not just danger, but definition. it’s about deciding what kind of future is even imaginable for women. (I don’t use the term swerfs, that’s a nonsense term that frames sex workers one and the same as the sex industry, as the enemy instead of victims of a predatory system. Sex work is a symptom of patriarchy, and we are all living under it, including sex workers, and any liberation radfems seek include them too)

So yeah, boxing is dangerous. Modelling can be exploitative. Sex work might not always involve more danger or even more vulnerability than other professions. But what’s at stake in the transaction is different. It’s not about the harm to the body, it’s about the idea that there should be some parts of our embodiment, our literal physical self, that are off-limits to market logic.

And once that’s normalised, the road back to true bodily freedom gets harder—not easier—to walk.

TL;DR:

It's not just about danger, it’s about what we’re willing to turn into a transaction. There’s a real difference between using your body to do work and selling access to your body itself. Legalizing sex work might seem like progress, it's just patriarchal access to women repackaged. It quietly shifts what we teach girls about their worth, what we allow power and money to buy, and how we value bodily dignity. The question isn’t just “is it safe?” but “what kind of future are we building if this becomes normal?”

59 notes · View notes