The whole buzz around the moral bankruptcy of "#incel" culture recently has been great but it would also be brilliant if we could rethink the ways in which we're talking about #sexwork in relation to it: A Thread.
[cw ab*se, r*pe, misogyny].
-
-
Often because it is framed within more immediately problematic ideas - such as incels' flagrant misogyny, rape advocacy, and claim that they are a marginalised group deprived of human rights - the notion that they should be provided with subsidised sex workers [...]
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
by the government & the myriad shitty issues therein often goes unchallenged in these kinds of heated exchanges (including by myself!).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
The more immediate urge is to attack their entitled attitude/erroneous claim to minority status/demand for public funding, and an implication which thus often goes ignored is that while women might not owe men sex, sex workers do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Well, they don't. Sex workers don't owe you shit. Even if you offer a woman who has sex for money money to have sex with you, she is NOT obliged to have sex with you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
This is exactly the same kind of logic used by rapists who insist that b/c they bought someone dinner, they are owed sex in return. Financial investment DOES NOT entitle you to sex. Even with someone who exchanges sex for money. Sex workers have AGENCY to give or refuse consent.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
Encouraging incels to use sex workers, or subsidising such use, does not infringe on consent because it does not prevent sex workers from refusing consent. It doesn't imply at all that any sex worker would be forced to have sex with anyone. #incel
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.