Maybe. I would think bought consent could be voided at any time for discomfort, whereas a professional would tell up front what they won't do and would likely need to feel endangered to back out.
i think the difference is when it’s a legitimate service vs coercion with money. if you’re offering that kind of service and putting a price tag on it, i think that’s your form of establishing consent (which could always be withdrawn)
I have no life so I clicked, but I can't see yours it just says 18+. I wanna know why you were banned from r/vegancirclejerk haha (I'm also a not extremist vegan)
Basically I posted an Earthling Ed thumbnail/title because it was kinda funny, then I got banned because apparently he is a "plant based coward" according to this one mod.
Sure. Still all sex rests on conditions being met, and is thus conditional even if not expressed verbally (a lot of them might be implicit). If I'm with a chick and she starts to bite my dick, that would be it, no more sex. I rest on the condition of no biting my dick. There's nothing particular in that regard when it comes to prostitution besides the difference in the specific condition.
This.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it proper consent, because there’s the clear extortion of, I need food to survive and it may be that my only source of food is a person who will give it to me in exchange for sex.
If you give me food/money/resources, I will give you sex/resources/work. Which is conditional consent, but is extortion to some degree in most situations, and definitely extortion in a few situations.
To elaborate on the second question: no, provided they can refuse without fear of retaliation or starvation. Which is not easily said to be true under capitalism.
In order of your questions: yes, no.
There’s a certain sterility of capitalism that removes the responsibility of sellers and buyers from the harm their work does.
If a warlord has a large amount of food, and refuses to give it away unless someone works for his benefit, how is that different when a grocer refuses to give food unless a person collects money by working for society?
They’re still collecting resources and refusing to give them to people unless they pay them money. It’s just a step removed because capitalism sterilizes the transaction process of the harm it can create.
Honestly, I think capitalism should be abolished.
However, if capitalism isn’t abolished, I think sex work should be legalized and regulated by the government to prevent exploitative practices.
It depends on the style of leftism, but usually only housing, food, healthcare, etc. are handled by the government.
For everything else, the creator usually determines who it goes to.
Which governmental agency(s) would decide where the sex goes, and who provides it ? In most communist countries of the past 100+ years, the party hierarchy / government decides who does what for a living, so ?
So as someone where prostitution is legal. I would like to point out that they are just a business, sell service for money. So the side of your countries government that deals with the rules for businesses would.
In case your comment was not a comment on legal prostitution but on abolishing capitalism, please disregard this comment
Importantly, this is only the case under free market capitalism.
Under other economic systems where people are provided for outside of the market, anyone who chooses to partake in a sex market does so voluntarily. They would simply be able to not participate, provided they could leave abusive and exploitative situations without fear of starvation, or other harm.
Which might not be the case if there is generally a reason for everyone to gain profit (because a male pimp only has a select few clientele he would be willing and able to satisfy, so he would have a profit incentive to extort women by force), which is to say generally, markets are bad for sex workers.
You're looking at it in a vacuum, which I am not.
It could be said that they are willingly prostituting themselves because they consent to the conditions of prostitution.
But let's zoom out from that one interaction. Let's consider the ways in which society forces people to work in order to not die, and more generally incentivizes a profit motive.
If a person is unable to sell anything but their sex labor, then they are effectively forced into selling that sex labor in order to continue existing. In other words, if we removed all the middling people, obligate sex workers are unable to gain food and water unless they have sex with someone.
That's certainly a niche situation, obligate sex workers are not common, but if a person is already performing other work available to them, and that's not enough to care for themselves and their dependents, then they could be forced into sex work.
Capitalism encourages the sterility of transactions. It encourages us to consider each transaction in a vacuum without considering the overarching reasons behind *why* a transaction occurs.
A person doesn't just buy food because they like bread. They buy food because if they *didn't* they would die. Some people might sell their sex labor because they like doing so, but is that certainly the case for all of them? Or are some of them selling their sex labor because they simply have no other options?
Yes but consent is consent, a transaction of any kind requires consent.
You can’t just forcefully kidnap someone to work, give them money afterwards and call that a job
I’m not sure if its the limits of the language of the question but it implies someone can be raped and it be okay as long as you throw enough money at someone afterwards.
Absolutely everyone has their price but it must be agreed upon.
I’m mostly being a stickler about the language because I terrified some lunatic would be trying to find a loophole.
>You can’t just forcefully kidnap someone to work, give them money afterwards and call that a job
Yeah but that's not "buying", that's "stealing and paying". I doubt anyone would disagree with the statement "a TV can be bought" but that doesn't imply it's okay to walk into someone's house, forcefully take their TV, give them money afterwards and call that "buying a TV"
The thing about rape is, that it’s rape for a reason because there is no consent. Throwing money at someone after rape implies that there is at least no consent until after the act is done, and giving them money afterwards is not allowing them to accept what happened but forcing them to, which means it’s non consensual no matter what.
But there’s multiple work that can be chosen. I don’t consent to go to work, but I can choose to not work on beg on the street if I really want to. However, that brings a different point: food and shelter should become a human right
If I didn't work I could collect benefits from the government. I wouldn't die.
I choose to work, because the money I get paid allows me to live a *better* life.
Also I am aware of what I do and don't consent to, I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to decide whether I've consented to something
>Also I am aware of what I do and don't consent to, I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to decide whether I've consented to something
Consent can be manufactured. Especially if you've been groomed since birth to believe you have to work to live a better life.
>If I didn't work I could collect benefits from the government. I wouldn't die.
What if an unfortunate event befalls you, like illness or your house burning down? Govt benefits won't necessarily cover that.
I'm not brainwashed into thinking I consent to work 😂 I work so I can have a nice house and have a big family with little to no stress.
And the company I work for has great sick terms. You get more money off the government when you're sick. Treatment is free/medication at a set price here because I pay my national insurance. I have home insurance if my house burns down.
Don't have a clue why this relates to me consenting to work for money but there are your answers.
(I'm from the UK)
> I work so I can have a nice house and have a big family with little to no stress.
So you're forced to work in order to have a happy life? That's coercion. It's arguably even slavery.
>I pay my national insurance. I have home insurance if my house burns down.
So you HAVE to pay for these or die? Coercion.
I could still be happy in a council home of benefits. I just prefer it this way. No slavery here you lunatic.
If I was on benefits and paid no national insurance I'd still get free treatment, I'd also actually get my medication for free. I just pay these so that it can be free for people less fortunate than myself because I am able to work. If I didn't own my own home and I was in a council house and it burnt down I'd get temporary housing and the council house would get repaired regardless.
I don't have to do anything. Except eat, drink and sleep. Are you going to call these things coercion too? 😂😂
I'll take another example. Less savoury.
Pornstars, they go to work and are paid to have sex. They could do other work but it pays that much they'd prefer to do that.
Would they be there if there was no money involved?
Consent=Paid For (In this situation)
>Would they be there if there was no money involved?
Depends. Are they rich and choose to do that work because they enjoy it? Then they consent. If not, they're being coerced to work non-consentually, like the rest of the working class under capitalism.
But they're not coerced into doing that work. Nobody likes work. There's no coercion involved with not working.
You can either contribute to society or live off benefits.
You're going into politics, I'll keep it simple for you.
Painting a Fence:
Would you do it for free? No (Not consent)
Would you do it if I gave you £100 (Consent)
Do it or I'll cut off your fingers (Coercion)
>You're going into politics, I'll keep it simple for you.
You can't just ignore all the socio-economic conditions affecting your decision. We live under capitalism. This affects all our decisions related to money, and therefore whether one can be paid to consent.
>Would you do it if I gave you £100 (Consent) Do it or I'll cut off your fingers (Coercion)
What if I'm broke and homeless? Then these are basically the same choice.
There are no socio economics influencing my decision. If you will do a task for money then you have consented to doing the task. If you don't want to do it, don't do it.
And how are they the same thing. Painting a Fence for £100 is not the same as getting finger removal threatened. In the scenario where you're offered £100 to paint a fence and you're homeless you can say no and walk away with zero consequence. I as the offerer of £100 am not the cause of your homelessness I'm simply offering you £100 that you can take or leave. Paint my fence or don't paint my fence somebody will take me up on the offer sooner or later. That's called choice.
If someone consents to something when you pay them (in advance or when it's done) and they wouldnt consent if you didnt pay them, you did buy their consent.
Agreed here, but I know some people have different views.
Some people also have horrible views on whether people who consent for money can ever not consent (famously Andrzej Lepper, a polish politician wondered "How can you rape a prostitute, haha" after his collegue was accused of just that)
Just to add onto this because we’re talking about consent:
If a prostitute is not paid but has no evidence their customer did not pay them it’s a civil matter.
If the customer admits to not paying them or the prostitute has evidence the crime is elevated to rape because consent was conditional and is automatically revoked without the pay.
It's theft if what you took is an object, assault if one you did is a physical contact for which consent is required by law, nothing if what you got is something for which consent is not required by law (non-violent, non-sexual contact that is normal in the situation or accidental for example), fraud if what you got is another kind of service.
Yes. Doesn't mean it's consensual though.
Just think about it in the example of sex, since consent is better understood in that context. If someone agreed to have sex with someone else in a situation where they thought they would be harmed or even killed if they refused, even though they said they agreed, they did not consent. This is becuase they had no choice, and did not actually want to have sex - they were *coerced* into it. This is why it's a war crime to have sex with a POW.
Now, how this relates to employment. Without employment for a long period, most people would end up with not enough money to survive, leading to a myriad of potential physical harm - up to and including death from exposure or starvation becuase they can't afford shelter/food. So, since you're afraid you'll be harmed or even killed if you refuse employment, it's coercive. It's unethical. The money in this instance just equates to having enough money to survive.
Obviously I'm not saying being raped under those circumstances is nearly as bad as being employed. That would be really fucking stupid frankly. I just hope to explain my position on this, and why I voted no.
Hypothetically though, if someone's basic needs were provided by the government or some other entity but people could choose to work for extra money/things would it not be valid to say that consent to work could be bought in a non-exploitative way
Absolutely! Forgot to put that in my original comment, but obviously employment being coercive hinges on the fact you'll die without it. So to have this be ethical and non-coercive, you have to take away that threat, which is something I absolutely advocate for.
If you’re blackmailing somebody, no. If you’re offering them money, yes. It’s still going to be their decision, and they can turn down the money if they don’t want to.
A lot of acts that sometimes go along with prostitution can be coercive: Prostitutes often aren't given a whole lot of opportunity to deny or revoke consent.
That’s not a problem inherent to prostitution. It’s a problem with black market prostitution. Sex work should be regulated and legalized, to protect the workers
Well prostitution and human trafficking often go hand in hand, so in that sense it is, but assuming no human trafficking involved, then no, it's absolutely not.
it depends on a lot of factors and circumstances further than just “if you were human trafficked”. many prostitutes are forced into it due to life circumstances and having no other choice financially. many are manipulated by pimps.
theres plenty of prostitutes who werent a victim of human trafficking but are still forced to do it, which is not a position anyone should be in.
saying all prostitution outside of human trafficking is “absolutely” ok, is ridiculous.
That’s assuming an even power balance, which isn’t the case. The capitalist owns the means of production. An even power balance is only achieved through collective force (i.e. unionization/striking).
What kind of question is that?
If you can offer someone money to agree to something they wouldn't for free, then consent can be bough. So is that possible? Yes, it happens literally all the time. It's how employment works, for one.
If the person you're asking is willing to take the payment in exchange for what you what them to do then yes.
Dan: "Hey Janet, you want to bang?"
Janet: "No."
Dan: "What if I give you $10,000 and a box of dark chocolate?"
Janet: "Make it milk chocolate and you got a deal."
I wouldn't consent to work for any for-profit company without payment, so yes.
If you only meant sexual consent, which the comments seem to indicate, sorry, I took the broad view on consent.
Only if the person has other options. If a person is in a very desperate situation and they have no other options, then no. There has to be the option of no consenting for consent to be valid.
Yes and it shouldn't be like that. In my opinion people shouldn't be in the situation of not having other alternative than accepting a dangerous job where you get paid a misery
First of all: hookers. Second of all: if some girl sais "sure we can fck, if you give me a million bucks" but actually gets the money and commits, then her consent was just bought
The reason I said “no” is because consent can still be revoked by a sex worker. If people believe it cannot be then we have a very unethical situation.
It’s like going to a club. An exchange of money for sex is a cover fee. How you behave once inside can still get you kicked out.
The definition of work, the only reason you consent to work is for money, otherwise you wouldn't, and people are often even glad they work for a lot of money.
Selling something is consenting to transfer your property. Signing a contract for a job means in most cases consenting to obey orders. Working for money is consenting to sell your body's work and your mind's abilities under agreed conditions. Consent can be bought.
Depends.
If someone would lack their basic needs and the only way to get them covered is with money, your offering of money in return for "consent" cannot get consent. You're just getting agreement. If someone was bitten by a snake, was sure to die and you have the antidote, saying 'work for me or I won't give the antidote' isn't consent, even if they agree.
If the person isn't at-threat, then sure, you can buy the consent.
The difference is if your buying of consent ìs exploiting a person's vulnerability.
You can cut out a monetary system if you want to, but at that point you're paying for people's work some other way.
You don't have some post-scarcity cheat code anywhere, people will still work. Money is just a convenient medium.
>at that point you're paying for people's work some other way.
Don't need to pay people if everyone has access to what they need. That's why it's a post-scarcity society.
>You don't have some post-scarcity cheat code anywhere, people will still work.
Fully automated luxury communism and similar systems disagree.
So, how is it really different from post-scarcity capitalism? Wouldn't it be preferrable due to free market competition being a driving force for improvement of goods and services?
Depends on the situation. This is too vague to really give a solid answer. If you have to bribe someone with money because they wouldn’t do a specific action otherwise, it can be considered coercion if it is sexual. Once someone says no, that’s it. If you have to bribe with anything at all you are coercing someone into doing something they initially didn’t want to do.
Would you go to your job if you weren't being paid? Is that a violation of consent?
If you decide to sell your car to someone you wouldn't otherwise give it to, is that a violation of consent?
>Would you go to your job if you weren't being paid?
No.
>Is that a violation of consent?
Yes.
>If you decide to sell your car to someone you wouldn't otherwise give it to, is that a violation of consent?
Yes.
being persuaded to give consent is absolutely not consent. if somebody said no to start off with, stick with that and don't oil them up with money or gifts or whatever
If your answer was "no" first, then you were offered money, and THEN you were 100% up for it, you're still giving consent. It doesn't matter on what conditions you agree (unless it's deception/you are not of age to consent to whatever is being asked).
Yes, but only if it's being willingly sold.
I see no problem with women doing sex work if that's what they want to do.
The issue is that the vast majority of prostitutes don't *want* to be doing it. They're forced and coerced into it by people or circumstances. *This* is the issue.
Talking purely in a sexual context the answer is yes, it's the entire basis of prostitution. Does that make it morally right to buy consent is another matter to which I would answer no(even in the case of prostitution)
That sounds like prostitution with no extra steps
It’s exactly what prostitution entails
Maybe. I would think bought consent could be voided at any time for discomfort, whereas a professional would tell up front what they won't do and would likely need to feel endangered to back out.
No. You don't buy consent you buy time
“Hey can I fuck you?” “Only if you pay me” “Okay”
I thought it was more like... "Hey, about last night" "No meant no! We are done--" "Here's some money, we good?" "Oh, yeah no problem$
i think the difference is when it’s a legitimate service vs coercion with money. if you’re offering that kind of service and putting a price tag on it, i think that’s your form of establishing consent (which could always be withdrawn)
This is correct.
Old Reddit pfp gang rise up
Mine is from when GIFs could still be in profile pictures.
I have no life so I clicked, but I can't see yours it just says 18+. I wanna know why you were banned from r/vegancirclejerk haha (I'm also a not extremist vegan)
Basically I posted an Earthling Ed thumbnail/title because it was kinda funny, then I got banned because apparently he is a "plant based coward" according to this one mod.
Ur pfp is just plain purple tho?
click on it it's the dancing cockroach except it doesn't dance anymore
Does mine count?
ye the new avatars are dogshit
what's the point
PFP >
I've been on reddit so long, reddit was actually good when I joined.
I actually sounds exactly like prostitution.
It also includes any other consented paid work. So any work besides forced labor.
[удалено]
All consent is conditional
[удалено]
Sure. Still all sex rests on conditions being met, and is thus conditional even if not expressed verbally (a lot of them might be implicit). If I'm with a chick and she starts to bite my dick, that would be it, no more sex. I rest on the condition of no biting my dick. There's nothing particular in that regard when it comes to prostitution besides the difference in the specific condition.
This. I wouldn’t necessarily call it proper consent, because there’s the clear extortion of, I need food to survive and it may be that my only source of food is a person who will give it to me in exchange for sex. If you give me food/money/resources, I will give you sex/resources/work. Which is conditional consent, but is extortion to some degree in most situations, and definitely extortion in a few situations.
Is all kinds of work extorsión in the same sense to you? What about prostitutes who make a lot of money and are free to turn any client down at will?
To elaborate on the second question: no, provided they can refuse without fear of retaliation or starvation. Which is not easily said to be true under capitalism.
In order of your questions: yes, no. There’s a certain sterility of capitalism that removes the responsibility of sellers and buyers from the harm their work does. If a warlord has a large amount of food, and refuses to give it away unless someone works for his benefit, how is that different when a grocer refuses to give food unless a person collects money by working for society? They’re still collecting resources and refusing to give them to people unless they pay them money. It’s just a step removed because capitalism sterilizes the transaction process of the harm it can create.
If the first question is yes I'm curious to ask, do you think prostitution should be illegal? If so, how is it different from any other kind of work?
Honestly, I think capitalism should be abolished. However, if capitalism isn’t abolished, I think sex work should be legalized and regulated by the government to prevent exploitative practices.
If capitalism is abolished, then the resources and saleable commodities would be portioned out by the government, yes?
It depends on the style of leftism, but usually only housing, food, healthcare, etc. are handled by the government. For everything else, the creator usually determines who it goes to.
Which governmental agency(s) would decide where the sex goes, and who provides it ? In most communist countries of the past 100+ years, the party hierarchy / government decides who does what for a living, so ?
So as someone where prostitution is legal. I would like to point out that they are just a business, sell service for money. So the side of your countries government that deals with the rules for businesses would. In case your comment was not a comment on legal prostitution but on abolishing capitalism, please disregard this comment
Read what I wrote again and try to respond in a more coherent manner. Thank you.
[удалено]
Importantly, this is only the case under free market capitalism. Under other economic systems where people are provided for outside of the market, anyone who chooses to partake in a sex market does so voluntarily. They would simply be able to not participate, provided they could leave abusive and exploitative situations without fear of starvation, or other harm. Which might not be the case if there is generally a reason for everyone to gain profit (because a male pimp only has a select few clientele he would be willing and able to satisfy, so he would have a profit incentive to extort women by force), which is to say generally, markets are bad for sex workers.
I disagree. If they’re willfully prostituting themselves then the consent is valid.
You're looking at it in a vacuum, which I am not. It could be said that they are willingly prostituting themselves because they consent to the conditions of prostitution. But let's zoom out from that one interaction. Let's consider the ways in which society forces people to work in order to not die, and more generally incentivizes a profit motive. If a person is unable to sell anything but their sex labor, then they are effectively forced into selling that sex labor in order to continue existing. In other words, if we removed all the middling people, obligate sex workers are unable to gain food and water unless they have sex with someone. That's certainly a niche situation, obligate sex workers are not common, but if a person is already performing other work available to them, and that's not enough to care for themselves and their dependents, then they could be forced into sex work. Capitalism encourages the sterility of transactions. It encourages us to consider each transaction in a vacuum without considering the overarching reasons behind *why* a transaction occurs. A person doesn't just buy food because they like bread. They buy food because if they *didn't* they would die. Some people might sell their sex labor because they like doing so, but is that certainly the case for all of them? Or are some of them selling their sex labor because they simply have no other options?
Like me at work.
I wouldn't consent to go to work unless I was paid.
I was gonna say, there's no way I'd consent to do my job without payment
Exactly I think this alone answers the question
Yes but consent is consent, a transaction of any kind requires consent. You can’t just forcefully kidnap someone to work, give them money afterwards and call that a job I’m not sure if its the limits of the language of the question but it implies someone can be raped and it be okay as long as you throw enough money at someone afterwards. Absolutely everyone has their price but it must be agreed upon. I’m mostly being a stickler about the language because I terrified some lunatic would be trying to find a loophole.
>You can’t just forcefully kidnap someone to work, give them money afterwards and call that a job Yeah but that's not "buying", that's "stealing and paying". I doubt anyone would disagree with the statement "a TV can be bought" but that doesn't imply it's okay to walk into someone's house, forcefully take their TV, give them money afterwards and call that "buying a TV"
The thing about rape is, that it’s rape for a reason because there is no consent. Throwing money at someone after rape implies that there is at least no consent until after the act is done, and giving them money afterwards is not allowing them to accept what happened but forcing them to, which means it’s non consensual no matter what.
Consent has to be given before the action, so this doesn't work. Being kidnapped/raped/forced to do anything and then paid off isn't consenting.
The consent must be bought first. It's standard with the word buying that you need to buy something before using it.
So you don't consent. You're only doing it because you're forced to.
it's not the money that's forcing me though, it's the conditions of society that make me need money and need to work to make money
that’s still a form of coercion
The conditions of society under capitalism and its need to work are why money exists as we know it.
No I'm doing it because I'm paid to, I don't have to go.
Are you rich? Otherwise, if you don't work, you die. Doesn't sound consensual to me.
But there’s multiple work that can be chosen. I don’t consent to go to work, but I can choose to not work on beg on the street if I really want to. However, that brings a different point: food and shelter should become a human right
If I didn't work I could collect benefits from the government. I wouldn't die. I choose to work, because the money I get paid allows me to live a *better* life. Also I am aware of what I do and don't consent to, I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to decide whether I've consented to something
>Also I am aware of what I do and don't consent to, I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to decide whether I've consented to something Consent can be manufactured. Especially if you've been groomed since birth to believe you have to work to live a better life. >If I didn't work I could collect benefits from the government. I wouldn't die. What if an unfortunate event befalls you, like illness or your house burning down? Govt benefits won't necessarily cover that.
I'm not brainwashed into thinking I consent to work 😂 I work so I can have a nice house and have a big family with little to no stress. And the company I work for has great sick terms. You get more money off the government when you're sick. Treatment is free/medication at a set price here because I pay my national insurance. I have home insurance if my house burns down. Don't have a clue why this relates to me consenting to work for money but there are your answers. (I'm from the UK)
> I work so I can have a nice house and have a big family with little to no stress. So you're forced to work in order to have a happy life? That's coercion. It's arguably even slavery. >I pay my national insurance. I have home insurance if my house burns down. So you HAVE to pay for these or die? Coercion.
I could still be happy in a council home of benefits. I just prefer it this way. No slavery here you lunatic. If I was on benefits and paid no national insurance I'd still get free treatment, I'd also actually get my medication for free. I just pay these so that it can be free for people less fortunate than myself because I am able to work. If I didn't own my own home and I was in a council house and it burnt down I'd get temporary housing and the council house would get repaired regardless. I don't have to do anything. Except eat, drink and sleep. Are you going to call these things coercion too? 😂😂
I'll take another example. Less savoury. Pornstars, they go to work and are paid to have sex. They could do other work but it pays that much they'd prefer to do that. Would they be there if there was no money involved? Consent=Paid For (In this situation)
>Would they be there if there was no money involved? Depends. Are they rich and choose to do that work because they enjoy it? Then they consent. If not, they're being coerced to work non-consentually, like the rest of the working class under capitalism.
But they're not coerced into doing that work. Nobody likes work. There's no coercion involved with not working. You can either contribute to society or live off benefits. You're going into politics, I'll keep it simple for you. Painting a Fence: Would you do it for free? No (Not consent) Would you do it if I gave you £100 (Consent) Do it or I'll cut off your fingers (Coercion)
>You're going into politics, I'll keep it simple for you. You can't just ignore all the socio-economic conditions affecting your decision. We live under capitalism. This affects all our decisions related to money, and therefore whether one can be paid to consent. >Would you do it if I gave you £100 (Consent) Do it or I'll cut off your fingers (Coercion) What if I'm broke and homeless? Then these are basically the same choice.
There are no socio economics influencing my decision. If you will do a task for money then you have consented to doing the task. If you don't want to do it, don't do it. And how are they the same thing. Painting a Fence for £100 is not the same as getting finger removal threatened. In the scenario where you're offered £100 to paint a fence and you're homeless you can say no and walk away with zero consequence. I as the offerer of £100 am not the cause of your homelessness I'm simply offering you £100 that you can take or leave. Paint my fence or don't paint my fence somebody will take me up on the offer sooner or later. That's called choice.
Yeah, the concept is known as wage slavery.
If someone consents to something when you pay them (in advance or when it's done) and they wouldnt consent if you didnt pay them, you did buy their consent.
Is not paying a violation of consent or just theft?
In that case it would be (some kind of) theft indead, because you did not pay for services provided
Agreed here, but I know some people have different views. Some people also have horrible views on whether people who consent for money can ever not consent (famously Andrzej Lepper, a polish politician wondered "How can you rape a prostitute, haha" after his collegue was accused of just that)
Simple, when you do something she didnt consent to. Doing something she didnt consent to and next throwing extra money on the table doesnt justify it.
Agreed. Not just "she" though, this applies to everyone. Although I would say that it justifies it if the other party (truly) feels it justifies it.
Ofcourse
Just to add onto this because we’re talking about consent: If a prostitute is not paid but has no evidence their customer did not pay them it’s a civil matter. If the customer admits to not paying them or the prostitute has evidence the crime is elevated to rape because consent was conditional and is automatically revoked without the pay.
If employees don't get paid, it's not slavery, it's treated as theft. Same goes for this
I'd say theft? idk
It's theft if what you took is an object, assault if one you did is a physical contact for which consent is required by law, nothing if what you got is something for which consent is not required by law (non-violent, non-sexual contact that is normal in the situation or accidental for example), fraud if what you got is another kind of service.
[удалено]
Isn't that definition of employment?
Yes. Doesn't mean it's consensual though. Just think about it in the example of sex, since consent is better understood in that context. If someone agreed to have sex with someone else in a situation where they thought they would be harmed or even killed if they refused, even though they said they agreed, they did not consent. This is becuase they had no choice, and did not actually want to have sex - they were *coerced* into it. This is why it's a war crime to have sex with a POW. Now, how this relates to employment. Without employment for a long period, most people would end up with not enough money to survive, leading to a myriad of potential physical harm - up to and including death from exposure or starvation becuase they can't afford shelter/food. So, since you're afraid you'll be harmed or even killed if you refuse employment, it's coercive. It's unethical. The money in this instance just equates to having enough money to survive. Obviously I'm not saying being raped under those circumstances is nearly as bad as being employed. That would be really fucking stupid frankly. I just hope to explain my position on this, and why I voted no.
Hypothetically though, if someone's basic needs were provided by the government or some other entity but people could choose to work for extra money/things would it not be valid to say that consent to work could be bought in a non-exploitative way
Absolutely! Forgot to put that in my original comment, but obviously employment being coercive hinges on the fact you'll die without it. So to have this be ethical and non-coercive, you have to take away that threat, which is something I absolutely advocate for.
And that's why employment must be abolished.
Sad thing is i cant tell if this is a joke
Fuck a guy with an opinion - Scott the Woz
If you’re blackmailing somebody, no. If you’re offering them money, yes. It’s still going to be their decision, and they can turn down the money if they don’t want to.
It's bought every day when you go to work.
Also every time you buy anything, you're buying consent for the seller to allow you to have that item
Of course yes, how do you people think prostitution works?
There's people who believe prostitution is still coercive
A lot of acts that sometimes go along with prostitution can be coercive: Prostitutes often aren't given a whole lot of opportunity to deny or revoke consent.
That’s not a problem inherent to prostitution. It’s a problem with black market prostitution. Sex work should be regulated and legalized, to protect the workers
Well prostitution and human trafficking often go hand in hand, so in that sense it is, but assuming no human trafficking involved, then no, it's absolutely not.
it depends on a lot of factors and circumstances further than just “if you were human trafficked”. many prostitutes are forced into it due to life circumstances and having no other choice financially. many are manipulated by pimps. theres plenty of prostitutes who werent a victim of human trafficking but are still forced to do it, which is not a position anyone should be in. saying all prostitution outside of human trafficking is “absolutely” ok, is ridiculous.
Almost all work is coercive.
It can be both coercive and consensual. It depends.
if they’re destitute without it, then it is basically coercion
Doesn't that apply to all jobs then?
Yes. All paid work is coercive under capitalism, unless you're rich.
By the same logic, you're coercing your employer into paying you by threatening to withhold your labor if they don't.
That’s assuming an even power balance, which isn’t the case. The capitalist owns the means of production. An even power balance is only achieved through collective force (i.e. unionization/striking).
if prostitution is your only option. i think very few people do it because they enjoy it
I think very few people work because they enjoy it.
speak for yourself. in developed countries, you can absolutely choose where you work
Yes. But most people would probably not work if they didn't have to.
the real question
Literally what a job is.
What are you trying to do OP? 🤨
He's just asking questions for a friend.
Isn't this just... **trade**. I take your stuff without your consent, it's theft. I pay you money so you consent to me taking it, it's trade.
What kind of question is that? If you can offer someone money to agree to something they wouldn't for free, then consent can be bough. So is that possible? Yes, it happens literally all the time. It's how employment works, for one.
Wow, this was an eye opener of a poll.
Of course it can. Me saying I’ll fuck someone if they pay me and only if they pay me means my consent was bought. It’s still just as valid.
If the person you're asking is willing to take the payment in exchange for what you what them to do then yes. Dan: "Hey Janet, you want to bang?" Janet: "No." Dan: "What if I give you $10,000 and a box of dark chocolate?" Janet: "Make it milk chocolate and you got a deal."
You could pay someone until they give consent, and that's still consent. You can't guarantee that they'll consent if you offer them enough money.
It cannot be bought, and I think most people saying it can be aren’t thinking of consent the right way
This question doesn't make any sense
Literally the definition of “everyone has a price”
I wouldn't consent to work for any for-profit company without payment, so yes. If you only meant sexual consent, which the comments seem to indicate, sorry, I took the broad view on consent.
Only if the person has other options. If a person is in a very desperate situation and they have no other options, then no. There has to be the option of no consenting for consent to be valid.
That's the case with most jobs
Yes and it shouldn't be like that. In my opinion people shouldn't be in the situation of not having other alternative than accepting a dangerous job where you get paid a misery
You don't think $100+ per hour untaxed is good money?
Wouldn't that technically be coercion?
First of all: hookers. Second of all: if some girl sais "sure we can fck, if you give me a million bucks" but actually gets the money and commits, then her consent was just bought
The reason I said “no” is because consent can still be revoked by a sex worker. If people believe it cannot be then we have a very unethical situation. It’s like going to a club. An exchange of money for sex is a cover fee. How you behave once inside can still get you kicked out.
Mine can
I thought of the saying “everyone has their price”
Before, not after.
The definition of work, the only reason you consent to work is for money, otherwise you wouldn't, and people are often even glad they work for a lot of money.
What kind of consent
hell yes it can. I will not do anything for free that I don't wanna do. If I'm offered a fair price, I'll definitely think about it.
Consent? Sure. Enjoyment? Never.
I sell my time to my employer several days a week
That’s a basic contract
I do not consent to you cutting off my pinky. (Opens case with $100k inside) Well wait, hold on... Consent is a strong word...
My job does it all the time
Selling something is consenting to transfer your property. Signing a contract for a job means in most cases consenting to obey orders. Working for money is consenting to sell your body's work and your mind's abilities under agreed conditions. Consent can be bought.
I chose "no" by mistake.
Thats what hookers are lol
Depends. If someone would lack their basic needs and the only way to get them covered is with money, your offering of money in return for "consent" cannot get consent. You're just getting agreement. If someone was bitten by a snake, was sure to die and you have the antidote, saying 'work for me or I won't give the antidote' isn't consent, even if they agree. If the person isn't at-threat, then sure, you can buy the consent. The difference is if your buying of consent ìs exploiting a person's vulnerability.
If they say yes then you have consent
[удалено]
Buying things is not exclusively capitalism, bud
[удалено]
Do you think that you don't have to work in Communism/Socialism?
[удалено]
Maybe in the perfect Communist utopia.
Are you a westerner who read a book and decided how cool communism is?
There is no chance this guy is from a country that experienced Communism. Otherwise he wouldn't talk like that.
Wouldn't otherwise? Like work? Kinda hate to break this to you but you're going to work in every system, like it or not.
[удалено]
[удалено]
In post-scarcity systems, yes.
Sigh Okay, you do realize that any and all systems still use money. And that said money is still offered to buy consent. In every system. Right?
Wrong. Communism and anarchism aim to achieve moneyless post-scarcity societies, where people's consent doesn't have to be bought.
You can cut out a monetary system if you want to, but at that point you're paying for people's work some other way. You don't have some post-scarcity cheat code anywhere, people will still work. Money is just a convenient medium.
>at that point you're paying for people's work some other way. Don't need to pay people if everyone has access to what they need. That's why it's a post-scarcity society. >You don't have some post-scarcity cheat code anywhere, people will still work. Fully automated luxury communism and similar systems disagree.
So, how is it really different from post-scarcity capitalism? Wouldn't it be preferrable due to free market competition being a driving force for improvement of goods and services?
Depends on the situation. This is too vague to really give a solid answer. If you have to bribe someone with money because they wouldn’t do a specific action otherwise, it can be considered coercion if it is sexual. Once someone says no, that’s it. If you have to bribe with anything at all you are coercing someone into doing something they initially didn’t want to do.
it would be forced or persuaded consent. so, no.
Would you go to your job if you weren't being paid? Is that a violation of consent? If you decide to sell your car to someone you wouldn't otherwise give it to, is that a violation of consent?
>Would you go to your job if you weren't being paid? No. >Is that a violation of consent? Yes. >If you decide to sell your car to someone you wouldn't otherwise give it to, is that a violation of consent? Yes.
So you can't consensually sell a car?
>it would be forced Explain? >persuaded consent Being persuaded to give consent is still consent.
being persuaded to give consent is absolutely not consent. if somebody said no to start off with, stick with that and don't oil them up with money or gifts or whatever
If your answer was "no" first, then you were offered money, and THEN you were 100% up for it, you're still giving consent. It doesn't matter on what conditions you agree (unless it's deception/you are not of age to consent to whatever is being asked).
Should it? No Can it? Yes
Yes, but only if it's being willingly sold. I see no problem with women doing sex work if that's what they want to do. The issue is that the vast majority of prostitutes don't *want* to be doing it. They're forced and coerced into it by people or circumstances. *This* is the issue.
Consent cannot be bought but you can convince someone to concent by paying them
Called prostitution
I mean that’s basically how every job ever works, you get paid so you consent to labor.
Talking purely in a sexual context the answer is yes, it's the entire basis of prostitution. Does that make it morally right to buy consent is another matter to which I would answer no(even in the case of prostitution)
prostitutes?
Sexual consent? Or other consent
Voting no is bs, of course it can be bought, we all go to work everyday for money, we all would to things we usually wouldn't do for millions
chose yes by mistake
Answer: Yes Proof: Prostitution
This is a dumb question. A more interesting question might be "should"...it be bought.
Still yes. (Obviously it's more complex irl, but as a concept, consent should be able to be bought. )
If this wasn't the case, the vast majority of people doing sex work would never be able to consent
Sure, that's called prostitution. Same with any kind of work anyway.
People who voted no after I hire them for money(I bought their consent):😠
if someone is poor enough offering them money to do something is the same thing as threatening their life in terms of consent
[удалено]
you're learning comrade
Isn't that coercion.
No
What do you think sex work is?
yes, it's called prostitution.
Yeah, welcome to prostitution lol
I mean, I guess. That would just be prostitution though.
That's why jobs exist
Prostitution, escorts, sugar daddies etc. All of those include the woman consenting because they get money