Anybody who’s been paying attention will have noticed the increasing normalization of what used to be called “prostitution”. In these sophisticated times we are expected to regard it simply as “sex work”, a career like any other, whose practitioners we should consider every bit as respectable as secretaries, waitresses, cashiers, cab drivers, hotel clerks, or members of Congress (though that latter comparison is, I suppose, nothing new).
Here’s a question: given that “sex work” is now just another ordinary job, and given also that unemployment benefits usually require that recipients be actively seeking, and willing to accept, whatever jobs they can find, does this mean that a young woman who finds herself laid off at the factory, and collecting unemployment, must now accept a position as a whore if an offer comes along? If not, why not?
3 Comments
Like open borders, this is one of those issues where the libertine Left and the libertarian Right see eye to eye. For the libertine Left, it’s a matter of consenting adults. For the libertarian Right, its consenting adults and increase in the velocity of money. Shelling out and pocketing (pursing?) dollars is always good in their eyes. Of all revolutions, it appears that sexual revolutions are hardest to stop. In the end it appears that they stop themselves by destroying human reproduction. It is now fairly clear that sexual revolution is just a hedonistic form of social suicide.
JM,
This sexual revolution is rapidly becoming a self-selecting extinction.
(Silver lining, I suppose.)
Now I’ll allow as much as this wording, to me, might just be a kinda sorta Arkianese-specific [read: Hillbilly mebbe?] But I found myself – rather like a sizeable majority of Congress-Critters I’d bet – somewhat, er, titillated at the prospect.
I think the better musing would be, Which Party is more likely to put it on the official platform ?
(In order to, chuckles, up its popular attraction.)