• eatthecake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Whether or not prostitution is legal has no bearing on the question of whether a person is free to have sex with someone, ie their bodily autonomy. Only whether they get paid for it. You’re confusing two different thimgs.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I disagree. “Bodily autonomy” means you own your body and can decide what to do with it.

      If the legal system says you can’t engage in sex for money, then the legal system has governance over what you can do with your body. That doesn’t meet the OP quote of “Bodily autonomy be is an essential unconditional liberty”. It is now conditional. You have autonomy, unless you want to do X with it. That’s a condition.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s not a criticism of bodily autonomy, that is the criticism of work. In other words, it’s a criticism of capitalism again

        Can you truly consent if the alternative is not having money and everything that entails? When the alternative is starvation and homelessness? Sex work is not meaningfully different to work in general here

      • eatthecake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        If the legal system says you can’t engage in sex for money, then the legal system has governance over what you can do with your body.

        Nope, it has governance over what you can do with your money, your ability to have sex is unaffected. You can’t seem to separate the two things.