That's one of those non-sequiturs so bizarre that it's hard to reply. I think it's because it's misleading in two dimensions: obviously rape is different from (all kinds of) consensual sex because it's, well, non-consensual; lets call this the dimension of coercivity.

It's also different from other (consensual or non-consensual) activities because it's sex; the same way that it's different from playing frisbee or (relating to the sibling comment) fixing a car; let's call this the dimension of intimacy.

So in binary terms, we have four quadrants, with prototypical examples of playing frisbee (non-coerced, non-intimate), forcing someone to fix a car (coerced, non-intimate), prostitution (non-coerced, intimate), rape (coerced, intimate).

I hasten to add that prostitution is often, in fact, very clearly coerced (by threat of violence), and of course there's an argument to be made that many other instances are also coerced (by threat of poverty).

Edit: Re-reading my comment, calling it misleading and bizzare seems unkind, I apologize. Thinking in terms of these two dimension is (I think) helpful, but it's also an arbitrary choice. When you choose other (or fewer) "variables", the point made in the article follows.

There is an obvious difference between being coerced by force and having no option due to circumstance.

Someone purposely pushing someone over a cliff is not the same as someone running out of water in the middle of a trek across a desert because the oasis they expected had run dry.

Well, forced-coffee-serving and forced-car-fixing also has a name: slavery. That's pretty traumatic, too.

That's a bit of a stretch. If you're forced to serve someone coffee one time most people would agree that's messed up but not that big of a deal. If you're forced to have sex once, you've been raped and that's a life shattering event.

You're completely missing the point. The point isn't which is more life shattering (no one is arguing that), the point is that our laws should protect against coercion against one's body. Forced labor and rape are differing levels of infringement on ones body. However, sex and labor are still products of one's body and the individual has the right to do with their body as they wish.

Sorry but it's you who is missing the point here. Nobody's arguing about whether we should be able to be forced to do anything. Everybody agrees that we should not.

The point is that there's a difference between regular labor and sex.

We may consider coerced sex to be more traumatic than coerced labor, but it's a difference in degree, not in kind. The author is arguing "If sex is just labor then it's ok to coerce people to do it" which is absurd. It's not ok to coerce people to do labor or have sex.

It's not about saying if it's ok or not, of course it's not.

It's about stating a difference because sex work being seen a mainstream practice is arguably not a good thing. (be it legal or not, that's not related here)

That's not really the point. That statement is being used to illustrate the fact that sex is not "just labor." If it were "just labor" it wouldn't be any more traumatic than being forced to make coffee or being forced to answer phones. Which would also be traumatic, but not as traumatic as rape.

But whatever, clearly there's a group of people here on HN who are taking the hard line "sex work is just labor" position and there's not going to be a rational discussion here.

Like I said, the difference is in degree, not kind. There's no reason two things have to be exactly the same amount of traumatic in order to be considered the same kind of trauma.

Losing 10% of your net worth and losing 90% of your net worth are both traumatic. One is more so because it's to a larger degree, but it's not an entirely different thing, it's just a different amount. That's why we have different punishments for petty theft and grand larceny. Not because they're completely different crimes, but because they're different degrees of the same crime.

Bingo. Much clearer than how I said it haha

That difference is (should be) determined by the individual (owner of the body). That is the point, and you are missing it.

I'm not missing that point. I didn't address that point of individual choice at all. I was highlighting the cultural difference. If you would take two seconds to stop being so dismissive and pedantic maybe you could actually understand what other people are saying.

What are you even arguing then? What's the importance of highlighting that difference? My point was that ANY coercive act against someone else's body should be prohibited and punishable under the law. The law should NOT allow the majority (in this case society) to dictate what I can do with MY body. I'm not being pedantic. It sounds like you are arguing "rape is bad, therefore we need to remove partial ownership of your own body and decide what you can and cannot do with it." That "logic" is offensive to me. If that's not what you're saying, I apologize. Maybe I am reading you wrong.

Did something like it happen in Japan? compensated dating?

Well, if one is forced into labor, that is slavery, and slavery is bad. Therefore, forced sex i.e, rape is also bad.

This is not to say that I am completely comfortable with this thing, though. For someone like myself, this Sugar-daddy-baby thing feels like a 180 degree departure from the values that I grew up with, which society itself promoted as the right thing. Now I just feel lost and alone. Everything is depressingly transactional. In all honesty, I'm quite comfortable with that when it comes to most of my daily interactions. But when it comes to relationships, I feel shocked. Maybe I'm a hypocrite.