Re:Prostitution and the internet
by bluepenguin on Sunday August 10, 2014 @05:07AM
(#8159273)
A lot of men go into unnecessary graphic details most of which are not really useful and unnecessarily objectify the women they review. It would be like reviewing a guitar tutor by describing how they placed their fingers on the fret board or how they turned the pages of their song book.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
"unnecessarily objectify the women they review"
I'm not commenting on whether or not the reviews are "creepy", but c'mon; these women objectify themselves for a living. Once you go down the road of selling your body I think you lose the right to complain about objectification. They are literally selling themselves as an object.Well no, they are literally selling a service. If they were selling themselves as an object, the purchaser would actually own them.
Well, yes, they are selling their body for a short period of time, and the type of "service" they are selling is not irrelevant. If you want to play semantics then fine; they're _renting_ their body. It all amounts to the same thing and doesn't change my point. They are objectifying themselves, so I think we can cut the PC nonsense.
I don't disagree with the notion that they're objectifying themselves. I do still think your phrasing was inaccurate. Nothing political about it - it was plain incorrect.
People would judge a guitar teacher on their finger placement and general technique.
Re:Prostitution and the internet
by vertex-four on Sunday August 10, 2014 @07:15AM
(#8159438)
However they'd only mention it if, for some reason, something were wrong about that specific piece of technique. Otherwise they'd never mention it.
I don't think that's true. People are complimentary of others' proficiency and fingerwork (or whatever it might be called) often enough. And I think a parallel to sex work is probably music performance as much as education, in which case technique is discussed by patrons all the time.