I find a somewhat irresolvable issue on the liberal viewpoint of female sexuality and using sex to sell things (or selling sex directly)
I see a lot of push back and negativity towards things like "booth babes" and other models that are employed to use their sexuality to help sell something. And I dont really argue with that, from a consumer angle. But I do also hear and feel for those models, who likely rightly say, why am I now out of a job? How is that empowering?
On the other hand, I think typically liberal viewpoint would be that prostitution should be made more legal and out of the shadows, and of course people can sell sex. Which I also dont disagree with.
As it relates to laws and rights, it isn't in conflict - they both should be legal. But the underlying feelings and opnions about them, it seems somewhat unresolved. There seems to be more hatred towards the objectification of women, but not targeted at say strippers. It doesn't seem totally coherent.
In this case the typical liberal and the radical liberal are split, much as with trans identity.
To sum it up with too broad of a brush, liberal (mainstream) feminists think sex work is positive, and that only coercion to sex should be criminalized.
Radical feminists see sex “work” as an extreme outlier amongst sex trafficking which by their measure constitutes the vast majority of the sex trade. They would consider a woman who was raped and coerced into the trade as a child, but who has adjusted and now verbally “consents” (by far the typical case) as a sex trafficking victim.
So the radical and liberal feminist agree that person is doing nothing illegal. But many of the radical feminists would support criminal charges for the Johns and the pimps/clubs/etc in the vast majority of cases.
There is a long long history of well intentioned laws that liberals push through that end up harming the very same groups, or indirectly other 'vulnerable' groups, they were originally seeking to help.
The problem is there is so often a disconnect between intentions and predictable outcomes when the bills are being crafted... or worse when actual negative outcomes are apparent yet bills continue to stay active for decades.
For ex: 1970s rent control laws in NYC/Toronto significantly reduced the supply of affordable housing after 5-10yrs while a significant percentage of upper/middle-class people ended up getting cheap rent-controlled apartments and never leaving. Not to mention the massive increase in landlord arsons (who had no other choice in order to 'renovate' the building) causing already bad ghettos in the Bronx to turn into war-zone looking places.
So the big question here: Does this law actually help stop sex trafficking? Does it justify the huge costs it imposes on these web sites for which millions of legal sex workers depend on for their livelihood, just to enforce a tiny minority of bad listings? Especially when they completely shut down? Are sex workers being forced to go back to the streets to look for work because it's too hard for them and their customers to find sex-work listing websites?
Or more generally: First: Does it work, Second: if it does, how do they stack up against the side-effects and externalities imposed on law abiding people/industry to achieve that outcome?
Ok sure, now what about the people that weren't raped and just got into prostitution the same way a stripper decides that life is for them? Are they still victims?
A radical feminist (in my experience) will still say yes, effectively robbing these women of their own personal agency and shaming their choices.
That is an important distinction, and your comparison is watered down by ignoring it.
I should preface that some trans people find the discussion itself deeply offensive and unwelcoming, so it's a very sensitive subject, but I'll try to sum it up respectfully...
The basic question is whether something like whether "visible performance of femininity and recognition as women" is fundamentally what differentiates men and women.
Some radical feminists would say that requiring women to behave in a way that they are recognizable "as women" is a primary mechanism for domination of women. These women want to consider themselves to BE women, while they do things which make them unrecognizable "as women" according to norms.
Many (not all) trans women seek to do somewhat the opposite... they WANT to be recognized "as women". And they will hold up both their desire to perform femininity and their experiences while being recognized "as women" as a thing which makes them women.
I think fundamentally both groups are correct. Trans women are correct that in practice recognition and performance constitute gender and even sex in a very literal way.
But the radical feminists are correct that gender recognition and performance is only one aspect of womanhood, and for some women's groups, it's not central at all.
MichFest is the historical event where I think all of this came to a head. Many women rightly valued MichFest for being a place where they were not recognized "as women" and no one expected anyone to perform femininity.
Trans women rightly felt that the rule excluding them from MichFest was anti-woman, that performance and recognition aside, trans women are women because they "be women" all year, not because of femininty or genitals or anything other than their own discrete self concept.
Personally, I suspect there is some sort of Hegelian dialectic here, and there is no resolution possible, only an infinite regress.
I think the issue people have with "booth babes" is that it presupposes men will be the ones perusing the booths, or the ones whose attention is worth grabbing.
There's nothing wrong with valuing someone for their good looks, but in a field like tech where we are trying to encourage women to participate more, using BB's at tech events is a reflection of the event organizers choosing to cater only to men, since it's mostly men that the BB's will entice.
Cheerleaders would be another example. Is it sexual objectification to have scantily clad attractive women on the sidelines? Most probably.
Is having not attractive scantily clad women on the sidelines the answer? No, probably not.
Is getting rid of cheerleaders the answer? Maybe.
Do a lot of girls and women like to be cheerleaders? Apparently.
It seems like the fundamental issue is that men like to see scantily clad attractive women. Efforts to shame or unemploy females who can make money from this is an attempt to fix the symptom, not the cause.
Except that cheerleading it a highly skilled role that takes a lot of hard work and training, they are not just standing around looking nice. And there are male cheerleaders.
Booth babes, maybe this is highly skilled too. I don't know. But I don't think they compare.
The point is that cheerleaders are skilled athletes who are valued for their skill and looks. A beautiful cheerleader standing around is not in demand. Booth Babes are not valued for their skill in holding things, they are valued for their looks only. They are not recognized for their talent. They are treated as objects among objects.
I agree that is true, but I dont think it changes anything about my post being true as well. A comparatively higher skilled sexual object doesnt change its nature, or why it exists as a job. Maybe you find it more respectable.
The question you have to ask is whether or not a "booth babe" would choose such work over others if they had a choice and not merely because it pays the bills.
Would you choose the job you currently have if you had another choice and not merely because it pays the bills?
The arguments against capitalism and against sex workers are two completely orthogonal things. Sex work is a consequence of capitalism + enforced class systems perpetuated by leadership.
Fix those things instead of claiming women who have complete personal agency in what they do with their bodies are still being exploited. Of course they are. All of us are being exploited.
I see a lot of push back and negativity towards things like "booth babes" and other models that are employed to use their sexuality to help sell something. And I dont really argue with that, from a consumer angle. But I do also hear and feel for those models, who likely rightly say, why am I now out of a job? How is that empowering?
On the other hand, I think typically liberal viewpoint would be that prostitution should be made more legal and out of the shadows, and of course people can sell sex. Which I also dont disagree with.
As it relates to laws and rights, it isn't in conflict - they both should be legal. But the underlying feelings and opnions about them, it seems somewhat unresolved. There seems to be more hatred towards the objectification of women, but not targeted at say strippers. It doesn't seem totally coherent.