Re: <nettime> Sex Work and Consent at @transmediale

[IR3ABF <ajaco@xs4all.nl>]

Dear Margaret

You are absolutely right in not buying that last sentence

It should read:

-- So an intimate and inter-personal exchange where the financial
equilibrium is not of primary interest will be preferable and leaves out
the socially and economically consensual dogmatics and leave the actively
interacting 'consentents' in an exclusively autonomous, privately and
individually sphere --

Sorry for that

a politico-economical system without a 'moral' or 'ethical' ground
commodifying 'desires' as marketable goods is one of the more pervers
thriving impulses of much of contemporary politico-economical law-giving
and is too easily neglected or completely overlooked in the discussion
concerning 'sex-workers' as it is more often than not left to 'individual
freedom and individual responsibilty',  without a 'natural' respect for the
human body

The annexation of the hitherto semi-illegal practice of prostitution into
the realm of modern mercantilism and into mainstream economical 'culture'
is just another sign of the continuing ursurpation of the private to the
public - state/corporate policed - sphere and is harming the much needed
struggle for individual - non governemental regulated - economical freedom
and thereby cleverly perverting the 'human rights' of the frequently
(ab)used (sex) workers, who 'out of despair'  are being legally
incorporated into the bigger body of an already traumatized and deeply hurt
society. 

@Morlock

The same goes for other precarious workers, they too suffer from the
schizophrenic situation in which they have to sell their body/brain to the
highest bidder and at the same time have to maintain a self protecting
defense system not to cross the border between what is permitted to one's
self esteem and being lost and a toy in the hands of
traffickers/publishers/dealers/managers not equiped with that scarce sense
of 'nobility' 

Andreas

Sent from my eXtended BodY

On 10 feb. 2012, at 18:29, Margaret Morse <memorse@comcast.net> wrote:

> Your last sentence leaves out the consensual in a way that is  over my head.
> How can one have an exchange, intrinsically and by definition, without
> consent?


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org