Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluepenguin | Hacker News Reader

There's lots of online resources to find sex workers. What website you use, is probably determined by what country you're in. I've never heard of adultwork.com. There are even review sites where users can review - often in unnecessary & very creepy detail - their misadventures.

Twitter is also a very useful resource for sex workers and clients. It's a useful way for a worker to promote themselves and for potential clients to get a feel of the person before making a booking.

Even in a country where sex work is legal, I feel there is still quite a bit of opportunity to create a better online resource. Especially one that caters to the sex workers more. I feel a lot of websites are too client-centric and not as useful as they could be for client or worker.

View on HN

    > There are even review sites where users can review -
    > often in unnecessary & very creepy detail - their 
    > misadventures

Do you find detailed reviews of stereos to be creepy? How about a detailed review of a guitar teacher's services? Why is the detail for sex work creepy?

"Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far much more bitter, cynical sense of humor."

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.

  "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.

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.

Because you're objectifying a person?

Objectfying a person is admissible when the person is selling itself as an object.

How does that differ from the guitar teacher example?

It doesnt matter, because whiteknighting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com