We should try to read each others' comments in the most charitable light possible.
In this case, I think the friendly way to interpret that comment is as an attempt to anticipate and pre-empt a very common and harmful misconception about sex workers.
I read it as saying that it shouldn't need to be stated, ideally, that she is brilliant because of stigma around sex work and workers. That we have then freedom to do this as we please in the USA, it's legit work, and many people of all intelligence levels and circumstances may choose to do it.
It's a strongly worded opinion and with Afghanistan thrown in, but we all know the Taliban's history of repression soo.. I think it's worth everyone seeing.
It comes off as strange to me because it doesn’t make a difference if a “sex worker” is intelligent or not. And this goes for any job that doesn’t require brilliance. Am I supposed to feel better for, more accepting of, more sympathetic to, etc. a person because of their intellect? And if I have a problem with sex work, it has nothing to do with how I perceive the intellect of the workers, so the pre-empting seems unnecessary.
Maybe comments should read each others’ future, unwritten comments in the most charitable light possible. Otherwise it starts looking like we’re writing up preemptive strawmen.
Also, it is quite clear that comment was written to elicit sympathy. I can see why someone gets angry when intellect is used as a justification for sympathy.
Pointing out that someone is intelligent is useful, in this case, as a general "well, this can happen to anyone" kind of comment, and to break stereotypes about how sex workers all fit some narrow stereotype.
That is important to point out, as sometimes people generalize or attack people, unfairly, based on these things.
Though, you should also be careful about phrases like, "this can happen to anyone." It plays into another common and harmful misconception about sex workers, that they don't have much agency, they're victims, this is something that happens to them rather than just another one of many possible career choices that a person can make.
doesn't require brilliance? appart from her deep interest in science, she became one the top twenty most paid porn actress worldwide. i don't think this comes out of pure luck.
it is true that the intelligence argument was arbitrary (it is my assessment of her) and perhaps clumsy. but again, go have a look on your favorite social media how these people are considered.
And for every one of the top twenty most paid porn actresses worldwide, there are probably ~2 million[1] who aren't that. I'm not saying your friend isn't intelligent when I say that sex work does not require brilliance, nor am I saying that intelligent sex workers don't exist. I am saying that sex work itself doesn't have employers screening candidates for their level of intelligence. This should be a fairly uncontroversial remark IMO. It's not strictly about your friend, and I'll take your word for it that she's quite smart.
The amount of anger and negativity in this comment is shocking.
The work she does is often stereotyped as being "dumb" or non-intellectual. To fight that idea, OP found it valuable to mention how smart she is and how these platorms provide a safe and profitable way to provide for her child.
Ask yourself - and I mean really ask yourself - what about that statement has you so angry?
1) that she is doing sex work, because she has no choice to feed her son, given her medical condition.
2) on an unrelated note: she is a brilliant and very intelligent individual.
3) point 2) was emphasized because for a significant part of the population, these two are incompatible, which is obviously wrong.
4) these platforms, while far from perfect provides some safety to sex workers. this important and fundamental: the sex industry, be it pornography or other, is dangerous to actress, actors and prostitutes alike. many get raped and/or abused, for instance.
5) on yet an unrelated note that she is a loving mom. moreover, an ex gf of mine, a past sex worker as well, is also a loving mom. i added this information because both in english and french slang, if you're mom is a sex worker, you and her are not good person. i don't think these children can openly talk about their moms' jobs openly at school without provoking major backlash, if not legal actions. and we live in a quite liberal country.
If she is restoring to sex work to feed her son, what is she spending the father's child support money on? That seems like the entire reason child support is required by law.
"Required by law" as not as powerful as it sounds.
Law is not powerful enough to protect someone from a violent partner. Restraining orders don't stop violence from taking place. They only promise punishment afterwards.
So you do not pursue a violent partner for child support, even with the law on your side. It is too dangerous.
Online sex work is the safer option.
Oh, also, you seem to have the idea that child support money is enough by itself for the costs of raising a child decently. It often isn't, you need another income source to cover it. In the example we are talking about, the person could not do a typical job, so they had to find an alternative and OF provided it.
> If she is resorting to sex work to feed her son, what is she spending the father's child support money on?
That implies:
(a) there is father's child support (a sweeping assumption that is often wrong), and
(b) the father's child support is sufficient by itself to feed her son without needing to resort to sex work.
It's also suggesting that the mother is misusing funds somehow.
The distinction between "feeding" and "raising" you might have picked on would be, in my view, a quibble over a technicality. Child support is to contribute to the costs of raising a child, it's not earmarked to specifically cover food, and if you need extra income to raise a child, it's acceptable common language to phrase that as earning money to feed a child.
Stop. The problem is you need to feed your kid today. Not when the judge or law gets around to deciding you’re right. Just stop arbitrating other people’s lives. It’s not hard.
You're so close to having empathy for all people! Just keep going: What if nobody had to justify their existence?
Edit: Downvoters, try a little harder. Engage your emotional core. Really work those empathy centers. Think about it: If nobody had to justify their existence, and people just allowed each other to exist, then we wouldn't have to weigh whether sex workers are more deserving of rights than computer scientists. We could allow both; we could allow everybody.
Since nobody had the temerity, I'll answer. If nobody had to justify their existence, then our society would not need systems which destroy people. It's that simple, and the folks using downvotes instead of words should confront their biases.
You shouldn't need to, but on Hacker News I can't say I can fault this caveat getting ahead of some potentially nasty comments, even if in principle I agree it shouldn't need to be said.
i know, unfortunately sex work is still highly stigmatized, including in western present cultures.
you don't need to go as far as afghanistan, i'm back from eastern europe where my friends from the LGBTQ community are literally being beaten by neo nazi funded by putin.
It is stigmatized because it plays a part in facilitating people's addictions and mental problems. Just like gambling, drug-dealing, snake-oil salesmen, etc.
It's not all roses, that's for sure..
