[nooyurrsdey]

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?

[actually_a_dog]

I think it's the implication that sex work is inherently beneath someone who is "brilliant."

[immmmmm]

i was saying:

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.

sorry not making all of the above clear enough.

[immmmmm]

father is not paying a nickel, and is a violent individual.

alternative is social services.

[arodgers_la]

If she thinks he will go after her if she has his wages garnished, she should add a restraining order.

[romwell]

>she should add a restraining order.

To prevent illegal behavior, we should outlaw it!

[omgwtfbyobbq]

If that person is going to go after her for wage garnishment, I'm not confident a restraining order will change anything.

[arodgers_la]

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.

[jlokier]

"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.

[immmmmm]

yes, thanks!

i forgot to mention her mom is an hardcore and highly manipulative evangelist, as if life was not hard enough.

[arodgers_la]

You pulled that assumption out of nowhere. I said feeding a child.

[jlokier]

The assumption comes from this:

> 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.

[tclancy]

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.

[dna_polymerase]

You got it. Drives me nuts. Like a computer scientist is inherent gold for society and everyone else has to justify their existence.

[myWindoonn]

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.

[myWindoonn]

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.

[immmmmm]

please re read it, with the additional information in child message.

i agree and i am a computer scientist.

[whynaut]

You shouldn’t need to “excuse” sex work.

[adjkant]

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.