[sequoia]

I find it sad that there's a story of people (mostly women) doing this disgusting job for little pay (yes, chatting up horny men online because you need the money is disgusting, there's no glamour and little dignity to it), and the top comment is how this is unfair to the john (purchaser of sex work) because it's misleading.

[sneak]

Sex work is work. They’re not being coerced. There’s no more or less dignity to it than being a waitress or checkout clerk. It’s no more or less disgusting than being a hospice nurse or a garbage collector.

It’s just a job.

Jobs are not inherently fraudulent, however. A deal is a deal, and this is plainly fraud.

It is unfair to the purchaser, and it is not unfair to the people who voluntarily accept these jobs (when other jobs are obviously available).

[hermitcrab]

It is rather sad that a job they hate, that only pays ~$2/hour, is apparently the best option they have.

[danparsonson]

Doesn't 'a job I hate for not enough money' describe like 50% or more of the world's workforce?

[hermitcrab]

I hope not. Most people I know seems to get at least some enjoyment and satisfaction from their job. But I live in a first world country and have a white collar job, so my experience may not be globally relevant.

[palata]

> it is not unfair to the people who voluntarily accept these jobs (when other jobs are obviously available).

Are you saying that jobs are obviously available in this case, or are you saying that it is not unfair under the condition that other jobs are obviously available? That's very different.

[palata]

I love how on the Internet one can be downvoted for asking for precision when not understanding a statement.

[sequoia]

> There’s no more or less dignity to it than being a waitress or checkout clerk.

Do you imagine this is how the workers feel about it? Do you think they tell their friends "I seduce western men online for pennies an hour" the same way they'd say "I am a waitress?" You can ignore this fact if you wish, but these jobs carry a social stigma and most people would prefer not to role play intimacy with men online if there were another option.

"Sex work is work" is like saying slavery could theoretically be OK under some circumstances (We're all born under legal obligations, how is slavery different etc etc.). A tortured theoretical argument could be made to support either of these, but in reality we know that slavery is unconscionable because of the indignity and brutality of it, regardless of theory. "Sex work" is the same: in reality it is a dangerous and unpleasant job (that overlaps with slavery a lot, incidentally) done mostly be vulnerable women, and that they're often abused and left injured by it. See this article before you go saying prostitution is benign and harmless, this stance is divorced from reality: https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficki...

[sneak]

“pennies an hour” sidesteps the fact that $2-3/hr is a fairly decent wage in the Philippines.

The average hourly wage is $2.11 and the minimum wage is $1.36 per hour. It is likely easier work and better pay than being a waitress.

Voluntary, harmless sex work such as that described in TFA has no relation whatsoever to slavery. Your crusade is out of place in this thread, I believe. Most working class jobs are unpleasant, and being a sex chat operator is probably one of the safest jobs one could have in the world. You seem to be intentionally conflating the topic at hand with unregulated street prostitution.

> most people would prefer not to role play intimacy with men online if there were another option.

What does that have to do with the people who DO do these jobs? They plainly have other options and they work as sex chat operators by choice.

TFA intentionally frames their wages as exploitative when they are median for the locale and substantially above minimum wage there.