Isekai de Haishin Katsudou wo Shitara Tairyou no Yandere Shinja wo Umidashite Shimatta Ken - Vol. 1 Ch. 9

[mycupofcoughee]

"Not by choice" implies sex slavery, but he doesn't discuss that-- instead he says that they "have to do that, just to live".

Which... who even knows, with the worldbuilding in this narrative. I really doubt that they had absolutely no choice but to become prostitutes, even in this pre-industrial world.


There's a demand and supply for practically everything, including hitmen-- which is directly relevant given the previous chapter. Supply and demand isn't what justifies a profession.


That's two different degrees. Someone can easily recognize their humanity and treat them humanely without having any respect or accommodation for their job. The protagonist does the former but also insists that they be respected for their job as "working people" without special distinction.

The "edgelord" correctly reflected that in his first mockery: the protagonist did functionally say "sex work is real work", by virtue of the aforementioned. The "edgelord" also accurately reflected the protagonist arguing its societal value, since he talks about how people are "saved" (or "helped"-- I suspect he's using 助ける, here) through their work.

Even the last mockery he makes doesn't come from nowhere: on one hand, it's not the protagonist that says it-- his take is far more naïve and probably has to do with him relating to them on account of his own being bullied and ostracized. On the other hand, this is an indirect statement made by the framing of the narrative itself. Part of what's presumably considered to be the "discrimination of prostitutes" is the fact that they're effectively ineligible for marriage (and therefore, among other things, financial security after they age out of their work) on account of the shame they would bring to their husbands. The incident that demonstrates this involves a man lamenting about how he had to break up with his fiancée because he found out she was a prostitute (as in, she likely didn't tell him before he found out). This is immediately followed up with a narration about how they're treated "as nothing more than rotten food"-- nobody near the "moral center" (so, the protagonist, or the prostitutes we're almost certainly expected to sympathize with since their prostitution is repeatedly stated to be "for their survival") remarks that reactions like that of the aforementioned man is something that can't be helped, given what they do.

The protagonist is sympathetic to prostitutes for what I presume are his own reasons, but the rest of the narrative is sympathetic to the prostitutes to the point that it sugarcoats the profession (e.g. the current pimp is inoffensive and jolly, which is at least unusual given what pimps are normally responsible for) and glosses over their path to where they now are in three panels on half a page, being very light on detail and not at all acknowledging potential problems intrinsic to the profession as opposed to externally imposed by others' perceptions (e.g. they're vectors of venereal disease; a prostitute may end up unwittingly becoming one half of a homewrecking duo, or may insouciantly become one).

I couldn't care less about whether this is "a "current year", liberal feminist twitter activist's fever dream" when it turns out that he was otherwise ironically spot on for how flippant he was.


Are you a "good person"?

Obviously I'm not a good person. Neither are you, and neither are they. If you live on this death world of a planet, none of us are any good. Just the nature of being human.

You can write tons of interpretation, essays, contextual explaining, etc. Of this topic til the sun goes out. I just don't like it when strawmans and deliberate maliciousness is used, whether this be troll or bait.

And going back to the original poster, if they didn't care, why'd they read the responses and edit to add their reaction?

And making assumptions once again, or just deliberately insulting. I can insult them by calling them obtuse, illiterate and short attention span incel basement dwellers like how the malicious feminist Twitter baiters do. Oh wait I just did. Could be true, could also be wildly false and they're in an office with a successful career taking a break reading manga and fishing for reactions. Doesn't make my annoyance any less, but understandable.

 

[ManusOfAbyss]

and who said this?

a real Islamic hadith tells a tale about a whore who cried and beg God for mercy and forgiveness, she passed away not long after she gave a bowl of water to a thirsty dog. that one act of kindness gave herself a place inside God's heaven and proved that voices who sincerely repent will be heard.

look it up yourself if you think I'm

I don't know, just something I listened to once, at least the pt-br version sounds better "choro de puta nem Deus escuta"

 

[Eighty-six]

You know, "not by choice" doesn't actually translate to slavery.

It implies that you don't have a choice in the matter, which normally implies that your freedom to do otherwise is forcibly restricted by some person or system that considers you of a class with diminished rights-- or outright property.

If she chose to be a prostitute, or anyone chooses to be a criminal, then it's not "not by choice". If it happened that there were other things that could have conceivably been done, then there absolutely was a choice, and it was used to go into whatever they did. They weren't overpowered into those acts, after all. Panhandling is ancient enough that almsgiving has generally been seen as virtuous. There are others who clawed their way out of absolute destitution without resorting to the morally questionable if not illegal/immoral.

You can be sympathetic about their plight and recognize the darkness in their path, but you're going one step past that and annulling their agency altogether.

I think you're reading too much into it. For example, while their current pimp is shown as harmless... they did show a reference for one more stereotypical as their previous manager.

They also point out that this is a short-lived career, and the prostitutes don't even want to think what they will do later. This hardly can be seen as sugarcoating.

You're not mentioning anything I didn't outright say or otherwise allude to.

Firstly, I didn't want to talk much about the previous pimp because my point was that the "sugarcoating" is in part accomplished by the current pimp being inoffensive. However, to expand: the fact that it's possible for the current pimp to be this inoffensive, while another can be more accurate, is "sugarcoating" in that it downplays the brutality of prostitution in general. Pimps are generally abusive and exploitative, but because of the kind of people that tend to seek out human beings to rent out as if they were sex toys, there's a kind of psychopathy required to "protect" his prostitutes and also ensure he gets the money that was arranged for-- because women wouldn't be able to consistently establish that order on their own when faced with these kinds of men (who are oftentimes legitimately dangerous). Their psychopathy is therefore a kind of double-edged sword.

But if the next pimp was just this nice doughball that's diametrically opposed to the previous one, then it's as if the disposition of pimps is arbitrary and not at all both product and cause of the business they're in.

Secondly, as far as I'm concerned, the way they talk about their careers being short-lived isn't at all isolated from the immediately proceeding matter of them being ineligible for marriage. The reason it matters at all is because they can't hope to find security through marriage because of their current lifestyle, but their ever having been prostitutes makes them ineligible for marriage at all-- thus, they'll age out of both marriageability and prostitution, ending back in the slums. That's why they don't want to think about it (and their pimp doesn't even reassure them, lol).

So, it matters how said marriage ineligibility is framed, and nobody near the "moral center" of this narrative really accepts that the decision to not marry a prostitute may be an especially justified one: again, the man talking about how he had to divorce his fiancée because he found out she was a prostitute is juxtaposed with a narration about how prostitutes are treated like "rotten meat". The protagonist unilaterally praises prostitutes as "brave" and actively questions why you would judge someone based on their profession (this is a big part of why I called him naïve, by the way-- the very last chapter featured a hitman heroine).

In all, that they'll suffer going back to the slums when they age out is made out to be moreso society's fault for generally mistreating them (e.g. by not considering them marriageable, a sentiment not sympathized with by any of the characters we're at least supposed to like, least of all the protagonist who doesn't address in either way the idea that prostitutes "play with men"), and not simply the nature of their job. It is actually weird how it's said that prostitutes are treated like "rotting meat" but then there's not even a peep about prostitutes being abused by their johns.

And even if the mc considers prostitution as "real work" (I don't, by the way), you can hardly say he implied it's vital.

In context, this is a quibble. He explicitly equated it to other kinds of work ("I mean, any job can save (help?) someone, and a lot of people are being saved (helped?). And that's why I want them to be compensated and viewed fairly." (emphasis mine). He calls prostitutes "working people", and obviously those who aren't prostitutes are "working people". Altogether, he's making the case that it's at least as vital as other work.

What the mc is against is bullying of any kind, and I don't see how that is a bad thing.

I explicitly pointed out that the protagonist is speaking from his own position (which has been adequately premised). What I'm also pointing out is that the chapter as a whole works overtime to both make the prostitutes wholly sympathetic and sanitize their profession to the point of equating it with other work-- something that decontextualizes why they're seen so poorly in the first place.

And if I take this translation as 100% accurate, and their treatment as in fact become "second to none"? Hoo, boy-- that means he changed hearts so hard that prostitutes are now an esteemed protected class.

I'm right-wing, and I don't see the narrative being passed here.

I don't understand-- this isn't a left-right thing.

Obviously I'm not a good person. Neither are you, and neither are they. If you live on this death world of a planet, none of us are any good. Just the nature of being human.

Then, you're already fully aware that there's no value in you throwing this line if your goal wasn't to morally exalt yourself by perching on another.

 

[feha]

Lmao, author is a simp XD

She belongs to the streets, and to the streets she should stay.

It has been and never will be a profession with any honor. If they wanted honor they should have just sold their voice, not their throat XD

Honor is a nebulous concept, often atrocities being seen as part of it. The only warfare that should be honorable is when you End Him Rightly with your ranged pommel.

The profession should not be thought ill of because of some stupid sense of honor. It should be thought ill of because of the lacking 'hygiene' (in medieval times). In medieval times (and maybe current too? Don't actually know stats), it was responsible for the majority of the the spread of std's (maybe more correct to say that their clients were? same result tho), and the reason you don't want to marry one who used to be a "harlot" is because of how likely it is that she might infect you and your kids with something she picked up in that job. I guess for some it is a question of "purity", but I really doubt the commoners cared too much about that back then (nobles sure, and when Christianity arrived maybe commoners too for religious reasons. But the main reason purity was considered valuable to begin with, was to avoid std's, so it's kinda a cyclical reference there.).
All that is guesses I made based on impressions I got through fictions though, so take it with a pinch of salt. Either way, my point is that even mentioning "honor" is the way wrong approach to take on the subject, and generally when peoples argument is "honor" that is because it's pure prejudice and discrimination.

Voice? How? I didnt know everyone whom are poor or lack of education can sing and not tone deaf or can acts at theaters. I bet during medieval period theres lots of actors/actresses and singers!

Dunno about its veracity, but wasn't the majority of singers and musicians (thinking mainly of the female ones, but probably the men too) back then expected to do pillow-business with their patrons (the ppl funding their lives, not the ppl buying tickets/entrance to shows), too? Or used their job as a singer more as an advertisement/lure for bringing in prospective clients for the better-paying night-bussiness? I have even seen some fictions reference geisha as generally being talented women, often in music, whom as part of the foreplay play some music for their client.

So rather than saying that the competition was stiff, or that they could simply sing instead, isn't it better to say that if they did then it was "in addition to" and not "instead of"?

 

[Alphay1]

The same people that get upset over prostitutes would happily go and read harem shit where girls just flop over on MC :wheeze:

 

[mycupofcoughee]

It implies that you don't have a choice in the matter, which normally implies that your freedom to do otherwise is forcibly restricted by some person or system that considers you of a class with diminished rights-- or outright property.

If she chose to be a prostitute, or anyone chooses to be a criminal, then it's not "not by choice". If it happened that there were other things that could have conceivably been done, then there absolutely was a choice, and it was used to go into whatever they did. They weren't overpowered into those acts, after all. Panhandling is ancient enough that almsgiving has generally been seen as virtuous. There are others who clawed their way out of absolute destitution without resorting to the morally questionable if not illegal/immoral.

You can be sympathetic about their plight and recognize the darkness in their path, but you're going one step past that and annulling their agency altogether.



You're not mentioning anything I didn't outright say or otherwise allude to.

Firstly, I didn't want to talk much about the previous pimp because my point was that the "sugarcoating" is in part accomplished by the current pimp being inoffensive. However, to expand: the fact that it's possible for the current pimp to be this inoffensive, while another can be more accurate, is "sugarcoating" in that it downplays the brutality of prostitution in general. Pimps are generally abusive and exploitative, but because of the kind of people that tend to seek out human beings to rent out as if they were sex toys, there's a kind of psychopathy required to "protect" his prostitutes and also ensure he gets the money that was arranged for-- because women wouldn't be able to consistently establish that order on their own when faced with these kinds of men (who are oftentimes legitimately dangerous). Their psychopathy is therefore a kind of double-edged sword.

But if the next pimp was just this nice doughball that's diametrically opposed to the previous one, then it's as if the disposition of pimps is arbitrary and not at all both product and cause of the business they're in.

Secondly, as far as I'm concerned, the way they talk about their careers being short-lived isn't at all isolated from the immediately proceeding matter of them being ineligible for marriage. The reason it matters at all is because they can't hope to find security through marriage because of their current lifestyle, but their ever having been prostitutes makes them ineligible for marriage at all-- thus, they'll age out of both marriageability and prostitution, ending back in the slums. That's why they don't want to think about it (and their pimp doesn't even reassure them, lol).

So, it matters how said marriage ineligibility is framed, and nobody near the "moral center" of this narrative really accepts that the decision to not marry a prostitute may be an especially justified one: again, the man talking about how he had to divorce his fiancée because he found out she was a prostitute is juxtaposed with a narration about how prostitutes are treated like "rotten meat". The protagonist unilaterally praises prostitutes as "brave" and actively questions why you would judge someone based on their profession (this is a big part of why I called him naïve, by the way-- the very last chapter featured a hitman heroine).


In context, this is a quibble. He explicitly equated it to other kinds of work ("I mean, any job can save (help?) someone, and a lot of people are being saved (helped?). And that's why I want them to be compensated and viewed fairly." (emphasis mine). He calls prostitutes "working people", and obviously those who aren't prostitutes are "working people". Altogether, he's making the case that it's at least as vital as other work.


I explicitly pointed out that the protagonist is speaking from his own position (which has been adequately premised). What I'm also pointing out is that the chapter as a whole works overtime to both make the prostitutes wholly sympathetic and sanitize their profession to the point of equating it with other work-- something that decontextualizes why they're seen so poorly in the first place.

And if I take this translation as 100% accurate, and their treatment as in fact become "second to none"? Hoo, boy-- that means he changed hearts so hard that prostitutes are now an esteemed protected class.


I don't understand-- this isn't a left-right thing.


Then, you're already fully aware that there's no value in you throwing this line if your goal wasn't to morally exalt yourself by perching on another.

Not really morally exalt, more like throwing frustration out against what I deem to be acceptable target.

Certainly not the same as your approach of scholastically lecturing on the intricacies of context, history, professions, etc.

And here we stand, the baiting troller, the firebrand reactionaries, the follow-up lecturer, and reactionary reactionaries. What fun times.

 

[ARealCoolGuy]

Perhaps you're just expecting too much from him?

I don't expect anything from him, but I AM expecting something from the writer. We're told people love him, we see people love him, but we're given the most toothless, lazy, unbelievable reasons why people love him.

As I alluded to, even the "he's the only form of entertainment" excuse doesn't really work, because that hasn't been clarified and is only a guess on our part - after all, where did all the radios and computers come from? Did he make those as well? Then the comic should have stated so!

It just drives me mad, loopy, insane-o in the brain-o, that I'm supposed to suspend my disbelief to such an extreme as to believe that anyone (even in a fantasy world where watching the wind rustles trees is the only form of entertainment) finds the MC's words compelling, or interesting, or cause ANY political change what-so-ever. Are you really telling me nobody ever had the thought that prostitution is "work" before? How brain dead of a world is he apparently in?

The comic, and story, would be exactly the same, BUT PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD put some thought into what this idiot, that everyone asserts is a genius is actually saying about these heavy topics - because there's so much to say, there were some fantastic debates about them when they were issues back in the day.

Going back to the slavery topic in one of the previous chapters, there are so many interesting points to make about that which were discussed back in the day; the most interesting and compelling to me (as it puts aside any moral quandaries and looks at it in a purely practical way) is how it effectively made everyone poorer by taking paid labour away from the people, and therefore customers away from businesses, and taxes away from the government - it's a very smart capitalistic argument.
...But all we got was "slavery bad lol".

And you can make the argument that he's "just a teenager", but he's a teenager from our world, where these issues have been discussed and conclusions reached. Even then, when do we expect teenagers to be "realistic" in their intelligence in these stories, especially one such as this where his "incredible" rants change politics (and he's also a super powerful magic user). It's an argument I just don't buy.

Anyway, I'm giving myself another brain aneurysm thinking about this, so I'll leave it there.

 

[assman162]

how is this rated so high.

 

[noname120]

how is this rated so high.

because its a silly entertaining read.
the fun police found this chapter not appealing enough to their sensibilities though

 

[Ant1989]

It implies that you don't have a choice in the matter, which normally implies that your freedom to do otherwise is forcibly restricted by some person or system that considers you of a class with diminished rights-- or outright property.

If she chose to be a prostitute, or anyone chooses to be a criminal, then it's not "not by choice". If it happened that there were other things that could have conceivably been done, then there absolutely was a choice, and it was used to go into whatever they did. They weren't overpowered into those acts, after all. Panhandling is ancient enough that almsgiving has generally been seen as virtuous. There are others who clawed their way out of absolute destitution without resorting to the morally questionable if not illegal/immoral.

You can be sympathetic about their plight and recognize the darkness in their path, but you're going one step past that and annulling their agency altogether.
[...]

I don't understand-- this isn't a left-right thing.


Then, you're already fully aware that there's no value in you throwing this line if your goal wasn't to morally exalt yourself by perching on another.

You do understand the concept of luck and opportunity? It doesn't happen for everyone in need. While there are people who can climb out of desperate situations in moral ways, that doesn't apply to everybody because of those two things. For many is either the immoral ways or starving. You may consider starving as a better option, but I assure you, many, if not most, will disagree. I used the example of the slaves because it's a historical one easy to imagine, but I'm sure there lots of other desperate circumstances that can force people into criminality/prostitution with every consequence of such professions. I'm not saying that every criminal is a victim, or every prostitute is a saint, Only Fans makes it quite clear that many women are more than willing to sell their dignity for lots of money, but you shouldn't judge. If you need a biblical quote "Do not judge so as not to be judged" (I'm translating to English, so may differ a little).

If you don't know, the defense of prostitution as something legit, together with the abolition of any and every consequence for anything a woman can do, are feminist subjects, so left-wing. This is why I pointed my stance.

 

[Antinomy]

The same people that get upset over prostitutes would happily go and read harem shit where girls just flop over on MC :wheeze:

Not just prostitutes, if the females aren't virgins. They could be raped and retards will go "they belong on the streets"

 

[Melgan]

Sex isn’t holy. Women sell their body in desperate times to survive and feed their kids, society is a bit too harsh.

 

[Eighty-six]

You do understand the concept of luck and opportunity? It doesn't happen for everyone in need. While there are people who can climb out of desperate situations in moral ways, that doesn't apply to everybody because of those two things.

That doesn't mean that what they've done is any less immoral-- see below:

If you need a biblical quote "Do not judge so as not to be judged" (I'm translating to English, so may differ a little).

That's not the complete teaching-- it's the first statement in a larger teaching that calls us to be charitable. Later on in that teaching, we're told of how to correct others: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Elsewhere in the same gospel, the order of church discipline (which requires judgment) is explained.

I'm doing exactly that when I say what I say. Of course I can understand why someone may want to steal from another in their own desperation to live, but it's still wrong and they've nonetheless wronged another person by an action they chose to take, putting them at a disadvantage (what about their plight?). You can't hold "circumstances" or "luck" accountable, and at any rate those things didn't commit the offending act.

My feeling bad for them doesn't erase that.

If you don't know, the defense of prostitution as something legit, together with the abolition of any and every consequence for anything a woman can do, are feminist subjects, so left-wing.

That's the thing: it's not necessarily feminist. There are indeed feminists that oppose prostitution. Granted, their opposition tends to be less about its general societal detriment and more specifically about exploitation of women for male gratification. Also granted, they're probably the minority "radical feminists" rather than the stark majority "liberal feminists". Regardless, there are arguments for and against prostitution all over the political continuum.

 

[beep_repair]

It implies that you don't have a choice in the matter, which normally implies that your freedom to do otherwise is forcibly restricted by some person or system that considers you of a class with diminished rights-- or outright property.

Streamer's argument that many people turn to prostitution not of "their own will" but because they "have to" is often literally true: poor people with few skills and little-to-no education are often sold or otherwise forced into prostitution, while others are are trained into it from childhood. It's also true in a more figurative sense: many are raised in poor/marginalized communities whose members have very little (if any) real access to opportunity, which radically restricts their ability to make meaningfully "free" choices.

If she chose to be a prostitute, or anyone chooses to be a criminal, then it's not "not by choice". If it happened that there were other things that could have conceivably been done, then there absolutely was a choice, and it was used to go into whatever they did. They weren't overpowered into those acts, after all.

It's clear that prostitution is not a crime in Streamer's world. It's therefore disingenuous to equate prostitutes with criminals in discussing that world. The distinction you're drawing between meaningfully "free" choice and forcible compulsion, meanwhile, is a false dichotomy. Most human choices are made not at one or the other of those two extremes, but somewhere in between, shaped by the "soft restrictions" imposed by culture & circumstance (see below).

An impoverished, uneducated, low-caste person who chooses prostitution from a radically limited list of apparent options, none of which seem any more appealing, has not made an equally "free" choice as a minor noble who turns tricks in secret for their own amusement. Freedom is never enjoyed equally by all members of society.

...the fact that it's possible for the current pimp to be this inoffensive, while another can be more accurate, is "sugarcoating" in that it downplays the brutality of prostitution in general. Pimps are generally abusive and exploitative, but because of the kind of people that tend to seek out human beings to rent out as if they were sex toys...

Prostitution is "managed" by brutal criminals to the extent that it is criminalized or pushed into the shadowy "gray area" margins of society. Where prostitution is legal, daylit and well-regulated, those who manage it will tend to be ordinary businesspersons. I think it's safe to assume in this case that the pimp was a small-time thug operating outside the law in a poorly-policed ghetto, and that the current manager is a legit businessman operating in full view of society. That's the difference.

...it matters how said marriage ineligibility is framed, and nobody near the "moral center" of this narrative really accepts that the decision to not marry a prostitute may be an especially justified one: again, the man talking about how he had to divorce his fiancée because he found out she was a prostitute is juxtaposed with a narration about how prostitutes are treated like "rotten meat". The protagonist unilaterally praises prostitutes as "brave" and actively questions why you would judge someone based on their profession...

This chapter argues that the contempt commonly directed at prostitutes and prostitution is morally wrong. That said, it's a work of lightweight pop fiction, and it does not for a moment pretend to be anything else. It has no obligation to present all sides of the issues it addresses or to examine them in depth. Its primary task is to entertain.

I don't personally see anything wrong with the juxtaposition you mention. The man talking about breaking up with his fiancee isn't presented as a bad person, but rather as someone aware of and therefore bound by social convention. Although "free", he was forced to break up with the woman in question ("my family name would die out before I do"). And the narrator's claim that prostitutes are "treated as nothing more than rotting food" accurately reflects the brief working life that the prostitutes themselves had mentioned only a few panels earlier. This isn't duplicitous agitprop, it's reasonable depiction of of the fictional circumstances, as viewed by its characters.

I explicitly pointed out that the protagonist is speaking from his own position (which has been adequately premised). What I'm also pointing out is that the chapter as a whole works overtime to both make the prostitutes wholly sympathetic and sanitize their profession to the point of equating it with other work-- something that decontextualizes why they're seen so poorly in the first place.

And if I take this translation as 100% accurate, and their treatment as in fact become "second to none"? Hoo, boy-- that means he changed hearts so hard that prostitutes are now an esteemed protected class.

Yes, the chapter "takes sides", so to speak. There's nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with equating legal, well-regulated sex work with other forms of legal, well-regulated work. What you describe as sanitizing the profession I view as combatting unjust besmirching. There are many reasons why prostitutes are or might be seen poorly, but this story is under no obligation to address that.

And yes, I would hope that prostitutes would enjoy full legal protection and that the best of them would be greatly esteemed - at least by their clients

 

[deathmailrock]

Lmao, author is a simp XD

She belongs to the streets, and to the streets she should stay.

It has been and never will be a profession with any honor. If they wanted honor they should have just sold their voice, not their throat XD

It's not like they had a choice... that's the main thing... they were born on the streets with literally no way out...

It was their only way of surviving... they are basically victims if you think about it....

Yes, it's not a good position... but that's a fault of society more than

 

[Eighty-six]

It's clear that prostitution is not a crime in Streamer's world. It's therefore disingenuous to equate prostitutes with criminals in discussing that world.

I'm talking about criminals because my interlocutor mentioned criminals as another example of his one point, and I sought to tackle both matters with the same exact point about choice: my interlocutor argued that people can be "forced" into either one by "circumstance", and I'm arguing that they regardless made the decision that they did. I've further argued that you can have sympathy for the plight that darkened their path, but that doesn't affect the barebones fact that they made a choice that they have no choice but to take responsibility for.

I think it's safe to assume in this case that the pimp was a small-time thug operating outside the law in a poorly-policed ghetto--

You're assuming far too much, considering she never said anything of the sort about the previous pimp and at best implied that he was an asshole.

This chapter argues that the contempt commonly directed at prostitutes and prostitution is morally wrong. That said, it's a work of lightweight pop fiction, and it does not for a moment pretend to be anything else. It has no obligation to present all sides of the issues it addresses or to examine them in depth. Its primary task is to entertain.

No story has an "obligation" to do anything-- maybe the only thing necessary is to "have a conflict" (but then, the time-honored kishōtenketsu narrative structure doesn't mandate conflict). That doesn't mean that the writing choices made (or not made) won't arguably augment or diminish the story's value. Granted, you're correct-- this is a conversation well above the dignity of this work, its apparent purposes, and even the seeming purpose of this chapter (i.e. provide a cause for this addition to the protagonist's shadow harem to become enamored with him).

...but it's still obviously saying something, and my initial comment was pointing out that the guy who charged that this was a "liberal Twitter feminist fever dream" or whatever was otherwise scarily spot-on in his assessment despite his flippancy. My morals aside, it IS charging that sex work is valid and vital, and it IS arguing that it's not great that prostitutes aren't considered good enough to marry (whether by personal preference or societal imposition).

I don't personally see anything wrong with the juxtaposition you mention. The man talking about breaking up with fiancee isn't presented as a bad person, but rather as someone aware of and therefore bound by social convention. Although "free", he was forced to break up with the woman in question ("my family name would die out before I do").

Your assertion about the man being "bound by social convention" is assuming a little too much-- he found out that his fiancée was a prostitute, and when he talks about dumping her, he doesn't talk about any regret in doing so. It'd be more proper to assume that he did it because he himself wanted to (especially since most people don't want to marry prostitutes in the first place), rather than just being forced by social convention. With that lack of regret, the best you could say that approaches your charge is that he puts personal value on his family name that isn't commanded of him.

And the narrator's claim that prostitutes are "treated as nothing more than rotting food" accurately reflects the brief working life that the prostitutes themselves had mentioned only a few panels earlier.

It may reflect what you're talking about, but the marriage dialogue following the lamenting of their future is the first time that chapter that demonstrates a cost of being a prostitute. Along with the juxtaposed narration, the previous clause in said narration about their low social status, the fact that Streamer's impassioned speech moves the society to specially positively treat prostitutes, and the fact that "rotting meat" invokes a sense of "no value" or "negative value", I find its primary (if not only) purpose clear: the "rotting meat" comparison is in reference to the esteem they're held in.

So, it does matter that the marriage conversation was the demonstration of the fact stated by the narration: his aversion to marrying a prostitute is meant to be evidence that they're looked at poorly, as if it's wrong to not want to marry a prostitute-- especially since their work is (or so the narrative altogether charges) at least as valid as the work of other people.

Nor is there anything wrong with equating legal, well-regulated sex work with other forms of legal, well-regulated work.

Nobody will ever be able to get away from the fact that any form of prostitution is at least partly supplied by sex trafficking, which justifies the lion's share of its opposition. Even in the well-invoked Netherlands, this is an issue.

Not every society-level heavily-entrenched-and-beyond-question aversion is immediately articulable-- if at all-- but that doesn't mean that none of them have discernible value.

 

[MolaCola]

lmao
sex work is work guys
ig praise for degrading yourself for degens
im not saying demonize them but streamer is just simp playing it safe
pretty much praising the work, when the prostitute getting all enamored was exploited at childhood and forced into that situation
-and the people around her probably sex trafficked or groomed to be in that spot
its the good ol liberal mindset where you pretend the minority of sex workers that actually love having to degrade themselves daily in camera set the standard for how good the job actually is
-btw some of whom are paid to literally p*ss or sh*t themselves b/c degens are almost always the highest payers (cuz hardly any potential significant other would want to act out these disturbed fetishes)


all that aside, did you guys know degenerate is deemed a 0 tolerance word by Riot games
say it in your League of Legends game and see what happens.

 

[phil777]

You do understand the concept of luck and opportunity? It doesn't happen for everyone in need. While there are people who can climb out of desperate situations in moral ways, that doesn't apply to everybody because of those two things. For many is either the immoral ways or starving. You may consider starving as a better option, but I assure you, many, if not most, will disagree. I used the example of the slaves because it's a historical one easy to imagine, but I'm sure there lots of other desperate circumstances that can force people into criminality/prostitution with every consequence of such professions. I'm not saying that every criminal is a victim, or every prostitute is a saint, Only Fans makes it quite clear that many women are more than willing to sell their dignity for lots of money, but you shouldn't judge. If you need a biblical quote "Do not judge so as not to be judged" (I'm translating to English, so may differ a little).

If you don't know, the defense of prostitution as something legit, together with the abolition of any and every consequence for anything a woman can do, are feminist subjects, so left-wing. This is why I pointed my stance.

Are we going to casually ignore that if there are female prostitutes, that male prostitues might exist? Or are you fine with the Valhalla Penis Mansion? So how is this a feminist, left-wing subject?

 

[ikasan]

Me: "Wow, he treated them like actual human beings, something they are not used to. I wonder what are the comments"
checks Mangadex
Me: "Yep, enough Internet for today"

Truly one of the threads of all time

 

[Eighty-six]

Me: "Wow, he treated them like actual human beings

By speaking well of the industry that literally objectifies them.

lol

lmao, even