July 30, 2021

Democrat sex work advocacy and conflict between material vs. informational sectors of society

One of the strangest aspects of next-gen Democrats is their obsession with sex work, and sex workers. Is this simply because liberal guys are dickless dorks who could only get laid if they paid for it? Or because they don't want their porn-site lifeline to be taken away from them? While both of those things may be true, the personal is not political. Instead we must analyze this phenomenon in the context of the make-up of their party's coalition — and that of their enemy.

Democrats represent the interests of the elites in the informational sectors of society — finance, media / entertainment, and info-tech. The output of these sectors is not labor-intensive: to reach a larger audience, a media outlet simply sends more copies of their TV broadcast over the airwaves, or a movie studio sends more hard-drives containing its movies to the multiplexes.

That is in contrast to labor-intensive forms of those activities, such as live music and live acting, where the output scales with the number of man-hours going into the production. There, if you want to put more butts in seats, a single live performance can only reach an audience of at most tens of thousands, in the largest stadiums.

If the target market is in the millions or higher orders of magnitude, suddenly you have to put on hundreds or thousands more performances than if you simply recorded one performance and made copies of that recording for mass distribution and projection. And the same troop of actors, or band of musicians, cannot possibly carry out those thousands more performances — you're going to have to hire a whole bunch of troops or bands. And now, your profit margin is strongly influenced by the unit cost of labor, unlike the producer of a movie or pop song.

Republicans, on the other hand, represent the interests of the elites in material sectors, where the output is labor-intensive — military / police / security forces, agriculture, energy extraction, and manufacturing. Not to mention myriad small businesses that are sensitive to the unit cost of labor, e.g. a mom-and-pop restaurant, not a small firm of accountants. If such sectors want to dramatically increase their output, they have to hire a lot more workers and managers, and open more land / space / workplaces for them to do their jobs.

So where does "sex work" fit into this partisan divide? Well, the term is still inchoate and amorphous, but you can see how different types of sex-related industries will be treated by Democrats, depending on whether or not they are labor-intensive. Some examples of labor-intensive sex work: prostitution, stripping / exotic dancing at a club, phone sex conversations, waitressing at a "breastaurant" like Hooters, and so on. Those that are not labor-intensive: any form of online pornographic content, and the remaining offline kinds of porn (DVDs, magazines, etc.).

If they are labor-intensive, their elites will not fit in naturally with the Democrats, and the Democrats will use their para-state armies — the NGOs — to undermine their interests. For example, organizing dancers in the stripping industry into labor unions (against the interests of strip club owners and managers). Whereas if they are not labor-intensive, their elites are a natural fit with the Democrats, and they will be integrated into the party's coalition along with those of other informational sectors. For example, doing favors for the owners and managers of porn studios, and seeking donations or other support from them in turn.

Having said that, which of the two projects will they pursue more? Whichever most advances their own interests. If there's a big prize to win for themselves by undermining the interests of the labor-intensive sex industries, they'll focus more on NGOs vs. the sex-industry elites. If there's more to be won by integrating the elites of sex industries that are not labor-intensive, they'll focus more on building up their own coalition.

In reality, Democrats focus very little on the labor-intensive industries. They are organizing grad students, journalists, and coders more than they are strippers, brothel prostitutes, and phone sex operators. And no, it doesn't matter if they run a union drive at one or two strip clubs out of the nearly 4000 in America. Nor is it material if one or two token prostitutes affiliate with the party; unless a large share of them are integrated into the political machine, they as a sector are left out of its patronage schemes of protection and provision.

The only labor-intensive sectors that Democrats organize are government workers (including health care, which is heavily reliant on government contracts through Medicare and Medicaid). So far, sex work is not produced by the government — and therefore, leftist activists would only unionize prostitutes if they were part of a "state-issued gf" program.

If Democrat NGOs are not redirecting the wealth from labor-intensive industries into their own coffers, via unionization, they do still have some government funding to hoover up, with "sex worker relief" as their mission statement. They will not do the things for workers that unions normally do, like securing higher wages and better working conditions. But they will conduct the all-important "community outreach" to de-stigmatize sex work, educate sex workers of their rights, and maybe pass out a few breadcrumbs of charity (e.g. free condoms for streetwalkers, if that activity ever returns to American streets).

That form of NGO-as-social-worker does nothing materially for the sex workers involved, but nor does it antagonize the elites of that industry (such as strip club owners) because their wealth is not being redirected into the Democrat NGO, whose government funding comes from political connections to Democrat politicians, or perhaps "philanthropic" (social engineering) funding from wealthy Democrat donors. It rustles the fewest feathers, and secures some sinecures for liberal members of the over-produced elite aspirant class.

As people, Democrats are fundamentally averse to interpersonal confrontation, and are socially awkward in large groups, especially if they're strangers and from a different background. These flaws are unimportant in the informational sectors that their party represents, but they are fatal in the labor-intensive sectors, which rely on a large number of man-hours to get stuff done. And when a lot of people work in that sector, they will be pretty diverse.

Organizing a union to directly interfere with owner / management operations would be far too stressful for activists who would rather cattily backstab each other over an internet connection. They are not firebrands or leaders of a conquering army, as a union would be if it won concessions from management. The only masses they can supervise are violent mobs who just destroy shit, like BLM and Antifa. It doesn't require a socially savvy, interpersonally well-oiled machine for leftists to orchestrate a mob burning down a working-class neighborhood in a battleground-state city.

Can you imagine leftists walking up to a group of strippers, and coming off as anything other than pathetic? Some would think the activists were well-meaning but boring and pointless dorks with typical nice-guy syndrome, while others would notice the sex-pest red flags and steer clear of them altogether. Once turned down, the leftists would stew in resentment over the same type of girls not noticing them or rejecting their attention in high school (a mental state the leftists never mature from). That includes leftist women, who would cry sour grapes over being excluded yet again from the pretty and popular girl clique, dismissing them as "typical airheaded cheerleaders, only with tattoos".

Liberals are more of the cerebral than corporeal orientation, and that's even more true the more leftist they are. There's no environment they viscerally fear more than one of kinesthetic performance, whether it's a sports field or a dancefloor where they're easily seen by the crowd. They have two left feet. Strippers might seem to be natural members of the Democrat coalition, but that was only back when the Republicans were the Moral Majority type (defunct since the 1990s). Now it's more of a jocks vs. nerds divide, and pole-dancing could not be any more kinesthetic and less cerebral.

I'm sure strippers are mostly apolitical, but Democrats would still write them off for living in Trump-voting flyover states, having working-class jobs, and not giving out pity sex to post-grads. If they checked some token demographic boxes — black trannies — then Democrats might be interested, but they couldn't care less about them as a class of workers.

That leaves mass media pornography as the sex sector where Democrats would work to integrate their elites, which has already taken place for the established studios in the L.A. area. Although pornographic in content, their business model is basically the same as the big Hollywood feature film studios, so why wouldn't they fit in naturally with the Democrats?

As an aside, this shows why it's misleading to refer to pornographic scenes as prostitution. It's true the girl is getting paid to have sex with some guy she'd otherwise not be with. But he's getting paid too, albeit far less. They're actors putting on a fictional show for an audience. The guy in the scene is not the customer, but all of those in the audience.

Importantly, unlike prostitution, where providing sexual services to a larger market means putting in more woman-hours, for mass media pornography the same scene can reach dozens, thousands, or millions of viewers. It's not like a peep show, where a different girl would have to carry out the performance in front of a different live audience (a dirty version of community stage acting). Porn acting, like movie acting, is not labor-intensive.

The only place left for Democrats to integrate the elites is OnlyFans or other Uber-for-porn platforms. None of the girls' performances are IRL, but are mass-mediated by an IT platform. Growing the audience does not mean having more girls perform, but having more viewers download the app, and for each girl to build her brand by orders of magnitude. The output is not labor-intensive. So the platform's owners and managers are a natural fit with the big-wigs of Silicon Valley and their Democrat political vehicle.

It's also possible that activists would organize the elite ranks of the performers (in both the traditional studio and Uberized versions), akin to the grad student unions at Ivy League colleges, journalist unions at prestige publications, or coder unions at elite tech conglomerates like Alphabet. It would be more of a guild for a labor aristocracy, rather than a broad-based union drawing on legions of workers.

The place to watch there is top-ranked Twitch streamers, some of whom border on titty-streaming. They have already worked hand-in-glove with next-gen Democrat politicians to propagandize and whip votes for the party, as in the Among Us livestream before the 2020 election, where AOC and Ilhan Omar played with the "Queen of Twitch" Pokimane and other video game celebs, who were only too eager to host the politicos.

It's not hard to believe the Democrats would launch similar ventures, and fundraisers, with the elite ranks of porn actresses from the traditional studios and OnlyFans alike, though hosted on an adult site like PornHub instead of Twitch. No different from the standard liberal telethon with celebs from the media / entertainment industry, just those whose mass-mediated entertainment is pornographic.

I can't see leftists organizing similar fundraisers and vote-whipping drives at strip clubs, brothels, or Hooters restaurants. They would be fighting the labor-intensive small-biz owners and managers, who are not 100% Democrat and may even lean (libertarian) Republican. In the eyes of leftists, those elites are just a more salacious flavor of boat dealers and Applebees franchise owners — chuds, deplorables, probably sexual harassers (totally unlike the management of a porn studio or OnlyFans...).

Nor would those labor-intensive workers give a shit if activists in the informational sectors fired up a reputation-smearing campaign against strippers found to be unwoke, Republican, or whatever else. Labor-intensive workers are not chasing fame, since there's no such thing as a stripper who dances in front of millions of viewers at a time, or a Hooters waitress who takes meal orders from millions of patrons at a time.

Their income is not tied to industry-insider reputation and general-public fame. You look cute, you put on the uniform, you smile at the customers, and do the waitressing tasks, you're hired, and you keep your job. But if leftoids wanted to destroy the career of a porn actress, their smear campaign would be highly effective. Those girls are seeking status in an industry where just showing up and going through the motions, as it were, is not enough. They have to have star potential, build their personal brand, and otherwise boost their fame. Anything in the media, including social media, that tarnishes their brand or fame is detrimental to their career.

Some gay media scold on Twitter drove a famous young and active porn actress, August Ames, to suicide during the #MeToo era a few years ago. She had simply warned another actress that the guy she was about to film a scene with was an HIV risk for having had sex with men. The gay media psycho and a broader leftoid social media mob hounded her for homophobia, and she couldn't stand the potential destruction of her reputation, when her status relies so much on reputation. The leftist orthodoxy these days is that porn actresses have to die from AIDS contracted from gay-for-pay actors, to prove they're not homophobic. Otherwise, terrorize them into killing themselves.

Since strippers and other labor-intensive workers are not so easily intimidated by threats to their reputation in the mass media, as they don't have a mass audience to worry about alienating, Democrats would not get involved with them politically. They wouldn't hold much leverage over them, and couldn't boss them around.

There's probably more to say on these differences within the not-at-all homogeneous sex work industry, but the key point is that the make-up of the two parties' coalitions reveals more about their advocacy than does their superficial propaganda ("we support sex workers" or "our enemies are SWERFs," etc.).


  1. I would guess that stage actors are even more leftist than screen ones. Normal people sometimes wind up funneled into Hollywood, but those who choose a non-renumerative career because they want to be in show-business that much will be of a more extreme personality type.

  2. Definitive proof tonight that lesbians are ass girls. Saw one of the most bubble-butted girls ever IRL at a thrift store -- not just the proportions, but the absolute amount of space taken up. Just a massive, round, gravity-defying BUH-BULL.

    And belonging to a fair-skinned blonde, who didn't look exotic at all, but probably a WASP. So disorienting!

    I looked up to see short boy-hair with a severe side part -- while hanging out with a very fat girl in long jorts with a spikey undercut! The PAWG was plain-faced, but the fat one was unattractive (not disgusting, though).

    Conclusion: lesbionic vibes to powerful they made the whole store feel like blasting Mazzy Star while pining for an ex they still keep in touch with.

  3. You're wrongly assuming that "stage actors" means the biggest stars from the most high-profile theaters.

    But the whole point of labor-intensive live performances is that they allow for a huge labor pool, compared to their non-labor-intensive counterparts.

    For actors in the mass media studios, they are literally the only ones in the entire country. Stage actors includes every single community theatre type across the 50 states. They're far less removed from normie environments, normie people, and normie social-cultural pressures.

    So they'll be less leftist or degenerate than those who move to Hollywood and appear on the big screen.

  4. I wonder how posting baby-wanting memes varies over the monthly cycle. Most common when she's in her fertile phase? To tell the guy she's thinking about to take a hint.

    "Hello... baby-wanter over here... in case you couldn't tell..."

    Inspired by Aimee (who else?) and her Apu & Aspie memes of late, but it's something that could be studied on a BIG DAYTAH scale. Social media feeds provide a treasure trove of info. Just have to make sure they're not on hormonal birth control.

    That's why the soyboys don't know what to do with women like Aimee, and cope with the "deranged" charge. They're accustomed to femmebots with clinically neutralized hormone levels, not the natural bursts of passion and intensity from women who haven't shut off their hormone-generator.

    Leftoids want sex without the pregnancy risk. Aimee must like living dangerously, in their view, rather than just being normal and natural. Nature is full of risks. Wanting a natural life doesn't make someone a suicidally reckless thrill-seeker. Only in the leftoid computer-brain.

  5. I've only been to a strip club once, btw. My brothers wanted to go to one on their birthday while we were all in Vegas, so I went along with it.

    Early 2010s, manic phase of the excitement cycle. That same period, I also went to Hooters a few times with one brother, who wanted to go there just cuz.

    Overall impression was I'd rather go to a danceclub if I want girls grinding against my body. And there was insane pressure to pay for a VIP session, and to buy all the girls drinks. So we bounced fairly early.

    But the girls were all pretty cool. The familiar baddie who was always bored out of her mind at school and couldn't wait to do something exciting (something corporeal, not playing video games or surfing the web).

    Very chill, down-to-earth, and not self-important -- unlike what I imagine the neo-burlesque women are like. Or anyone who gets written about by any slice of the media. Those ones are chasing clout, trying to get famous in a regional scene, or even internet-famous. More of a mass-media entertainment orientation.

    The average stripper or breastaurant waitress, on the other hand, couldn't care less if anyone else knew who she was or what she did. Not seeking fame, clout, etc. No Patreon, no OnlyFans, no Venmo in bio.

  6. Come to think of it, bartenders belong to the labor-intensive sexual-ish worker class. And most of them are not chasing clout, not relayed via mass media to a large audience. And also chill, cool people compared to fame-seekers (unless they're doing it as a stint between clout-chasing gigs, a la AOC, smh).

    Some types of hairstylists, too, if their clientele includes men. Labor-intensive, emphasis on young and attractive workers. Various forms of contact that not just any old woman will do for you, let alone for free, outside of a wife / gf. Just touching your head is beyond normal contact among strangers. And the flirty attitude and conversation while she's cutting your hair.

    Don't know what that's like anymore, since I last got a $35+ haircut in the summer of 2015. But it did include an arm & shoulder massage from a cute-as-a-button stylist. OK, you twisted my arm, as it were...

    Very similar personality styles across these fields, and similar body types to reflect the inside, naturally (butt girls, fitting for their corporeal jobs).

  7. And somehow, Fate has led me to an imaginary gf who is a slender, cerebral boob woman who earns a living from online media. :)

    Just a reminder that your "preferences" in the opposite sex are only fully expressed in the most commodified, alienated, and dehumanizing situations, like if you were placing an order for a custom 3D-printed gf (or picking out which prostitute you want from the menu at a brothel).

    Real affection and bonding finds a way through those silly filters in your brain's search algorithm. Other than the most basic, holistic impression of "are they hot or not," "are they funny or not," "are they caring or callous," etc.

    Yet another reason to never use any kind of "app" or algorithm to find someone else, whether for short or long-term purposes.

    You may have to wait longer, but it's worth it to have it grow spontaneously and organically. It was not planned, deliberated, or calculated -- and so it cannot be undone by deliberate calculation either. Once it's gotten going, it takes on a life of its own.

  8. Anna Khachiyan always takes heat from the haters on the Red Scare reddit for fantasizing about tall, burly, hairy, bald working-class bloke from northern England who will slap her around as foreplay -- meanwhile her bf and now father of her child is short, wiry, never-balding, upper-middle-class Ashkenazi musician who is a good dad.

    Like that's some kind of gotcha!

    It's just that, outside of the spergoids who infest reddit, those preferences only get expressed in the most dehumanizing and commodified situations, like if -- well, women don't frequent brothels, but if Anna wanted someone to custom-write a bodice-ripping romance novel or produce a softcore porn movie for her.

    When it comes to real affection, real bonds, and real people and relationships (like husband-wife), Fate manages to sneak your pair-bonding mate through all those ridiculous security fences in your mind. (Other than the holistic ones -- hot, funny, caring, etc. -- while casting aside the spergy customized technical specifications like how tall, how hairy, how brawny, etc.).

  9. In fact, maybe there's some honest signal of your pair-bond by matching with someone who is not your "ideal" according to your own stated preferences, in the narrow customized sense.

    Overall preferences like hot, funny, caring, etc., OK. Everyone wants those traits in a mate, those aren't preferences that *you* have. So there's no way to show that you are winding up with someone who is an alternative to your stated preference. (Oh yeah, I just love marrying someone who's ugly, humorless, and cruel...)

    Whereas with the customizable traits -- adjusting a dial for butt or boob size, thiccness, long or oval face, height, upper vs. lower body muscularity, or whatever else -- you can prove that your mate is not the result of a customized algorithm. Those preferences do come in alternatives (butt vs. boob men), unlike the holistic ones (we all only want an attractive mate).

    They may check some of those boxes, but probably not even a majority of them.

    "See, if I were just custom-ordering a gf like an alienated coomer sperg who wanted to maximally stimulate my braincells until it killed me, I would've wound up with someone who was an alternative to you in various ways."

    If a butt man winds up with a boob woman, he's not ordering a prostitute off of a menu.

    Whereas if a boob man wound up with a boob woman, she would always have to doubt his commitment -- "Is he with me *because* of my huge rack? He is a boob man, after all..." And if he were with her for her huge rack, there are tons of other women with huge racks out there, so she would have to worry about being dumped for a slighter better specification of his narrow preferences.

    Contrast that to a butt man who winds up with a boob woman. He did not choose her for her bouncers, nor will he be tempted to dump her for another woman who has bouncers that are 1% closer to his ideal bouncer form.

    It also feeds the process of "growing to love" each other over the course of their long-term relationship. If she were already what you would want in a one-night-stand, there would be no growing. Whereas if she's the alternative to your preferences in a few ways, you'll mold yourself accordingly.

    Not in the sense of your underlying preferences being molded -- you might still be a butt man -- but your affections and bonding are molding to someone who is different from some of those preferences. It shows that there was real growth and co-adaptation.

    A capacity to put the good of the pair (and further groups like the extended family, children, etc.) above the immediate pleasure of the individual.

    You can't prove these qualities if your mate were already your ideal. Not that that would prove the opposite -- that you were just with her for her shape, etc. -- but it would give them reason to doubt your commitment.

  10. Systemizing this, I'd say there are two types of preferences and traits: 1) universal, objective, fitness-related; and 2) particular, subjective, fitness-neutral.

    Traits that are highly related to genetic fitness are too important to have strange views about. So most people will have the same preference (universal), and therefore they'll all agree that they're just being objective.

    Traits that do not impact fitness as much, can come in various flavors or morphs. Preferring one over the other will not be universal, but a subjective matter of taste for a minority of the population.

    So for physical appearance, overall attractiveness / hotness is fitness-related (how good your genes are at dealing with environmental insults). Everyone wants a hot mate, and judgments about overall hotness are pretty objective.

    But hot people come in different morphs on other traits that are more neutral. Being a hot butt woman or a hot boob woman. It's subjective, a matter of taste, defining a sub-group of the population (butt man vs. boob men).

    Overall intelligence is good, everyone wants it in a mate. But smart people come in different morphs, like visual vs. verbal intelligence.

    The subjective traits, you can compromise on. You just want the overall fitness-related trait to be good. So, you want a hot mate, and perhaps specifically a hot butt woman, but a hot boob woman is fine too. Or you want a smart mate, and prefer a word nerd, but a visually clever person will be fine too.

    On these subjective traits is where you find the "mismatch to signal commitment" phenomenon. You want someone hot, and find someone who clears that threshold. But they come in the morph that is not your preference -- no big deal, it doesn't impact fitness, and you can honestly signal your commitment because that is not the morph you'd order off of a commodified menu.

    "Not even a majority" of traits, from an earlier comment, is a bit exaggerated. Your long-term mate cannot be the polar opposite of your preferences down the line. But at least one or two distinctive things about a person being from the morph that you don't prefer in a menu-ordering sense, from the subjective traits, allows the signal of commitment to be sent.

  11. DavidTheGnome8/2/21, 1:49 AM

    I was curious about what ever happened to the August Ames thing in the sense of how the leftists who sort of drove her to kill herself dealt with it psychologically, if at all. Apparently two well connected writer/producer Jon Ronson and Lina Misitzis (NPR This American Life, Pulitzer prize winner, BBC etc.) reworked the whole story, blaming the suicide on extreme porn shoots in the days before her suicide and not really about the cyber cullying. I swear, left wing people are like a borg.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."