Author Esperanza Fonseca argues that all wage labor under scarcity and capitalism is morally and practically literal slavery and that, therefore, all sex work under scarcity and capitalism is morally and practically literal rape. Fonseca advocates for criminalizing and stigmatizing demand for sex work, i. What criminalizing and stigmatizing demand for sex work does accomplish is it exacerbates human trafficking and increases violence against sex workers.
In reality consent and coercion are ends of a spectrum. This particular misrepresentation in a lot of writing and thinking about politics and sex, coming from the left and the right.
When it comes to sex and work, the right and left both think in terms of voluntary versus non-voluntary. Neither side has a sufficiently nuanced understanding of consent. You often see a similar sentiment on the right, but from the opposite perspective.
Both Fonseca and many right-wing thinkers really want there to be a bright line between consent and coercion. You and your academic advisor know that a mediocre recommendation from him will make it very difficult for you to get a job after graduation. One day, he makes it clear he wants to have sex with you. You have a choice. Sure, you can choose to have sex with him in the sense that no one is literally forcing you to do it.
Take the choice to exercise or sit on the couch. All exchanges exist on this spectrum, from more consenting to more coerced. On one end of the spectrum you have slavery and rape. On the opposite end you have enthusiastic consent. But most choices fall somewhere in the middle. The difference then between force and pressure is a difference of scope, not kind. Another place you can see consent on a spectrum are the sex parties I used to go to in San Francisco.
