I agree it would be better if the site included brands from other countries too, but it can still be used as a starting point. I'm sure you could Google the item and figure out the equivalent where you're from.

Hooo boy, you're continuing to perfectly misread me and gloss over what I'm trying to say at key points, it feels. But I'm just going to skip over the first two points instead of continue to try and clarify them seemingly fruitlessly.

It is not particularly meaningful to analyze which labor is described accurately versus not by the phrase of the idiom, because the phrase has no coherent literal meaning. Hence, the phrase is understood only idiomatically.

Let me try a different approach here since it seems I'm not communicating with you effectively.

First off, seems like we're both on the same side here: Sex work is real work, and it should be destigmarized. Cool? Cool.

The idiom, "selling your body," is derogatory phrase used to refer to engaging in sex work. It's used to separate or, "otherize," sex workers. Pretty sure we're still on the same page.

So, actually, I guess my first question to you is if the string of words, "selling your body" has no meaning outside of the idiom, how did it come to refer to sex work specifically in the first place? Obviously it was just a figure of speech someone used first right? And their implied meaning was that there is something wrong or immoral about selling sex, and specifically sex. Which is what got rolled into the idiom.

So, bare with me, and just humor me for a minute here.

Take just the figure of speech, drop the part where it's specifically about sex work. Can you explain to me how sex work is "selling your body," so to speak, where other work isn't?

Good lord, you must be fun at parties.

I'm well aware of what an idiom is and how they're used. I understand that traditionally the phrase, "selling your body," is employing the idiom that means to engage in sex work. I also understand that this is what you're referring in the initial comment I replied to. I understand the idiom itself doesn't refer to other forms of labor because that's not how idioms work.

My point is that if you take the literal phrase "selling your body," you can very easily construe it to be just as true about any labor. Like I said, I'd argue this point is illustrated particularly well manual labor. You are commodifying the physical use of your body to achieve a task, often at a heavy cost to your body if done in the long term.

This is not me changing the context of the discussion. I'd very much argue that this is actually a very useful point to make in the context of sex work. We are taking an idiom that has been historically used to harm people, and deconstructing it. The intent being to point out how sex workers aren't any more, "selling their body" than people in other forms of socially accepted work.

Again I understand the idiom refers specifically to sex work, but if we deconstruct it we can use it to point out a hypocracy in the thought process of those using it.

Like I said, that is the point of the idiom. It's historically been used specifically towards sex work in a derogatory fashion.

However the reality of the phrase, "selling your body," is that it's true for all labor. One could argue it is especially true when it comes to something like construction work, which can be very hard on your body and impart long term health effects.

I think there's plenty of use in taking an idiom that's been used to harm others and flipping it back the other direction.

That's the point, isn't it? If the term wasn't specifically coined for this, it's been long used to shame sex workers. Which is sort of funny, considering all labor involves selling your body in some form or another.

My guy, who do you think shot first?

I'm sorry but if you're saying when people trying unionize or collectively bargain for better conditions start getting shot at they should just give up or lay down and take it you're a fool.

Yall realize many of the rights we have as laborers now we're won with force... Right?

Like, yes collective bargaining, labor solidarity, etc. is super important (which is also a form of force) but there were literal armed conflicts between laborers and the police on behalf of companies.

I'm not saying we need a civil war, but let's not pretend we won our rights today without bloodshed.

Edit: Left out a key word, whoops.

Oh I certainly did not coin that term, so steal away lol

But yeah I definitely get your point. I suppose my only real contention is that I don't personally feel it's as ubiquitous of an opinion as it sounds like you do.

That said, in the case of someone like Jk Rowling I will absolutely bring up the topic should she come up. I have quite a few trans friends, and she has and continues to actively take steps to attack and harm the trans community. Liking the art she has created is one thing, but supporting someone who seeks to invalidate the existence of people, particularly those I care about, and take away essential care is another. I probably won't start a fight about it, unless you're a real shit head, but I take no qualms with standing up about it either.

Quick edit to note that's not directed at you, to be clear. More just continuing to make the distinction I was before.

Someone else more less touched on this but I think you're missing the point.

I don't know a single person who thinks you can't like someone's art because you dislike the artist. Using your example, I have plenty of friends who grew up with Harry Potter and still absolutely love the series in many ways. However they also think JK Rowling is a piece of shit.

The problem lies in giving a platform to people who, at the very least outspokenly, espouse harmful views, and/or engage in harmful activities. So generally speaking, they tend to take some amount of issue (how much varies person to person) with people continuing to support works from them without some demonstration of change or betterment. In turn, most of us stop consuming their content wholesale, as we don't want to support their actions or views by contributing to their platform and would prefer others do the same.

People like what you're talking about exist, sure. I also think that demographic is nearly exclusively terminally online people, who tend to be quite a bit louder than your average person. Which in turn can skew how commonly held of an opinion something can seem to be.

Add Mushishi to that list too.

Very good show that I don't think gets enough attention

No please keep going