Post a response:
|
...I argue that this is still an inherently exploitative practice and supply and demand does not justify exploitation. Andersson does not explicitly make this argument in his work, but it is embedded in the idea of exchanging services for money. Capitalism as a whole is inherently exploitative, but elaboration on this point is beyond the scope of this review... Exploitation involves coercion without mutual benefit, such as slavery. Exchanging services for money is not exploitation, because there is choice and free will. A person decides for himself whether the proposed payment suits him; he can agree or refuse, which means that no one is exploiting him. Payment for labor does not mean exploitation, but an exchange: one party needs services, The other party needs money and may agree to provide the necessary services if the payment suits his needs. If people are in a close relationship, the other party may even voluntarily refuse money because they consider it an honor to help a friend. When we demand that consensual and mutual relationships be distinguished from rape, we want to show that there is a confusion between healthy and violent relationships and that the presence of "sex" does not mean rape and exploitation. The same thing can happen in labor relations, and the presence of payment does not always mean exploitation; exploitation is the abuse of this relations. ...Additionally, Andersson's attraction to boys presents a conflict of interest, as it does for the authors of other prominent scholarly works on man-boy love... The text of the review also reveals a conflict of interest and bias towards capitalism due to a passion for socialism. |