Thinking about this because of a greentext I saw earlier complaining about OF models.
It feels like a lot of the stigma surrounding sex work in the modern day (that doesn’t just boil down to misogyny/gender norms/religion) is based on the fact that selling intimate aspects of one’s self places a set value on something that many see as sacred; something that shouldn’t have monetary value.
Not to say anything about the economic validity of a society without currency, but I think that, hypothetically, if that were to exist, sex work would be less stigmatized since this would no longer be a factor. Those engaged in sex work would be more likely to be seen as doing it because it’s something they are good at/enjoy, and less because it’s an “easy” way to make money, as some think. It would also eliminate the fear of placing set value on social, non sex-work related intimacy (not that those fears were well-founded to begin with).
Chickens aren’t currency. Trade and currency are two different things.
I’d counter that prostitution is sex work in exchange for something of value, and chickens still 100% qualify. I don’t think splitting hairs on currency vs. chickens changes anything here
Exchanging things is trade. Currency is a medium of exchange. Not having currency doesn’t stop trade, it just makes it more difficult.
Chickens would be a medium of exchange in this scenario.
Yes, and that would not be currency. It might be useful to think of this as a tiered system.
‘Trade’ is a top-level idea, an exchange between entities. On a tier below that, i.e. a closer specification of ‘trade’, exists ‘barter’ (trading goods for other goods or services) and ‘money’ (trading some representational, notional item for goods/services). ‘Chickens’ as a payment is a further specification of bartering, while ‘currency’ is a further specification of ‘money’ (being ‘money’ defined/in use by a specific power/state).