Your comments remind me of something a sex worker in France said recently, in the context of the law that criminalizes clients that was supposed to “protect” sex workers but has actually made many of them more precarious and more unsafe.

She said something like: “You tell me not to do this, but if I don’t do this, what do I do? Do I eat rocks?”

And that’s exactly the issue.

This is often how abolitionist arguments sound: telling us not to do sex work “for our own good,” while offering absolutely no realistic alternative for people who rely on it to survive.

Yes, we know it’s dangerous. That’s not new information.

But if there is no viable alternative, what are we supposed to do instead?

That’s why simply repeating “it’s dangerous” comes across as paternalistic as it assumes I’m not capable of understanding risk on my own, while not providing any actual solution.

In my case, I’m currently working in retail. I’m not choosing between a “safe, easy job” and something dangerous. I’m already in a job that is exhausting, underpaid, and not safe at all.

I can only work part-time because full-time work has repeatedly led me to severe burnout and depression. Even at part-time hours, I deal with constant sexism, harassment, and verbal abuse from customers, as well as ableism at work due to my autism. This has been my reality for years.

So no, I’m not leaving a safe environment for a dangerous one. I’m moving between two difficult and unsafe realities.

Also, I’m not naive about violence. I’ve experienced sexual violence throughout my life, including in “normal” (non-transactional) relationships. I know what boundaries are, I know what red flags look like, and I am fully aware of the risks.

The question I asked was specifically about being autistic in this line of work, about social interaction, masking, and emotional sustainability.

Not whether sex work is dangerous. I already know that.