It wouldn't really be "sex work" if they weren't doing it in exchange for something would it?
Yes, we have currency as a placeholder for trading goods directly but people who perform sex acts for other goods like drugs are just as stigmatized and no currency was involved.
And if people are just having sex with a fun of it then it's not sex work either, it's just sex, which is less stigmatized now then it was 30 years ago but it still has a stigma attached to it, otherwise slurs like "skank" and "slut" wouldn't exist.

If you get paid for it you are a whore, if you do it as a hobby you are a slut.

The stigma is there, regardless of the money aspect. They will just use a different word.

I wanted to disagree with this, but I actually think you make a rather compelling argument.

There will always be exhibitionists and people who just like to fuck, but sex work is, by definition, transactional. You're not going to see a society with free communal whores who aren't being compensated in any way.

I don't think you'd have prostitution in a currencyless society. They wouldn't be prostitutes at that point.

People who have sex with people just because they enjoy it already exist. It's not new and it won't meaningfully increase just because a society becomes currencyless.

Without an economic incentive, sex workers will stop existing entirely. It won't be work, and they won't have any need to do it. They won't be compelled to have sex with you just because you have money now. There will still be people at a bar, club, or whatever who will have sex with someone they like for little or no reason, but again, that's not new.

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

The fact that most of the times the stigma only clings to the person selling and not the person buying makes me think that this is actually a negligible part of the stigma.

Huh? Are you just talking about like a girlfriend?

What?

A prostitute that isn't paid...

Isn't really a prostitute are they?

There's evidence for this.

Trans priestesses attended temples in Mesopotamia and were very highly regarded.

You're looking at this as an economics issue. But I think it's a fundamentally a biological or evolutionary artifact. Evolutionary biology has intraspecific competition for access to mates to mating opportunities as a driver for change.

Organisms work to prevent the resource from being exploited just like water, habitats, space, etc. It's other women that would lose if access to mating opportunities are tied with monetary transactions, and a few would benefit. Minimizing prostitution helps the female of the species be more selective about their mates, and increases the "value" of their interactions.

I don't think it matters whether the exchange of value involves currency or not.

There are things that most people find to be unethical to "sell" (exchange for value in a transaction). Those include actual human beings (slavery), military or political influence (bribery), and murder.

I believe that sex work in often included in that list because of a lengthy deep history of protection of "bloodlines." Of course, there has always been sex work, but those who offered such services - especially women - were by definition unconcerned about their own "bloodline," which must then mean that their "bloodline" was not worth protecting. That meant that providers of sex work were necessarily "lower" people.

Today, and especially in the global West, the notion of "bloodlines" is more associated with bigotry than high status. That's why we're calling it "sex work" now instead of "prostitution," for example - and sex work is more socially acceptable now, even if it's not super high on that scale. Because that cultural thing about "bloodlines" is well-entrenched and runs very deep.

Well, this is the weirdest shit I've ever read.

Interesting thought. I think most issues stem from bigot assholes who consume the produce but are not allowed to due to their background/upbringing/social "norms". And those within their normative set not willing to provide, because of the same background/upbringing/social context.

Also, w/o currency there will be other forms of compensation, like a certain amount of work time, or... (p.e.) a handful of apples... due for a certain set of services.

Additionally there is always a percentage of plain idiots who would socially not be able to ascertain this kind of services w/o paying, and these seem to need to demonize the servicer to feel better about themselves.

Sry if I busted this comment, brain is fried after work.

It really depends on the culture of the area, but yeah overall it'd probably be less stigmatized on average. It would certainly be stigmatized though—some people forget that many people consider sexual acts in general (that others can see, like posting pictures on the Internet, porn work, etc.) wrong in the first place. A lot of people online don't interact with these people a lot—not necessarily because they 'don't touch grass' but because these are often the people who chose not to be active in social media. When you consider that they see a woman posting a steamy picture of herself online as wrong, it makes sense why.

Many people have grown up with a very conservative (sexuality wise, at least) mindset, and that's just the way they were taught to see things.

I think that because of that, it's not unlikely that a large portion of people would still see person doing these things, even if not for monetary gain, as "sluts" or something similar.

So like.. cut her lawn for sexors?