posted
That's why I made absolutely sure to say "pointless" and "meaningless".
There are things that occur in life that you cannot and should not shield your child from. It could be argued that frontiersmen were making a better life for their children, not a more enjoyable life for themselves.
posted
Katharina: true, which is why legalization alone is not enough to solve the problem (I'm not the first to say as much in this thread). And hey, I'm not entirely convinced legalization is even part of the perfect solution (as if such a thing existed).
But you still haven't answered my question.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat I'm not sure what you mean by "inappropriate context".
I think that someone stripping in my lab is inappropriate context. Not because of the nudity, but because of the saftey issues. Also because the company has certain codes of conduct that you are expected to follow on company time. This code of conduct is put in place so that people who are sensitive to issues (for whatever reason religious or otherwise) are not offended.
I don't have a problem with nudity or sex around children (as long as it is clear that sex is an adult privelege and the children are properly educated on the subject). I think children should be exposed to such things, and won't be scarred for life by them.
Children and violence is a different topic. Wittnessing actual physical harm being done to a person is much different. IMO.
My Mennonite uncle, runs a pig farm. His family lived with on the premesis and his children were often in the barns with him. When we visited back there, he took us on a tour. One of the mother pigs had stepped on a baby pig. He thought nothing of fishing the bleeding baby pig out from the litter, throwing it down to the ground with a crack, stomping on it head, and throwing the entire thing (still twitching) into a slop bucket that happened to be handy. My citified brothers and I were somewhat shocked by the violence, but it didn't bother his children in the least. This same uncle and his family are devout Mennonites. He also thinks nothing of shooting the all of the puppies in a litter he doesn't want to keep. I admit it bothers me. His children however seem happy and well adjusted and not scarred for life.
But my own reactions makes me wonder if as a society, we are becoming too "soft". And over reacting and trying to protect our kids from ordinary facts of life.
posted
PSI, well I guess you could say, "a better life for the children that lived". Concerning what infant mortality rates were back then, I really have no desire to go back <grin>
posted
I think I agree that sex *in and of itself* is not harmful to children. But there are a lot of "grey area" things that go on during sex that are not appropriate for a child. I don't think I need to go into a lot of detail (I'm embarrassed...it might give too much detail about myself ), but there are things that could be considered normal by most couples that could confuse and possibly harm kids, and it would be tough for them to tell the difference.
Sex today isn't portrayed as the pure and loving thing that IMO it's supposed to be. Can you say that it's okay for a kid to see sex, but not light bondage? Or maybe bondage, but not extreme S&M? Where would this line be drawn? And who decides? Maybe your idea of what is okay would jive with my idea, but that isn't going to be what we get if we open this floodgate. If you start something, it always goes beyond where you intended for it for it to go.
I think it's better for all concerned to be a little conservative so that, when things explode, they'll be closer to where you think they should be. That's just my opinion.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
This took me a while to convert, so I do hope that people take me seriously and read some of the links. I've read through about 8 or 9 of them so far.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There exist people in the sex industry who want to continue their work in the sex trade. To end the abuse, they believe it is most effective to decriminalize prostitution and work toward ending the abuses themselves, not the vocation.
Many of those links are to organizations of sex workers who work towards such goals.
Some of the links show the happier side of the sex industry. People who are happy to be involved in it, choose to be involved in it, and are currently working to improve working conditions.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It can be a positive thing. This doesn't mean that every prostitute is happy, or that everyone would be happy to be a prostitute. But there are a large number of people who are happy in the sex industry. I can point out the most vocal ones, if you'd like.
I also believe that the sex industry has a place in society, as a decriminalized business with certain protections by the government.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Imogen can, I'm sure, provide a great deal more about this, but I see it as the same justification that people used to do with slavery.
But they are happy as prostitutes. I wouldn't do it, but they like it. Some people are hurt, but that's just bad owners (pimps). This way, they are taken care of. That's better than starving on their own.Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Kat, I can't believe that you haven't acknowledged any of the links I have put forth as evidence for the concerns of sex workers and their suggested solutions.
Prostitution has a place in society as a job. A legitimate service that is governmentally regulated to the same extent as all jobs to protect the health and safety of the workers. Sex for money is simply not abhorrent to me. If someone wishes to pay money to a stranger for a sexual favor, I would rather them do so in a safe place than in the back seat of a car.
Sex is not Holy to everyone. I think society should allow for those that see sex as recreation and sex as a job.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Here's a less research-intensive thread I made on Ornery about Legalized Prostitution -- I think a good discussion was had all around. Here's my first post on the topic. I think I could've done a far better job writing it, and I'm not sure I like how elementary some of the points I made are, but they're at least coherent and straightforward.
quote:Continuing from the discussion in the Musings thread, I've long held that prostitution across the United States should be legal.
In the first place, there's no particular logical argument I know of that allows free sex, but bans the sale of it. I don't believe this holds true for any other product or service in the United States. Secondly, even if there were cause to ban prostitution, it will still exist. "Mankind's oldest profession" exists in poor neighborhoods with runaway or poor girls, virtually enslaved to their pimps. Most are infected with STDs, and spread them to each of their customers (who in turn do a domino effect with each woman they sleep with). The girls are abused, physically and psychologically, and cannot report their abuses to the police, who are forced to arrest them for their confessions of being prostitutes in the first place.
Why not legalize it? We can award brothels permits to establishments that give disease tests to both the customer and the professional before each session, stemming the outbreak of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Therapists can be on hand to counsel and treat the girls. Thorough age and background checks will be required for each employee, and each employee can refuse any customer for any reason. Summary: safe and counseled women, suppression of STDs, destruction (or at least minimalization) of the black market prostitutes, and possibly even a boost to the economy.
I can't see any downsides to legal brothels. Have I missed any glaring errors in my wondering? I can see a possible conflict in prices between legal brothels and pimps, with the black market undercutting the legal version, but I find it easy enough to imagine a solution, such as a sudden and total crackdown on prostitutes, so that customers are driven to the legal brothels -- and the far more attractive prospect of disease-free sex.
quote:Prostitution has a place in society as a job. A legitimate service that is governmentally regulated to the same extent as all jobs to protect the health and safety of the workers.
That's it?
Not to sound incredulous, but. . .I'm incredulous.
In other words, the only reason the government should legalize prostitution is to protect prostitutes?
I think tax payer money would be better spent on protecting these women by providing services as Lalo outlined above (health-care, therapy, etc.) WITHOUT the brothel.
Prostitution, as it is understood today, is anonymous sex. No community is built (as may happen in sports or entertainment); no product is rendered. Prostitutes satisfy a desire, but that is not reason enough to state that their work legitimately adds to society.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you believe the sex trade is a positive thing for the people involved and for society as a whole."
Surely it's no more harmful than, as I've mentioned before, the fast food industry. Both are degrading. Both sell products of questionable value. And both demand menial labor which doesn't require a specialized education.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Imogen can, I'm sure, provide a great deal more about this, but I see it as the same justification that people used to do with slavery.
Tomorrow.... Too late and tired now.
Suneun, I am very impressed by your research. Good on you for taking the time to substantiate your arguments. It's one of my pet peeves when people make arguments based on nothing except 'I just know it' (a trap I fall into, no matter how hard I try otherwise).
My background in the subject is a 5 month intensive law unit looking at prostitution, forced prostitution and sexual slavery from a legal and social veiw (intensive being almost every day, 8-5), plus another 6 month unit on prostitution and gender issues in a feminist jurisprudence class. I have as part of that background read many of the articles you posted - but I'll have a look at the ones I haven't before I post again.
I should say here that while I do think prostitution, in current gender contexts, is inherently degrading, I do differ from Kat's opinions in that I am not convinced legislation would not help the current situation overall, and I am sure it would provide more protection for the women involved.
-Woo, double negative city!-
[Kat I think you and I agree to a suprising extent given our different backgrounds. I personally don't think prostition is valuable to society. But I recognise that legalising it could solve some problems that already exist (and numero uno being the safety of the workers themselves). It's a little like my veiw on abortion (oh, no, not the a-word!): I don't think I would ever have it done but I strongly believe in legalising it, if nothing else to minimise the real harm that is caused by backyard abortions etc. I still think you, and everyone else in this thread is remaining remarkably calm and non-antagonistic, given the emotional nature of the subject ]
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do differ from Kat's opinions in that I am not convinced legislation would not help the current situation overall, and I am sure it would provide more protection for the women involved.
Actually, I'm not exactly sure what the CBA concerning legalization would be. I see no value in legitimizing it as a profession - it's inherently degrading, the benchmark and standard for the ultimate in betrayal of self, and promoting it as a necessary evil that other people get to satisfy is the same justification used for slavery - but I'm worried about the individuals that are currently being victimized because they have no legal recourse to report abuse. So, I'm not sure.
Imogen, that must have been a powerful experience. I have very limited contact, and nothing formal, and I think have caught only a trace of what you must have encountered, but what I did see horrified and touched me. I'll bet we do agree on many, many things.
*grin* "She's much nicer in person." I'd just like to re-emphasize that.
posted
With the amount of disrespect you have shown to me in this thread, Kat, I never want to meet you.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess kat, part of the reason you view prostitution as inherently evil is because you view sex outside of marriage as a sin. While I realize you believe this is a "universal law", a lot of people don't.
If you don't view sex outside of marriage as a sin, then prostitution isn't a sin, and there is nothing more 'inherently degrading' about someone providing a service selling sex, than it is to hire a muscular guy to dig a ditch in your backyard. Both are providing a service for you with their bodies that you can't have by yourself.
Suneun and I have said repeatedly that "being a prostitute" voluntarially is drastically different then "being abused". The two are NOT synonomous. You are equating those to things in your mind just like some people have done with "homosexual" and "child molester" in the past.
posted
I can't even pretend I can discuss outside the sex-outside-marriage-is-a-sin belief, but I really don't think that's what's getting to me.
I think it's the idea of buying someone. It keeps reminding me of slavery.
The difference between manual labor, fast food, and prostitution is in the first two, what's is purchased is labor. In the last, what is purchased is a body, which is part of a person.
Not the product of the labor of that body. Not a person's time. Not even an image of the body. A person's body itself.
In order for a person to sell their body, they are selling themselves. Selling themselves into slavery for an hour. If they DON'T think of it that - that they have kept their inner self separate from their body, then that implies a powerful and deeply-disturbing disconnect between their inner selves and the world/shell they are living in.
-------
I really think that's it. I know this is in the pre-marital sex thread, but this touches on a different chord. The only idea in here that upset is that it's okay to legitimize temporary slavery. I see a person's body has intrinsically connected to their sense of self. Even under absolutely perfect circumstances - and compared to the imperfect, how often will that happen? - it's still a selling of self.
posted
Equating ditch digging with prostitution is a little disingenuous. If someone desperately needs a job, few would respect his refusing to accept a job digging a ditch that would allow him to feed his family and keep his house (assuming he’s physically capable of it). Even people who think sex outside of marriage is OK are unlikely to similarly condemn a woman who refuses to become a prostitute in a similar situation.
I’m still not sure where I stand on legalization, but you can’t pretend prostitution doesn’t carry a different set of issues with it.
Dagonee *posting against his better judgment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By that logic, kat, then any sort of performance done by the human body to earn money is out. Football, ballet, paying a dollar to thumbwrestle someone at a county fair.
All the same thing, if you take out moral squickiness factors.
posted
*nod* kat, your argument would seem to equate all physical performance of any kind with immorality. Certainly, modeling and acting are clearly forms of prostitution under that reasoning.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you’re only half-right, Banna. There are at least two beliefs that I think would be necessary to see prostitution as a legitimate career choice. The first, as you’ve pointed out is a belief that recreational sex, even between strangers, is acceptable. The second involves a complete acceptance of capitalism – that any item or service can be sold.
I support and encourage organ donation, but I’m completely against ever allowing organs to be sold. I support and encourage adoption, but I’m completely against ever allowing a market in babies. I think it would be possible to have no moral or intellectual problem with pre-marital sex for free, but still oppose allowing it to become a commodity.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that is a good argument dkw. I need to think about it some, but here are my first impressions:
Organ donation and adoption are both legal. If they were illegal, a black market would arise that would be even worse than they are now, where people do pay money for such things.
I think part of the issue is whether an action is voluntary or not. In all of the cases you mentioned above including prostitution there is potential for abuse. If a person chooses to allow organs to be used for transplant upon their death, and no medical treatment was witheld,(and there were no religious objections) I guess I dont see anything wrong with the family selling those organs instead. It would be a nice way to defray funeral costs, and leave a nest egg for my heirs if I didn't have a lot of financial resources in life.
On the other issues, private party adoptions right now often do give the mother lots of money. The same can be said for surrogate mothers, and egg donors as well, and there is nothing illegal about any of it.
If you look at it from most actual abuse to least actual abuse, I would say that organ donation is the least abused. Why? because it is the most highly regulated activity of all the ones mentioned. So I'm not for true capitalism because without regulation there is abuse.
posted
Organ donation and adoption are both legal. Selling organs and babies are not. Sex is legal. Prostitution is not. Seems parallel to me.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, apply your own logic to paying for a haircut then. The end product that you recieve in payment is shorter hair. That is something done by someone else to YOUR body. Yes you could cut your hair yourself. However odds are you will have a more pleasant experience if someone else does it for you.
Now replace "hair" [and haircut ] above with sex. The logic can still hold.
posted
"The end product of modeling and acting are pictures and film."
Again, you can argue that the purpose of prostitution is to provide sexual release, NOT to own an individual. But if the ownership of the individual is the source of the complaint, surely you'd object to valets?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw Look at it not from the stand point of the "donor" but the "reciever" in the cases of organ donations and adoptions the parties on the recieving end ARE spending substantial amounts of money on medical and legal fees(even if some are covered by insurance can be later written off as tax deductions) even if the "donor" recieves nothing. Monetary Value is clearly attached to both organs, and babies. Maybe it is a good thing because it makes the reciever value the item that much more.
posted
<grin> If you made people (young and old) pay $50 every time they had irresponsible sex, I bet they would start valuing sex more and being more responsible!
quote:Maybe it is a good thing because it makes the receiver value the item that much more
I totally and completely reject the idea that someone should value their life or their child based on how much money it cost them.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree,dkw, however the fact is, a lot of people DO value stuff by the money it cost them. Part of the reason I think adoption is costly is because that makes it obvious that the parents are willing to sacrifice for their prospective child.
posted
Also in adoption the line is crossed between a business relationship and a personal relationship.
Prostitution is clearly a business relationship and not a personal relationship.
A personal relationship can include sex, but not necessarily (as in a friendship or parent-child relationship).
If sex is included, I would hope, it is done for mutual personal pleasure. But in fact, the reasons for having sex in a personal relationship are often much less straight forward, and more ulterior than that of paying for sex as a commodity. Which is more honest?
posted
It may be a purely business relationship for the prostitute, but not always so for the client.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* PSI, there you've got me. My response would be, well if you can't separate the physical and emotional acts from each other you shouldn't be paying a prostitute in the first place.
But the fact is most people aren't that coldly analytical to begin with and aren't capable of actually making that distinction. I forget that my mind is too machine-like at times than the average persons.
Interestingly one of the links on one of the pages Suneun posted, is by an adjunct physics prof who was a physics teacher at USC by day and a call boy by night. I'm sure he had the analytical capability of making that distinction.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
), but there are things that could be considered normal by most couples that could confuse and possibly harm kids, and it would be tough for them to tell the difference.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
