posted
I think if I thought it were cut and dried, I would have said "all" (I'm the original). Instead, I simply think "majority," "most" "over half," "the general leaning." Which I still think is true.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, I fear you and Bob will never make it to Chicago. Hopefully, the Motel 6 will let you make long-distance calls so you can get ahold of us to express regrets for not being present.
posted
Okay. I don't think my respect for someone else's right to think differently is in question. Yes, everyone has a perfect right to think whatever they want. *grin* It doesn't make it right, though.
There was a semi-request for sanction somewhere back.
-----------
I swear, I do understand. If it were one-on-one, I think there would be a whole lot more love and listening and much less line-drawing. Not because the line-drawing is less important, but because my individual reaction would be more important.
*laugh* I distinctly once telling my dad that I needed his love more than he needed to take a stand again. That the line was clear, but my feeling of being accepted and loved was not.
"Am I supposed to lie about my feelings about your actions?" "Yes!"
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I missed the semi-request: my apologies. I wouldn't make one, just as I wouldn't expect you to ask me to sanction your beliefs.
I agree the one-on-one would be more "loving" but I guess that's maybe something we have to take into account posting here: after all, a lot of people (including you Kat... I read your 10 000th.. ) bare their souls in this forum. Maybe we should try and treat them with as much love and respect as we would do if they did so face to face.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think if I thought it were cut and dried, I would have said "all" (I'm the original). Instead, I simply think "majority," "most" "over half," "the general leaning." Which I still think is true.
Now two people have disagreed with you, giving different reasons, and yet all you've done is restate your position with no support. I'm interested in why you think this - can you please give us some of your reasoning?
I hope I haven't shown disrespect, and I love love love that Hatrack is a place that's safe (usually!) to share scary and important things.
There is a difference between personal threads and issue threads, though. I'd never, ever pass express an opinion on someone's personal thread - that's SO tacky. But on an issue thread, where a personal experience is used as evidentiary support of a thesis or argument, it's not ... off-limits to questioning or invalidation anymore. If it were, that means there'd be no way to disagree. It works both ways. Two people have gotten upset because their personal experiences that were used as evidentiary support were not seen as either/both off-limits or/and argument-clinching. Interestingly enough, the two were on opposite sides of the issue.
----
I have to admit that, in accordance with Kat Rule of Life #8, I never bring up my current love life, or really anything from the previous three years, on Hatrack for precisely the reason that I couldn't handle the scrutiny. It isn't fair of me to ask people to tiptoe.
Remember, I'm bringing my daughter with me on the trip to Chicago. (I've successfully hid behind my children for 13 years now, I'm sure it will work to keep me in line once again).
posted
Dagonee, because generally in threads such as Abstinence Instead of Safe Sex or Homosexuality
Most of the people who insist on abstinence-only education are Christian. And most who insist on safe-sex-ed aren't. Most of those who insist that marriage should not include gays are Christian. And most who insist on allowing gays to marry aren't.
I see these issues as being boiled down to Allowing Fewer Choices, and Allowing More Choices. So I'm guessing that if the majority of people who believe X are Christian, maybe the majority of Christians believe X. (It's not a proof, it's just a feeling)
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
No, this is not true. I'm emphatically in favor of structured education about everything, including sex, and most of the people I know who post on Hatrack are as well.
posted
Though you know, I'm perfectly fine to be wrong. In that case,
then the Majority of Christians believe that More Choices is better. And I think no one's arguing that the Majority of Non-Christians feel that More Choices is better.
Well.... I know that numbers don't make it right, but I hope it says something good about the idea that restricting personal freedoms is unwanted and unnecessary.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Safe-sex ed.. I know a lot of Christian institutions (including my old high school) which taught safe-sex as part of the curriculum.
In fact all Anglican, Methodist and Prodestant high schools in Australia do so. Catholic schools vary (due to the contraception sin issue), but increasing numbers teach safe sex.
I think the view is that regardless of what the institution (or in a personal case, the person) veiws as correct pre-marital sexual behaviour, no-one wants teenagers (or anyone) put at unnecessary risk.
Edit: too-slow typing.. the issue was sorted by the time I posted. But by golly I'l have my 2 cents!
posted
yeah well I'm not trying to make it national, I really geared my first comment to Hatrack population who posts, because that's what I can base this on.
We could start a count of individuals, take a poll. Then I'd have facts =)
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I just said that maybe it doesn't. Maybe the Majority of Christians do believe what you believe, that Restricting Choice is wrong. I still think that no one's disagreed that the Majority of Non-Christians believe that Restricting Choice is wrong.
then the majority of hatrackers believe that restricting choice is wrong. And I said okay, then.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absitnence-only education (which I'm against, by the way) does not restrict choice - it makes a distinction between acts that should be encouraged by government and acts that shouldn't be.
Preventing homosexual marriage (which I'm also against in a civil forum) does limit the availability of certain civil priveleges based on individual choice, and in that sense restricts or penalizes choice.
But you still haven't addressed the distinction that between thinking that morality labels some actions as wrong and thinking that morality "limits choice." Nor have you justified such beliefs as a limitation on individual sovereignty.
Lets go dig up those Homosexuality Should Be Illegal and Everyone Must Eat Asparagus threads and tell them they'r wrong Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, I'm certainly aware that, having had sex, someone who had previously abstained from sex might suddenly place a higher value on sexual enjoyment once he or she experienced it. (TomD)
*grin* I do wonder though how often it goes the other way. I've come across many cases where the blissfully ignorant had this enormous expectation, only to find out, when they finally had their chance, that it was, well, just sex.
Of course, placing this extraordinary value on sex (while the act remains purely theoretical) also gives the abstinent crowd an excuse to feel special-righteous and saint-like, as they have succeeded in avoiding something sooooo terribly looming and beckoning... If they had an early way to realize how much LESS of a BIG deal it is, the reduced buildup would not only prevent some disappointment but also decrease the feeling of self-importance that often goes along with the argument of abstinence.
*shrug* I can't help but be cynical about this discussion. I grew up in a society that endorsed almost diametrically opposite views on sex than what most of you have been subjected to. If I didn't feel so sad about the efficiency of externally imposed opinion-forming, I'd celebrate our considerable diversity at this point. Just keep in mind, please, that there are plenty cultures other than "puritan"-American out there in the world, with very different habits that have rarely caused more harm, if not less, than what your upbringing made you think is right.
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: HOWEVER -- I would never get married again without having sex with my partner first. This is based on past personal experience with serious sexual incompatitibilities.
So I guess it looks like I am saying I would rather commit sin, against my beliefs, than be put in a sexually incompatible relationship for long-term.
*points to Jon Boy* In your face, Space Coyote! j/k
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm okay so making homosexuality illegal restricts choice, check.
Abstinence.. I suppose it's more a question of Restricting Knowledge? So that doesn't fit.
what about making Prostitution Illegal? that's about Restricting Choice. I think you'll see similar breakdown there, but it gets very messy. Personally I think that some of the problems people have with prostitution can be solved with enforcing labor laws and drug laws.
Anyhow, my thoughts on personal sovereignty are that the government should have the fewest number of laws so that an individual can make choices when the result ultimately primarily affect the individual. We can argue day-in and day-out on societal effects. Maybe the Christian/NonChristian divide would be more pronounced if this were a question of Individual versus Society.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Everyone Must Eat Asparagus Threads"??????
I have never gotten nasty and personal on Hatrack, but I'll make an exception if anyone tries to tell me I have to eat that foul-smelling, overrated weed!! Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Leo, I really think that some of the confusion comes from misconceptions. You've been mistaken both about the purpose of sex for many people here, and about attitudes towards marriage for at least me.
I don't think either of my misconceptions about those subjects affected the way I argued for my beliefs. And I never asked for a sanction, I said we were frustrated that no one was willing to just say, as I believe Strider pointed out at one point: "Well, we don't agree with pre-marital sex, but you're being as safe and as reponsible as you can be given that you don't have the same beliefs as me." We're always frustrated in threads like this because the religious aspect of them almost always makes it impossible for anyone with those leanings to say even that. If it seemed, or if I worded anything in a way that appeared that I was looking for approval...I didn't mean approval in the sense of a personal sanction. I meant, being okay with how we're handling it, given our beliefs. Perhaps that's impossible. I was merely stating that that's why we were frustrated, not really asking for it.
quote: Nope, you're totally off on this one.
unfortunately, telling me i'm wrong doesn't really help this situation, and your comment seems more inflammatory than helpful.
Are Mormon's allowed to engage in birth control during marriage?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw: don't you think there's at least one issue that can split hatrack into two different opinion groups based on an arbitrary line as christian/non-christian?
I think you're ignoring the ability of statistics to truly say anything they want. If I split Hatrack between People with Black Hair and People with Non-Black Hair, I assure you that I could find a majority split in one way and the other way for issues like Society versus the Individual or Dem/Republican, or Asparagus/No Asparagus.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat legalizing prostutiution wouldn't necessarily increase "teenage prostitutes" generally because the age of consent is 18. And what if they raised the prostitution age up to 21, the drinking age?
Sadly, prostitution is not a career choice that solidly-educated, clear-thinking women choose, Aaron Sorkin's fantasy not-withstanding.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, I'll agree forthright that statistics mean crap, especially with arbitrary lines.
I was just curious for curiosity's sake. Though I do find it helpful if the majority of A and Not-A both believe X.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat I know you couldn't watch it because of its rating, but if you watched HBO's "Real Sex Live" it might make you change some of those sterotypical ideas about "educated clear thinking women"
quote: Sadly, prostitution is not a career choice that solidly-educated, clear-thinking women choose, Aaron Sorkin's fantasy not-withstanding.
I'd add to this 'financially-independant'. Sadly, some women choose prostitution as a way of paying their way through University.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat: I'd argue that prostitution IS a career choice that many women do make with a clear understanding of what it is. I can point you to relevant articles if you'd like, I believe I've posted them on prior prostitution threads.
Prostitution is legal in small towns in Nevada. The prostitutes get a license, and get regularly tested for STD's. There are many articles written by intelligent prostitutes discussing their career choice.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seriously doubt a show called "Real Sex Live" is going to show anyting other than an idealized version of it. Same with the "paying through university" scheme. I mean prostitutes that aren't vying for Oscars.
*misses Kayla*
I'll be right back.
----
I miss Kayla. I don't know how to search for this. I keep getting links for porn sites.
posted
*sighs* Actually Real Sex Live is one of my favorite shows, precisely because it DOESN'T show an idealized version of a lot of things. It actually doesn't focus on prostitutes specifically, but sex, creativity in sex, and society's reactions to it, including on the street interviews in various parts of the country. It is rather educational in a way, in that things are discussed matter of factly without a lot of squickiness in most cases.
If it is biased, it is biased towards those people who are open and willing to talk about their sexuality, rather than those who aren't.
A show you should watch sometime is the little old canadian lady that does a call in sex ed talk show. I suspect that that would be within your realm of propriety.
Okay, my google skills suck, and I don't have to time to search. But a rudimentary scan shows that a signifigant portion of prostitutes are drug addicts, the median age of entry is 16 - 21, and a signifigant portion have been abused. Can anyone really argue that a life of prostitution is giving these women MORE choices?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've done a lot of work on prostitution, sexual slavery and trafficking.
Most women who choose to be prostitutes do not actually have that "choice". Some of the arguments behind this are very feminist in nature, but the general thrust is that the work is degrading. It affirms that women are, above all, a sexual tool to be used by men (and, in this circumstance, paid for).
Don't you wonder that you never (or hardly ever) get the articles from intelligent male prostitutes defending their line of business? Why not - because male prostitution is not a thriving business.
The social norm is that men have certain needs that women do not. Men can fulfill those needs by going to a prostitute. In doing so, she is affirmed as a sexual object, only existing to fulfill those male desires.
Women aren't seen, in a social context, to have the same sex drive. They don't *go* to prostitutes. They *are* the prostitutes.
Prostitution is, in the most part, a system which degrades women and affirms the sexual stereotypes which both genders have been struggling to escape.
And that's just a purely feminist/social criticism....not even going into the religous/moral side.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why not - because male prostitution is not a thriving business.
I would submit that depends on where you are. San Fransisco, Los Angeles and Las Vegas do have thriving male prostitute businesses. Not to mention Japan where they have clubs where Japanese men can be transvestites, they provide the clothing etc.
posted
Kat that is unregulated prostitution. If they were regulated, other than just "against the law" there would be minimum working conditions set, just like any other employment and drug screenings would have to be passed like everywhere else.
This is an old argument though. Suffice to say as with any other job, that the clear thinking, college-educated prostitutes, do have much higher income levels in their chosen employment, than the 16 year olds, probably because they have better business acumen.
posted
Except, AJ, in those cases male prostitution tends to be geared towards the homosexual market.
The difference is that the buyer of sex is still male (and thus reinforcing the more dominant sexual constructs) while the seller of sex is effectively feminised... to the point of being transexual. (I should clarify: I mean feminised not in the sense that all gay men who use prostitutes think of their partner as a woman, but more in the dominance/submission model of gender: in society, men are often constructed as dominant, and women as submissive. Where in prostitution the prostitute is a gay male, he is mostly the submissive partner, as is often feminised further than that - in terms of transsexualism, as stated before).
What is rare is a a woman client picking up a male (straight) prostitute. It does happen, but not very often.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Abolitionism criminalizes the activities of those seen as exploiting or coercing prostitutes (so-called "pimping" and "procuring" laws) while leaving prostitutes themselves free from regulation. This is the system endorsed by the UN in its Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. [122] This strategy sees prostitutes as victims rather than criminals and therefore not an appropriate target for the Criminal Code.
Here's one step towards a solution. Still looking for stats, though.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok imogen I see your point. However, in the US while females soliciting male prostitutes may not be high, male strippers are in increaslingly high demand.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) bare their souls in this forum. Maybe we should try and treat them with as much love and respect as we would do if they did so face to face.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
you're naughty!!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I miss Kayla. I don't know how to search for this. I keep getting links for porn sites.
