quote:*points to Jon Boy* In your face, Space Coyote!
Space Coyote?
Of course some people want to have sex with someone before they marry them. I never disputed that. The original question was whether premarital sex is necessary or helpful in any way. No matter how much people picked at the statistics I linked to, nobody has provided links to studies or statistics that show the opposite.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shrug. As a woman, I could decide that I wanted sex, and have sex in the next couple days. Force of will, you might call it. It's true, it happens. Women can choose sex.
My male friends, on the other hand, have a lot less say in determining they're "going to have sex now." Instead, they exchange money for favors (strippers, prostitutes). You could say that the Man benefits because the woman is being "used." But these people believe they have a right to their career choice.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
The whole idea of prostitution being treated as a high-paying career choice when it's instead most often practiced by abused, addicted teenagers who feel they have no hope is upsetting me more than anything in weeks (months?). Imogen knows what she's talking about - I'll defer to her.
posted
"No matter how much people picked at the statistics I linked to, nobody has provided links to studies or statistics that show the opposite."
I think this is because it's actually impossible to control for other relevant factors that are not measured by the studies. It's like that classic "cohabitation makes people more likely to divorce" study, which completely ignores some very relevant data en route to its flimsy conclusion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry it is upsetting kat. Just there is a vast difference between the two ends of the spectrum. I am as anti-teenage prostitution in general as you are. Most of the girls who worked for Heidi Fleiss for example were on the other extreme in education from the down and out types.
I just wonder if legalization and regulation would be a way to prevent some of the vulnerable girls from being taken advantage of.
On the other hand those who are vulnerable are probably always going to be taken advantage of in some way, but some we just inherently view as more dispicable than others.
posted
Jon Boy, I love you (platonically, of course) and I would never, ever dream of correcting you on a grammar issue. Can't you at least try to respect my mathematically educated assesment of that particular websites statistics?!
Ask Mackillian what a rigorous sociological study paper looks like. I'm sure she can give you some good examples of what a scientific treatment of a sociological subject is.
Suneun: I'm too tired right now to respond properly. But the whole "I'm a woman so I can ask for sex" is very indicative of the social norms that cause the degredation of prostitution in the first place.
Why shouldn't men and women be treated as equal sexually? Why shouldn't it be equally easy for a man to have sex as a woman (whether inside or out of marriage, depending on your view... and it is still an issue inside some marriages!)? Why are men always seen as "wanting it" and women are not?
Basically men are seen as sexual beings, who can demand sex as a matter of course. You can see that in marital rape laws: up until 30 years ago, (much less in some states) it was not a crime to rape your wife: she 'owed' the sexual duty to her husband. Women who decide to have sex bestow a 'favour', not demand a right.
In prostitution, women are denied a choice through their personal background (many are abused), their socio/economic backgrounds (drug dependancy, as Kat pointed out) and finally by society: sexual relations are seen in a light where it is "ok" for a woman to sell herself to a man: it is naturalised, because that man has 'needs' he doesn't get fulfilled elsewhere. Sex is a commodity, and women are firmly on the selling end.
posted
Jon Boy, I think I put out some reasonable criticisms of the conclusions drawn from the data. If any of us had access to that data, we could see if your conclusion or my conclusion is correct, or, more likely, what mixture of rightness each of our conclusions have. What you are doing is accepting the data and the conclusion given based on someone's interpretation of the data, and making it as though you have to do both. I accept the data as likely valid, but the conclusions drawn I don't see as compelling, without more proof that they controlled against other possibilities, or even then, as Banna pointed out, that the variation is actually statistically significant.
After all, there are wonderful stats out there that say uncircumcised men have a 50%!!! higher chance of urinary infection before the age of 2 than circumcised men. What isn't mentioned is that the chance for circumcised men is 1-2%, which means uncircumcised men's chances are 2-3%. In this context, the 50% looks a less impressive.
All that said, your conclusion is certainly possible, given the data. It isn't the only conclusion possible though, I hope you'd agree?
posted
AJ, I know what a scientific study looks like. I know that without the margin or error values, it's impossible to know how valuable those numbers are. I'm just saying that nobody has found anything better.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
JB, I honestly didn't think of trying to find "studies" to refute yours. Part of the problem is that when you do searches that you find so much bogus crap on both sides that trying to actually glean to find the rigorous ones is an extremely daunting task. Also then we get into a war of "studies" which isn't profitable.
posted
You know, even in countries where prostitution is legal and regulated, it is done in large part by poor women from wrecked countries who are abused and exploited. Sexual slavery is alive and well in the Netherlands and Denmark.
There is a professor here in my town who studies sex slavery (and has a very hard time doing so, due to the gangs and whatnot). If anyone is interested, I can try to find some of her work.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: A sum of analysis is done about the question on the influence of premarital cohabitation on the stability of a following marriage of the cohabiting couple. Common result of the work done in the last 25 years is that a relationship between cohabitation and marital stability exists. Estonishing enough, relationships in both directions are presented. On the one hand the data show that premarital cohabitation weakens a following marriage, that means the divorce risk is positively influenced by the premarital cohabition (Bentler and Newcomb 1978; Watson 1983; Bennett, Blanc and Bloom 1988; Thomson and Colella 1992). This seems to be the case in Germany, too (Brüderl, Diekmann and Engelhardt 1997). On the other hand premarital cohabitation seems to decrease the divorce risk of a following marriage, the divorce risk is negatively influenced by premarital cohabitation (White 1987; Klijzing 1992).
2.1 Kinds-of-people-hypothesis A positive influence of premarital cohabitation on the divorce risk of a following marriage confirms “that those who cohabit are a select group of people for whom relationships in general – both nonmarital and marital – are characterized by a lack of commitment and stability (Bennett, Blanc and Bloom 1988: 128). This is the general argument underlaying the “kinds-of-people-hypothesis”.
posted
The safety and rights of sex workers should be upheld. For some people, the solution is to ban sex work (or at least, prostitution). For others, the solution is to increase the effectiveness of labor laws, abuse laws, and drug laws.
None of us want to see people abused. It's just that we have different solutions. I want to allow people the right to accept money for sex, just like I accept money for a circus performance*. I see nothing inherently wrong with that exchange. I definitely see a lot of problems with abuse and drugs in that industry. But making it illegal hasn't made all the problems go away in the US.
* Performing is dangerous, though different emotionally. Every time I perform, I run the risk of serious injury in exchange for cash. You may not see the two as equivalent, but many sex workers would.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After getting to the bottom and looking at the numbers the statistics appear to be rigorous.
Yes, it is talking about Germany and not here, but the data is much better than any US generated data I have seen to date.
They ran two models. The second one takes into years spent searching for the partner and how long they have known the person.
quote: After changing the operationalization of the variables indicating societal change, years spend to search a partner and the possibility to achieve knowledge about the partner (model 2) premarital cohabitation has no longer a meaningful and significant effect on the divorce risk of a following marriage.
Model 1 which does not take those variables into account, only has a 30% increase in failure of the marriage, which isn't nearly high as projected in other studies. Model two says there is a 3% difference which isn't statistcally significant.
quote:We use data from two waves of the National Survey of Families and Households to investigate changes in mothering behavior associated with union formation among single mothers. We consider three dimensions of mothering: (1) time and supervision; (2) discipline and decisionmaking; and (3) relationship quality. Our major finding is that union formation and/or the disruption of new unions have very few effects on mothering. Mothers’ and children’s reports sometimes produce different results, but the patterns do not suggest that children’s reports are any more or less accurate than those of mothers. The most consistent effects of union change indicate that the presence of a partner reduces mothers’ time with children but also inhibits mothers’ harsh discipline.
posted
I think it's not that hard when I've read articles by prostitutes defending their career choice.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, the point of the study I cited wasn't that cohabitation leads to divorce, but that premarital sex—especially when there are multiple partners—leads to lower sexual pleasure and satisfaction. My point in citing that study was that Storm's original claim about premarital sex could be wrong.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sun: I can direct you to a couple R&B stations where thugs and criminals defend their "careers" too.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I agree with them. Prostitution can be a neutral, or even positive job. There are abuses, but just as there are abuses in many criminalized areas of society today. There are abuses just like there are in homes where alcohol is abused. Alcohol is not the issue, abuse is the issue.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any job CAN be damaging. But I believe that there are people who can make those decisions without being called a criminal.
Being a pediatric oncologist must be one of the most rewarding and emotionally scarring specialties in medicine. I don't think I'm emotionally capable of doing it.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because any job that turns the individual into a commodity -- and I include prostitution and most menial labor in this category -- disassociates that person from his sense of self and from his connection with the larger community. I think we see this with media celebrities, too, unless they consciously take steps to avoid it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
JB, I'm looking for sexual satisfaction stats. I 'm mostly putting up sites that appear to have rigorous mathematical treatments of data, in the mean time.
posted
Sun: *shrug* You're convinced. I think you need to either (1) rethink this, or (2) actually work with some prostitutes before spreading that around.
--------
Tom: Up until a hundred years or so ago, acting was seen as being synonymous with prostitution. I think... the superbowl bit makes that make a bit more sense.
Although I don't agree about the fast food. The laborors are indeed interchangable and their hands are needed, not their personal input, but what is being sold is still the quickly-made food.
Unless you consider all service industries to be forms of prostitution.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because any job that turns the individual into a commodity -- and I include prostitution and most menial labor in this category -- disassociates that person from his sense of self and from his connection with the larger community.
Uh, the vast majority of jobs fit this description.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think i'd give this thread a little more credit than that. It's jumped around a good few hot topics and has remained relatively civil the whole time as well. And has covered much more than the thread title suggests.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Not really. 4-5 pages on the actual topic at hand; 1-2 pages of personal attacks and reactions to same; 2-3 pages of tangentially (or not so tangentially) related topics.
quote: Why shouldn't it be equally easy for a man to have sex as a woman (whether inside or out of marriage, depending on your view... and it is still an issue inside some marriages!)? Why are men always seen as "wanting it" and women are not?
Well, because we can always have it. Kinda like having a pool table in your basement, and you never play it much because now that you know it is always there, always available, there isn't the same draw.
I could easily think of two men right off the top of my head that I could call at ANY time (maybe during lunch hour today! ) and say "let's go have sex" and they would be at my side in seconds. I mean really! So since it is so easily obtainable for women, I think that is why the public perception is such that men are always seen as the panting dog wanting it, and women are not. Now, this has nothing to do with sexual drive -- some women have a higher sexual drive -- it is just that they can more easily fulfill it.
It is interesing that this conversation took a turn from the original idea to this one on prostitution -- it has made for interesting reading. However, remember there are many ways that women have been known to prostitute themselves than just those who walk the street for money. Some use sex as a tool (manipulation). That's an entirely different kind of prostitution.
posted
Farmgirl, you are totally the woman for saying that. Have I mentioned what a great addition to the forum you are?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could easily think of two men right off the top of my head that I could call at ANY time (maybe during lunch hour today! ) and say "let's go have sex" and they would be at my side in seconds. I mean really! So since it is so easily obtainable for women, I think that is why the public perception is such that men are always seen as the panting dog wanting it, and women are not.
Isn't this circular though? Men are after sex more because it is easier for women to get sex, but it is easier for women to get sex because men are always after it?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I think it's cute that you find my opinion absolutely wrong.
This resource list is absolutely full of people who believe in protecting women in the sex industry by seeing the actual abuse, not the vocation as the problem.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't this circular though? Men are after sex more because it is easier for women to get sex, but it is easier for women to get sex because men are always after it?
Agreed. There is something else going on here.
imogen: Do you really think these gender differences are entirely cultural? Or even primarily cultural? Or do you advocate creating a culture that represses any hint of the natural differences between women and men?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And well gosh, kat, I still think the best way of reducing that abuse is by legalization and some form of safeties set by the government. Have you checked any of the dozens of links on that resource page?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
$200 - $300 bucks a night, maybe four nights a week, lots of condoms, regular checkups, a 401k, free stylists?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, that's not a fair question. there are lots of jobs i wouldn't do reguardless of whether i though they should exist.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, leave me out of this. And please spell my handle correctly (you, too, Banna).
Have you gone to the link? I have, and am working my way through dozens of different groups working to support sex workers and their rights. I just read a testimonial from a woman who survived the Khmer Rouge but now works as a sex worker and sees mountains of abuse. From the pimps, from the clients, from the police. Criminalization is not the answer. Here is what she suggests is the answer:
quote:Formulation of legislation that protects us sex workers, so we can profit 100% from our work.
Formulate legislation that those who exploit us and feed from us are eliminated and arrested, and cannot operate.
Recognition of our work as a legitimate occupation: sex work is work.
End to police harassment, abuse and violence.
Human rights for sex workers.
Legalize sex work so we can have power to protect ourselves and use condoms 100% of the time.
Legalizing sex work will minimize trafficking because people can no longer profit from the sex industry.
If we have power and control we can protect the young children who are brought to the brothels. We can help in the fight to protect the children.
posted
Why leave you out of this? I'm asking for your opinion. You've said you see it as a postive choice of a career if the conditions are controlled.
Do you see it as a positive choice, or do you see it as a positive choice for other people, one that you would never, of course, choose for yourself.
posted
Well Kat, what would this accomplish? Lets say...
1. I say that yes, I could consider accepting cash for sex or sexual favors. Suddenly, you have to pray for my soul and convince me of the depths of my immorality.
2. I say that no, I consider it something I could never do, just as I said I could never become a pediatric oncologist. Suddenly I'm not good enough to work to protect sex workers' rights because I'm not a sex worker.
I've asked you twice, and now a third time. Have you started to read the resources on the page I linked to, which list dozens of groups working for prostitutes' rights and health? Along with thousands (if not millions) of people, I believe that decriminalization is one step in making their lives safer.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If either answer would only leave you feeling triumphant and self-righteous, then I ask why you ask that question. I find it a very personal one, and certainly not one I'm willing to discuss with Hatrack.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. You're advocating a career and a lifestyle for other people that you refuse to claim as a possibility for yourself. And yeah, if you think it's great for other people but refuse for yourself, I'd love to hear the reasons.
It's your credibility at stake. I think your theory has no connection to actual reality, and if it ever did, you would quickly change your mind.
So, you say it's a positive career choice. Would you do it?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
