quote:What is the "pro-ana culture"? I don't know what you are referring to.
It's a movement that views anorexia as a lifestyle choice, rather than a psychological problem. It's disturbingly popular, the same way emo music and general teenage rebellion are popular, and it's very dangerous: many girls who are pro-ana are self diagnosed, and in joining pro-ana groups create a huge feedback loop.
Members often keep a public weblog documenting their spirals of self hate, their diet plans, and post pictures of their ultra-skinny heroes. These pictures tend to be paired with pithy catch phrases for sheer shock value - e.g. posting a picture of a starving African woman with the caption "Perfection."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cool. I wanted to make sure I wasn't misreading you. Now (if you feel like continuing) do you personally think it is degrading because of the way society views sex? Do you agree with the way society views sex? Or do you think it is degrading because of something integral to prostitution?
edit to say that "cool" was in no way a reponse to the pro-ana stuff.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, no because there isn't just one way, and yes, kmbboots. Unfortunately I have to go to work now and don't have a more detailed answer.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, one of the arguments a ways back was that if prostitution was legalized the cost overruns would push the legal stuff out of the price range of most of the buyers and the cheap stuff would still be legal.
Obviously you are forgetting good old American capitalism. When eating out became too expensive, we just made fast food.
Enter: Pumpy's! The hot new franchise that lets you get what you need fast, hot, and utterly dependable. Just order off the brightly colored menu, choose a hair color and body shape, jump in the brightly-colored stall with the cheerful girl waiting inside on a plastic bench, and you're out of there in no time!
Drive-thrus would be a bit trickier, but I can't wait to see what the mascot will look like.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I simply can't think of anything that I could actually post here and not violate the user agreement. But I'm laughing my sesame seed bun off, man!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cool. I wanted to make sure I wasn't misreading you. Now (if you feel like continuing) do you personally think it is degrading because of the way society views sex? Do you agree with the way society views sex? Or do you think it is degrading because of something integral to prostitution?
I think it's degrading because of the way our society-and most societies-view sex. Throughout the word, "whore" is an insult slung against women and throughout the world it can get you anything from a returned insult to a punch in the face to deadly violence either from the woman or her male friends and relatives for saying so.
Degradation comes in part I think from how other people think of us. But that's a tricky thing, because of course there are things that have been viewed as degrading that are anything but, really. To use some of the most famous examples, Mother Teresa's work amongst the desperately and often filthy poor. A white person working with and for the civil rights movement.
I do not agree with the way society views sex. I don't think there is a single way that society does view sex, so saying, "I agree or disagree," would actually be doing either for a whole host of opinions. However, there is one way in general in which society views prostitution: negatively. It spans from shameful pity to shameful contempt, but the element of shame is almost always there.
And I think it is degrading because of something integral to prostitution as well. I think that unless you go out of your way to hammer into people when they're young that sex is just a meaningless physical activity no different from doing jumping jacks, just more fun, then people will always attach a special value to sex.
Even if they don't view it as something sacred, it's a rare, rare thing to find someone who would be as upset if their lover did some calesthenics with another person as they would be if they had sex with that other person.
I have my personal beliefs about sex which I believe are informed by God, but I think even an atheist must conclude that humanity in general views sex as something different from ditch-digging or working in advertisement or doing some other physical activity. Yes, it's possible that the majority of humanity is wrong: that sex is in fact no different from other physical activities-just more fun. But it seems to me the only way you can prove that is by raising people up from birth and indoctrinating them in that idea, and then see how they feel once they start having sex.
It seems an unjustified risk to me, at least unjustified by any reasons given in this thread, or any other argument I've heard. If it's helping the plight of women suffering in prostitution right now, there are other ways to help them before taking that enormous leap, ways such as better education about and treatment for drug addiction, that would help them in all aspects of their lives.
The argument, "People are 'bought' for their bodies all the time," doesn't work with me. Advertising, stripping, modeling, these things sell fantasies of sex, fantasies of usefulness, clothing, whatever. Fantasies of sex are a part of what's being sold. Sex itself not the actual "commodity". I know that for all intents and purposes, some individuals do treat sex as a commodity and even in their private lives buy and sell it. It angers me and cheapens them, but short of putting cops in the bedroom there isn't much that can be done about that.
I care about treating sex like a commodity. I care about how in most any other job, yes, you're renting out your labor and a piece of your mind, but even if you're ugly as hell, if you've got the skills and knowledge necessary, you can usually get the job unless someone equally qualified and better looking applies also, who might stand a better chance.
For all of those reasons, I'm against legalizing prostitution. Also for serious economic questions which have yet to be put to rest, such as those posed by Dagonee.
But the biggest reason I oppose legalizing prostitution is not actually first concerned with sex. It's concerned with the image in my head of a bunch of women up on a little platform-block-with some pimp, no doubt more clean-cut and polished and less abusive, but still a pimp-hawks the wares he's helped bring to the customers today.
I don't care if the women are up there voluntarily. I don't care if the pimp isn't slapping them around or stealing their money. I don't care if they're not all crippled by drug addiction and ignorance. I don't care if they're not going to be spreading disease. I don't care if by doing so, tax revenues would be gained.
I care about individual human beings up on the block being bought and sold and rented and traded for their bodies.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that we agree that there are practical issues due to the way society views sex. I think that I disagree with society more strongly than you do. I also think that, while you are describing the real world, I am describing what I think could be. So we are in no real disagreement there.
quote: And I think it is degrading because of something integral to prostitution as well. I think that unless you go out of your way to hammer into people when they're young that sex is just a meaningless physical activity no different from doing jumping jacks, just more fun, then people will always attach a special value to sex.
I attach a special value to sex, too. But I also attach a special value to a lot of other things. Art, music, dance, for example can be intimate expressions of one's soul, can be sacred. They can also be things one does professionally.
quote:Even if they don't view it as something sacred, it's a rare, rare thing to find someone who would be as upset if their lover did some calesthenics with another person as they would be if they had sex with that other person.
But how much of that is an "ownership" issue?
quote: I have my personal beliefs about sex which I believe are informed by God, but I think even an atheist must conclude that humanity in general views sex as something different from ditch-digging or working in advertisement or doing some other physical activity. Yes, it's possible that the majority of humanity is wrong: that sex is in fact no different from other physical activities-just more fun. But it seems to me the only way you can prove that is by raising people up from birth and indoctrinating them in that idea, and then see how they feel once they start having sex.
Again, rather than thinking sex something less, I maybe, am thinking of other activities as something more? And bear in mind that there are some people now who already have different views of sex - why should the government regulate their sex lives? If it is legal for a woman to accept a really nice gift after a night of sex, why not cash? Should the government really be getting into her motivations?
quote: It seems an unjustified risk to me, at least unjustified by any reasons given in this thread, or any other argument I've heard. If it's helping the plight of women suffering in prostitution right now, there are other ways to help them before taking that enormous leap, ways such as better education about and treatment for drug addiction, that would help them in all aspects of their lives.
Which I still think would be easier if they could go for help withour fear of being arrested.
quote: But the biggest reason I oppose legalizing prostitution is not actually first concerned with sex. It's concerned with the image in my head of a bunch of women up on a little platform-block-with some pimp, no doubt more clean-cut and polished and less abusive, but still a pimp-hawks the wares he's helped bring to the customers today.
I don't care if the women are up there voluntarily. I don't care if the pimp isn't slapping them around or stealing their money. I don't care if they're not all crippled by drug addiction and ignorance. I don't care if they're not going to be spreading disease. I don't care if by doing so, tax revenues would be gained.
I care about individual human beings up on the block being bought and sold and rented and traded for their bodies.
And here is where I think we most disagree. I don't think all that has to be a part of prostitution. Why does there need to be a pimp? Why are you assuming that human beings are being bought and sold by other people rather than contracting for services or "booking gigs". I am imagining artists who can choose their own clients and name their price. I suppose the really good ones could afford to hire a manager who would have to work really hard to keep the talent happy. Slaves were bought and sold usually for doing manual labor rather than sex. The people who do manual labor now aren't slaves because they have a choice about what jobs they take and don't take. If a prostitute has the same kinds of choices, why is she (or he) a slave?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for your well-reasoned reply, kmbboots. I will reply to it, but that may be tomorrow or even this weekend. I would right now, but I just got done rotating my tires. While I have one great hydraulic jack, I don't have any stands or cinder bricks handy, so I had to carefully use the really crappy one in my trunk.
Man, I need to buy a new jack to put in my trunk. Anyway, you've raised some interesting points again here. I'll think about `em when my mindset isn't "tired-annoyed-dirty".
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it's crappy in that it (feels) makes you do pretty much all the work of lifting the darn car yourself. It's quite safe otherwise, heh.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there is always the danger of falling anvils, but so long as I watch out for elaborate traps, I think I'll be OK.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Watch out for coyotes and boxes labeled "Acme". I'm away fro the computer in the weekends, but I'll be back on Monday.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I attach a special value to sex, too. But I also attach a special value to a lot of other things. Art, music, dance, for example can be intimate expressions of one's soul, can be sacred. They can also be things one does professionally.
Value and special are relative words though, aren't they? I mean, those words lose some of their meaning the more things you define as specially valuable-and lose all meaning if you define all things as specially valuable, obviously. Just because something can be done professionally does not mean it should be done professionally, and 'professionally' is by no means a good thing, either.
quote:But how much of that is an "ownership" issue?
Well quite a lot is an 'ownership issue', I think. Actually I believe that can be used as a further example of the point I was making about words like special and value above. One reason sexually monogamous relationships are special is because each person is having sex with only their partner. And the world over, monogamy is valued even if infidelity is sometimes winked at or permitted in some way.
Lovers don't get upset if their lover paints a picture with another person, or plays some music. They might get upset, however, if their lover dances with another person-depending on the type of dance-and most especially if they have sex with another person.
quote:Again, rather than thinking sex something less, I maybe, am thinking of other activities as something more? And bear in mind that there are some people now who already have different views of sex - why should the government regulate their sex lives? If it is legal for a woman to accept a really nice gift after a night of sex, why not cash? Should the government really be getting into her motivations?
The first part of this I talked about above. By defining everything as greater, more special, more sacred, you reduce the sanctity and uniqueness of the thing to whose level you're raising everything else. If that sentence makes any sense...if not, consider it like inflation. Or gold.
Gold is valued because it is rare and pretty looking. But if you decide that everything is valuable, then gold loses its relative worth-the very thing that makes it special.
As for the government, why should the government regulate anything? Why shouldn't the government adopt a policy of, "If it feels good, do it!" The government should involve itself in the sex lives of human beings among its citizens precisely because those human beings view sex as so incredibly important. A government must be responsive to and aware of the needs and realities of its people.
Now, where the government responds and how are obviously trickier matters. That question involves other needs and realities of its people, such as privacy, civil rights, non-intrusive government, etc. All those things must be considered.
But the government must be involved to some extent with the sexuality of its people, because it's a Really Big Deal to them. I'm dealing here with your question, "Why should the government get involved?"
To your other question-why shouldn't the government get involved with the woman being a de facto prostitute? Well, precisely for the reason that its people have other needs and realities aside from sex, the things I mentioned above. There really is no way to stop this kind of de facto prostitution from taking place unless you outlaw gift-giving or drastically lower standards of proof in our courts. That's one big reason why the government shouldn't be getting into their motivations.
But to your unspoken point, I have less firm answers, and this point of yours is more troubling. The point I believe you've made elsewhere but haven't stated outright in this particular post is, "What's the difference between a prostitute taking paper money and giving a receipt in exchange for sexual activity with the customer, and this de facto prostitution?"
My answer is: there isn't a whole lot of difference. That sort of behavior-ohh, shiny, let's bang!-is troubling and depressing to me. But I think that often it's usually not so blatantly...merchantile as all that. Usually the gift-giver, in addition to giving some pretty flowers or lovely jewelry or candy or whatever, is also going out of their way to be very nice, friendly, charming, etc. etc. So in this particular example, doubtless the gift or hoped-for gift plays a role...but it's not the only role.
In prostitution, one person gives money and the other makes whoopie. We can only speculate with a high probability (at best) about what's really going on in the situation you describe. We know for a certainty what's going on with outright prostitution.
To me, that is a crucial difference.
quote:Which I still think would be easier if they could go for help withour fear of being arrested.
Yes, well I'm not in favor of easing their suffering and improving their lots in life, period. There are other considerations involved. Society should not be overturned in favor of their welfare, we should try to use the many tools at our disposal within society to improve their welfare.
quote:And here is where I think we most disagree. I don't think all that has to be a part of prostitution. Why does there need to be a pimp? Why are you assuming that human beings are being bought and sold by other people rather than contracting for services or "booking gigs". I am imagining artists who can choose their own clients and name their price. I suppose the really good ones could afford to hire a manager who would have to work really hard to keep the talent happy. Slaves were bought and sold usually for doing manual labor rather than sex. The people who do manual labor now aren't slaves because they have a choice about what jobs they take and don't take. If a prostitute has the same kinds of choices, why is she (or he) a slave?
Because the appetite for sex is different from appreciation of art. Because Mom'n'Pop stores are being overtaken by Super Wal-Marts and Home Depots. Because in point of fact, most artists don't live too well. "Starving artist" is a cliche for a reason.
There would be a pimp. He might not be a tacky dresser with a cane and a feathered hat. He might be "director of personnel" at Sex-Mart. But there'd still be a pimp, or a madame.
A legalized prostitute is not necessarily a slave. My biggest problem is the alarming images of slavery-the similarities. Normally that alone would not be enough to guarantee my opposition to legalized prostitution, but in light of finding no compelling reason why it should be openly legal, I see no reason to contort our culture and our society just because it might help and it "will probably" work out nicely.
That's a big, big leap. I think you need more evidence before proposing we make the jump.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
hello, so here's my first post at hattrack: I think that prostitution should be legalized. Because: 1. It will give prostitutes protection under the law against various forms of abuse. 2. It will allow prostitutes to have insurance, and healthcare benefits from their "employers". I presume that most prostitutes would join 'houses' or some sort of organizations instead of working independently. 3. It will make it easier to regulate the industry, and make reduces the chances of spreading STD's. for example, to have a prostitution license, you must submit results of various tests for STD's periodically. 4. Children of prostitutes will have a much better life.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It occurs to me that the discussion here seems to be in absolutes. But surely there exists a middle ground between the current level of crime-with-enforcement, and state-licensed brothels? Consider Sweden, where prostitution is legal but buying sex is not (the last victory of the feminist wing of the Social Democrats; apparently it has led to more beaten-up prostitutes by driving the law-abiding johns off the street.) Consider England, where prostitution is technically illegal, but enforcement is so spotty that every phone box is covered with ads for 'massage'. Consider Norway, where prostitution is legal but running a brothel is not. (And in Oslo at least, the competition from Eastern Europeans is driving the Norwegians uptown, and there have been nasty fights over street corners.) None of these solutions are ideal, by any means, but they do seem better to me than a complete prohibition, arbitrarily enforced. (I say arbitrarily because clearly, the law has not succeeded in completely suppressing prostitution.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I attach a special value to sex, too. But I also attach a special value to a lot of other things. Art, music, dance, for example can be intimate expressions of one's soul, can be sacred. They can also be things one does professionally. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value and special are relative words though, aren't they? I mean, those words lose some of their meaning the more things you define as specially valuable-and lose all meaning if you define all things as specially valuable, obviously.
Nope. Going to have to disagree there. Special is not a zero sum game. If you have two children is one less special because her sister is special also?
quote: Just because something can be done professionally does not mean it should be done professionally, and 'professionally' is by no means a good thing, either.
I am by no means saying that professionals are always better at something than amateurs. Just saying that people are sometimes paid for things that are sacred, that touch the soul, that are "special", that are intimate.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But how much of that is an "ownership" issue? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well quite a lot is an 'ownership issue', I think. Actually I believe that can be used as a further example of the point I was making about words like special and value above. One reason sexually monogamous relationships are special is because each person is having sex with only their partner. And the world over, monogamy is valued even if infidelity is sometimes winked at or permitted in some way.
Lovers don't get upset if their lover paints a picture with another person, or plays some music. They might get upset, however, if their lover dances with another person-depending on the type of dance-and most especially if they have sex with another person.
Not true for everybody. When I have been in that kind of relationship I have been made much more insecure (the root of jealousy) by other kinds of intimacy. And again, not a zero sum game.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, rather than thinking sex something less, I maybe, am thinking of other activities as something more? And bear in mind that there are some people now who already have different views of sex - why should the government regulate their sex lives? If it is legal for a woman to accept a really nice gift after a night of sex, why not cash? Should the government really be getting into her motivations? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first part of this I talked about above. By defining everything as greater, more special, more sacred, you reduce the sanctity and uniqueness of the thing to whose level you're raising everything else. If that sentence makes any sense...if not, consider it like inflation. Or gold.
Gold is valued because it is rare and pretty looking. But if you decide that everything is valuable, then gold loses its relative worth-the very thing that makes it special.
See above.
quote: As for the government, why should the government regulate anything? Why shouldn't the government adopt a policy of, "If it feels good, do it!" The government should involve itself in the sex lives of human beings among its citizens precisely because those human beings view sex as so incredibly important. A government must be responsive to and aware of the needs and realities of its people.
Now, where the government responds and how are obviously trickier matters. That question involves other needs and realities of its people, such as privacy, civil rights, non-intrusive government, etc. All those things must be considered.
But the government must be involved to some extent with the sexuality of its people, because it's a Really Big Deal to them. I'm dealing here with your question, "Why should the government get involved?"
To your other question-why shouldn't the government get involved with the woman being a de facto prostitute? Well, precisely for the reason that its people have other needs and realities aside from sex, the things I mentioned above. There really is no way to stop this kind of de facto prostitution from taking place unless you outlaw gift-giving or drastically lower standards of proof in our courts. That's one big reason why the government shouldn't be getting into their motivations.
We disagree pretty seriously here, too. Precisely, because sex is so important and so individual I don't want the government involved at all with the sex lives of consenting adults. I think that the government should protect those that are incapable of making choices, children for example, but otherwise stay out of my choices. And because I view sex a certain way, and you view sex a certain way, doesn't mean that the government should dictate how we all view sex. I think our opinions on the role of government are very different.
quote: But to your unspoken point, I have less firm answers, and this point of yours is more troubling. The point I believe you've made elsewhere but haven't stated outright in this particular post is, "What's the difference between a prostitute taking paper money and giving a receipt in exchange for sexual activity with the customer, and this de facto prostitution?"
My answer is: there isn't a whole lot of difference. That sort of behavior-ohh, shiny, let's bang!-is troubling and depressing to me. But I think that often it's usually not so blatantly...merchantile as all that. Usually the gift-giver, in addition to giving some pretty flowers or lovely jewelry or candy or whatever, is also going out of their way to be very nice, friendly, charming, etc. etc. So in this particular example, doubtless the gift or hoped-for gift plays a role...but it's not the only role.
In prostitution, one person gives money and the other makes whoopie. We can only speculate with a high probability (at best) about what's really going on in the situation you describe. We know for a certainty what's going on with outright prostitution.
To me, that is a crucial difference.
To me that is a a neglible difference. Or rather prostitution may have an advantage because at least it is honest. How many men have pretended to love a woman just to have sex, or women faked both love and sex for a nice house and security?
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And here is where I think we most disagree. I don't think all that has to be a part of prostitution. Why does there need to be a pimp? Why are you assuming that human beings are being bought and sold by other people rather than contracting for services or "booking gigs". I am imagining artists who can choose their own clients and name their price. I suppose the really good ones could afford to hire a manager who would have to work really hard to keep the talent happy. Slaves were bought and sold usually for doing manual labor rather than sex. The people who do manual labor now aren't slaves because they have a choice about what jobs they take and don't take. If a prostitute has the same kinds of choices, why is she (or he) a slave? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the appetite for sex is different from appreciation of art. Because Mom'n'Pop stores are being overtaken by Super Wal-Marts and Home Depots. Because in point of fact, most artists don't live too well. "Starving artist" is a cliche for a reason.
There would be a pimp. He might not be a tacky dresser with a cane and a feathered hat. He might be "director of personnel" at Sex-Mart. But there'd still be a pimp, or a madame.
A legalized prostitute is not necessarily a slave. My biggest problem is the alarming images of slavery-the similarities. Normally that alone would not be enough to guarantee my opposition to legalized prostitution, but in light of finding no compelling reason why it should be openly legal, I see no reason to contort our culture and our society just because it might help and it "will probably" work out nicely.
That's a big, big leap. I think you need more evidence before proposing we make the jump.
You keep saying "contort our culture". We already have prostitution. We have always had prostitution. Now it is illegal and run by criminals. Heck, if it were legal, prostitutes could unionize. Pimps could become agents or managers. Less likely they are going to beat up on the talent if the talent can file a law suit or sic her union rep on them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope. Going to have to disagree there. Special is not a zero sum game. If you have two children is one less special because her sister is special also?
Of course not. But answer me this. Which is worse? To have a child die if you have only one child? Or to have a child die if you have two, or three, or five?
That stance might offend some, and I confess I'm just guessing. I have no children, and I can only guess at the suffering inherent when a parent outlives their child. But I think that maybe it might not be so awful if there were other children around afterwards. I'm sorry if this is offensive to anyone-I realize it's a sensitive subject of which I am largely ignorant.
quote:I am by no means saying that professionals are always better at something than amateurs. Just saying that people are sometimes paid for things that are sacred, that touch the soul, that are "special", that are intimate.
I wasn't referring to professionals always being better at their work than amateurs, I was saying that just because something is done as a profession does not make it good.
quote:Not true for everybody. When I have been in that kind of relationship I have been made much more insecure (the root of jealousy) by other kinds of intimacy. And again, not a zero sum game.
You'll notice I used the word 'might' there. Let me be more specific. One would be more likely to be upset if their partner danced with another person, than they would if they sang a song with them. If they were to be angry at the dancing at all. Beyond that clarification I don't really understand what you're saying.
quote:We disagree pretty seriously here, too. Precisely, because sex is so important and so individual I don't want the government involved at all with the sex lives of consenting adults. I think that the government should protect those that are incapable of making choices, children for example, but otherwise stay out of my choices. And because I view sex a certain way, and you view sex a certain way, doesn't mean that the government should dictate how we all view sex. I think our opinions on the role of government are very different.
I don't really see what you're complaining about. The government doesn't stop you from practicing de facto prostitution-either as the john or the prostitute. It seems to me that you're complaining about a right to sell sex which isn't really threatened-as you and I agree, it happens all the time, and I'm not talking about street-walking hookers.
I think our views of government might not be so different as you think-I've admitted more than once that more than any problems I have with legalized prostitution on a legal level are my moral and ethical concerns about it, how it is strongly linked in my mind to slavery. I oppose any and all sodomy laws, I support legalized homosexual marriage, I oppose any laws restricting interracial relationships between consenting adults, I oppose "no tolerance" laws that label a seventeen year old having sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend a sexual predator, and I support widespread sex education beyond abstinence.
You can already sell sex, thus your aggrieved status on that score loses some of its momentum...and as far as lessening the suffering of prostitutes, there are other far more urgent problems besides the fact that prostitution is illegal that could be addressed to help them. Fix the third-floor bathroom after the kitchen fire is put out.
quote:You keep saying "contort our culture". We already have prostitution. We have always had prostitution. Now it is illegal and run by criminals. Heck, if it were legal, prostitutes could unionize. Pimps could become agents or managers. Less likely they are going to beat up on the talent if the talent can file a law suit or sic her union rep on them.
Obviously because it's illegal it is run by criminals. I think you are fully aware that it would be seriously contorting our culture to openly legalize prostitution, because as I'm sure you know, culture is concerned with many things-appearances and what we tell ourselves about ourselves among them, the things we do and do not tolerate or condone. Not just what is and isn't available.
Prostitutes could legalize? As Dagonee has mentioned, unless you're going to address the issues which make women so desperate as to engage in prostitution, unionization would have diminished effect, at best...because there will always be those horribly desperate, miserable women (and some men) who would be prostitutes to feed themselves, their children, their habits, or all three.
Prostitutes can already file a lawsuit on a violently abusive pimp.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope. Going to have to disagree there. Special is not a zero sum game. If you have two children is one less special because her sister is special also? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course not. But answer me this. Which is worse? To have a child die if you have only one child? Or to have a child die if you have two, or three, or five?
That stance might offend some, and I confess I'm just guessing. I have no children, and I can only guess at the suffering inherent when a parent outlives their child. But I think that maybe it might not be so awful if there were other children around afterwards. I'm sorry if this is offensive to anyone-I realize it's a sensitive subject of which I am largely ignorant.
Yup. Now I really disagree.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not true for everybody. When I have been in that kind of relationship I have been made much more insecure (the root of jealousy) by other kinds of intimacy. And again, not a zero sum game. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll notice I used the word 'might' there. Let me be more specific. One would be more likely to be upset if their partner danced with another person, than they would if they sang a song with them. If they were to be angry at the dancing at all. Beyond that clarification I don't really understand what you're saying.
I would be more upset with the song actually, but that is beside the point. That some, even most, people are made insecure or jealous if their partner is not monogamous is not an indiction of how special sex is. Nor is it reason for the government to regulate it.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We disagree pretty seriously here, too. Precisely, because sex is so important and so individual I don't want the government involved at all with the sex lives of consenting adults. I think that the government should protect those that are incapable of making choices, children for example, but otherwise stay out of my choices. And because I view sex a certain way, and you view sex a certain way, doesn't mean that the government should dictate how we all view sex. I think our opinions on the role of government are very different. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't really see what you're complaining about. The government doesn't stop you from practicing de facto prostitution-either as the john or the prostitute. It seems to me that you're complaining about a right to sell sex which isn't really threatened-as you and I agree, it happens all the time, and I'm not talking about street-walking hookers.
I think our views of government might not be so different as you think-I've admitted more than once that more than any problems I have with legalized prostitution on a legal level are my moral and ethical concerns about it, how it is strongly linked in my mind to slavery. I oppose any and all sodomy laws, I support legalized homosexual marriage, I oppose any laws restricting interracial relationships between consenting adults, I oppose "no tolerance" laws that label a seventeen year old having sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend a sexual predator, and I support widespread sex education beyond abstinence.
You can already sell sex, thus your aggrieved status on that score loses some of its momentum...and as far as lessening the suffering of prostitutes, there are other far more urgent problems besides the fact that prostitution is illegal that could be addressed to help them. Fix the third-floor bathroom after the kitchen fire is put out.
I'm not "aggrieved". I am asking why, if the government does not and should not prohibit exchanging expensive gifts, security, or lies for sex why should it prohibit exchanging cash for sex. What is the difference? If we can already sell sex, why can't we sell it for cash?
quote:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You keep saying "contort our culture". We already have prostitution. We have always had prostitution. Now it is illegal and run by criminals. Heck, if it were legal, prostitutes could unionize. Pimps could become agents or managers. Less likely they are going to beat up on the talent if the talent can file a law suit or sic her union rep on them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously because it's illegal it is run by criminals. I think you are fully aware that it would be seriously contorting our culture to openly legalize prostitution, because as I'm sure you know, culture is concerned with many things-appearances and what we tell ourselves about ourselves among them, the things we do and do not tolerate or condone. Not just what is and isn't available.
Prostitutes could legalize? As Dagonee has mentioned, unless you're going to address the issues which make women so desperate as to engage in prostitution, unionization would have diminished effect, at best...because there will always be those horribly desperate, miserable women (and some men) who would be prostitutes to feed themselves, their children, their habits, or all three.
Prostitutes can already file a lawsuit on a violently abusive pimp.
I think here we are talking at cross purposes. You are talking about what is; I am talking about what is philosophically possible.
And do you really think a prostitute who is a criminal herself is as likely to turn to the law for protection as a prostitute who is not a criminal herself?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Chris...
