Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Schraf and Satcomm hand in hand against victimless crimes
Ruth
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 54 (32577)
02-18-2003 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Silent H
02-17-2003 5:12 PM


Hello Holmes, following this thread has been interesting; you present a fairly thorough argument. Perhaps you can help me to better understand your opinion.
quote:
Prostitution has been made a crime because it is believed to do harm. It is a victimless crime because the sole participants in the crime have agreed to engage in it.
While the acts involved in prostitution are consensual and seemingly harmless, the practice of prostitution is harmful in other indirect ways. It supports the idea that humans can be purchased and used. It is also harmful to the hard won concept that women are more than ‘Comforting Release Technicians’.
Also consider a man, who lacks the social skills or esteem to find a sexual partner through conventional means. If a prostitute fulfills his desires, isn’t it harmful to him in the sense he will not overcome his shortcomings? I know these don’t qualify as harm/injury in a criminal sense, I’m just wondering about your opinion.
(In response to Schraf)
quote:
It was your assertion that people are looking for a body to use, not mine. I was disputing that assertion by pointing out that people want real living people, not just "a body."
In most of your examples you seem to imply that they are just looking for a body. You make little reference to companionship, only release. A real living person has a personality. If all that is known about another is what time they are available for sex, there is no known personality and that person is reduced to a real living ‘body’. (Even if they do gasp at the appropriate moments.)
quote:
It is desirable. Nonprudes can handle the concept that you can do what is desirable with someone else when you want to, instead of using your hand.
Only prudes think using your hand is somehow better or preferable to being with someone you are not in a relationship with, or worse still, paying a person to do the relieving.
By your definition I guess I’m a prude. I can agree with the concept that you can do what is desirable (and consensual) with someone else when you want to, it’s the part about paying for it that hangs me up.
I understand your massage analogy; it is difficult for me as a woman, to remove the intimate, internal aspects of sex in order to equate it with a backrub.
quote:
In the end, prostitution and other sexual careers will continue despite the laws that restrictive, puritanical societies may put in place. This is because it is inate human behavior.
Legal or not, it discourages the open ended sexual freedom that you champion. In accepting prostitution you are rejecting this freedom because you advocate paying for a service, not simply enjoying an unfettered sexual experience. Sex is innate; trading sex for money does not seem to be innate.
Ruth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 02-17-2003 5:12 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by compmage, posted 02-18-2003 2:43 PM Ruth has replied
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 02-19-2003 12:49 AM Ruth has replied

  
Ruth
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 54 (32588)
02-18-2003 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by compmage
02-18-2003 2:43 PM


quote:
Personally I don't see very much of a difference between a person paying for one service (a plumber to fix their toilet) and another (a prostitute to share their bed).
Can you (or anyone else) explain why you think there is a difference?
The difference to me is in the labeling of sex as a service in the first place. It is a consensual act between thinking creatures, not some object that needs to be fixed, and not some twisted birthright.
All said, I would have to concede that an individual can rent or sell a part of themselves for money if they desire, it is their body. Surrogate mothers and blood donors are technically in this same group.
quote:
Thinking sex is a private thing and should not be for sale isn't going to be good enough (even though I agree that it is private) and isn't any different from me thinking that my piano has sentimental value and should not be sold for money. Not that I have a piano.
I place more value on my ‘piano’, and it is a bit more than a sentimental attachment.
I am thinking this over, but have to run, later, Ruth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by compmage, posted 02-18-2003 2:43 PM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by compmage, posted 02-19-2003 1:37 AM Ruth has replied

  
Ruth
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 54 (32826)
02-21-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Silent H
02-19-2003 12:49 AM


quote:
Prostitution itself is simply the purchase of sexual entertainment and is not by necessity the "purchase of people." You can hire cooks to cook your food, masseuse's to massage your body, singers to sing for you, dancers to dance with you, and you can hire prostitutes to have sex with you.
The fundamental difference is that I don’t view sex as commodity. Prostitution is, however temporary, the purchase of another human’s body. It is true that a cook, dancer, masseuse, or singer use their body to provide a service. In prostitution the client is directly using the providers body and to me is incompatible with fundamental human rights.
The case of the happy working girl may be an exception but I think it is more of a rarity.
quote:
There are slaves pushed into all of those things, even today. The commodification of human life which leads to slavery, or virtual slavery, is repulsive and should be addressed through changing attitudes toward human life in general.
How many cooks, singers, or dancers are in the slave market? Prostitution is on the rise because it is frequently a last resort for many poor women around the world. I agree attitudes must change, this includes the attitude that supports using others bodies in whatever manner as long as you reciprocate with cash.
You want to compartmentalize the problem to ‘white’ markets. I don’t think this is realistic because the mere existence of white markets virtually guarantees a black counterpart. Say prostitution becomes legal worldwide tomorrow and many white operations open their doors. There would still be many unregulated and dangerous operations.
Trafficking in humans supposedly represents the world's 3rd largest criminal activity (after drugs and weapons.) The miscellaneous agencies aren’t suppressing these operations now, what makes you think they can handle the regulation involved?
Would most patrons choose the $250.regulated shop over the $50.unregulated shop that is likely around the corner?
Advocating prostitution encourages all of the negative characteristics of the sex industry (child/slave) because it encourages the idea of buying a body for personal use, even if you personally only think of it as entertainment.
quote:
Putting women who want to work as sexual entertainers (P, stripping, other) in jail does not change this attitude, nor does it help those stuck in slavery.
No, but it deters the practice in some small degree.
Prostitution is a key factor in the spread of HIV, the fear of contracting this has the clients fueling a younger and younger market. The practitioners and clients need much more education before you could allow legality, I suppose you expect that regulation would counter this.
All clients and providers would have to always engage in protected sex. Do you think this is a reasonable expectation for an industry that thrives on ‘having it your way’?
Do you think an open market would pay the desperate women who are already engaged any more than it does now?
quote:
This is an article from scientific american (1995). It is one of many studies on the Bonobos. This one in particular is interesting as it challenges your assertions regarding P being based on male dominance. Trade for sex may very well have been a female solution to conflict resolution, rather than a male solution (which tends to be overt aggression and dominance of both males and females, and not trade).
It seems more symbolic of pacification, not conscious trade; I’ll have to read more on it.
quote:
While the above article points to trade in sexuality as an inherent (feminine) part of human society,
I would think male and female have contributed to trade in sexuality and it is unnecessary and speculative to argue either side.
quote:
The lesson: prudishness does not create prostitution, but has shaped its nature into what we see today (the creation and growth of grey and black markets). .
Truly, for your assertion that I have a Disneyland view of P, this is my answer. This is very close to my view of P, and the very real problems faced in the white through black markets of this occupation. The answer IMO (and theirs) is to cripple the grey and black markets by empowering the best of the white markets.
I’ve yet to read through all of your links and I do intend to, but I think you do have an unrealistic outlook. To cripple the bad markets you would have to offer some alternative to the desperate women involved. These markets are not full of women that choose prostitution as a career. Poverty stricken areas and areas involved in conflict create even more sexual violence, more displaced people, more orphans and more prostitutes. You would need a very far-reaching economic plan to really eliminate the shady markets.
quote:
All I am saying is that:
1) people need to realize that OTHER people really do exist who don't draw their personal boundaries the same way
And I’m saying that prostitution encourages the disregard for those boundaries. It encourages dehumanization and sexual exploitation.
I respect your boundaries as you respect mine and try to be objective about the majority mentality.
quote:
2) that imposing one group's boundaries on another (even if they are the majority) is not the best policy for anyone.
You seem to think that legalization will open the minds of the masses. I think it is somewhat of a responsibility to protect human dignity, I never really thought of it as a case of majority rule.
quote:
When your sexuality is really open and free, and you enjoy having sex with many different people, it really doesn't seem that odd to make money doing what you like (and do anyway),
Are most prostitutes in it for the freedom first or simply in it for the money? Statements about job satisfaction are laughable when you step outside of the white area.
How will physical appearance effect an open market?
I think that if you place regulations and remove the stigma prostitution will still encourage unsavory practices. Maybe more because you are removing the flimsy moral constraints that are already in place, particularly in child prostitution. An open market would also offer specialty markets and that could be even more degrading.
I also think that regulation might help some of the ills associated with prostitution, so it may be a case of some being better than none.
I'm not sure if I find it an easy trade.
Ruth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 02-19-2003 12:49 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 02-22-2003 1:07 PM Ruth has not replied

  
Ruth
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 54 (32827)
02-21-2003 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by compmage
02-19-2003 1:37 AM


quote:
For interest sake, do you have anything against surrogate mothers and blood donors?
I only object to surrogates as a general principle about reproduction, I don’t think we need any more babies than those that already occur naturally. I wouldn’t try to impose this opinion on others.
quote:
The difference, as far as I can see, is only that the need for these services are generally considered more acceptable. I personally think this has a lot to do with Christain perception of sex as 'filthy' and required only for procreation. I am not saying that all Christain beliefs this, or even that only Christains beliefs this.
I think you are right in your assumption about acceptability. It may have more to do with the life giving aspect of surrogates and blood donors, and the perceived necessity of sex.
quote:
You are entitled to place as much value as you like to your 'piano'.
I simply don’t like your analogy; it seems crass to compare a human body part to an object, but it does make me rethink surrogates mothers.
quote:
However, why should other people be forbidden by law to sell or share theirs with whomever they want in exchange for cash?
I’m torn between my views on personal rights and a more encompassing view of human rights. I find it interesting and am still considering it. And again have to run! : ) Ruth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by compmage, posted 02-19-2003 1:37 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by compmage, posted 02-22-2003 7:23 AM Ruth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024