Interesting topic.
As has been suggested, I wonder how many non-prostitutes/strippers were sexually (or otherwise) abused as children?
It is odd that when we throw sex into the mix, suddenly we enter this odd twilight zone. And it comes from all sides.
On the right, we get Victorian minded infantilistic prudes like Ashcroft and pals, some of whom want to outlaw sodomy between conseting adults in their own homes - including heterosexual sodomy. Not to mention the covering of the breasts of the statue of "Justice"...
From the left we get this 'any woman who flaunts her sexuality must have been sexually abused' schtick.
Now, I certainly do not condone sexual abuse and am not trying to minimize its negative impact on its victims.
But not all prostitutes or strippers were sexually abused.
Many 'escorts' and such made damn good money (I'm not talking about the 'crack whore' here, that is a different story altogether).
Frankly, unless such activity is coerced or done against a participant's will, I see no problem with prostitution and other "nudy" activity at all.
Legalize and regulate.
I know it is 'PC' to try to find the 'pain' in the lives of such folk. Then, you can find 'pain' in the lives of accountants and even scientists.
I do think that many - left and right - confuse cause and effect in these cases.
I also agree that Dworkin's stuff borders on the fanciful.
Steinem, for whom I at one time had a great deal of respect, has fallen out of my favor for comments she had made on the research on the differenes between brain 'wiring' in males and females - she said such research should not even be done, as if pointing out the obvious somehow degraded women.
Balderdash!
Indeed, this research pointed out how women excel in many tasks that men do poorly in.
What is so terrible about recognizing the differenes? Sorry, Gloria, but men and women are, in fact,
different. There is a biological vbasis for it.
it is neither good nor bad, it simply is.
well, there's my rant for the day...
Though I must say that I found the hard words direted against schraf to be a bit over the top...
------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago
™ Version 4.2
