Schraf and Satcomm hand in hand against victimless crimes

[QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++
Prostitution is a victimless crime?
Do you know how many prostitutes (and strippers) were also sexually violated as young children?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You just lost all of your credibility with me schraf. I cannot believe you'd use the same illogical ad hominem scare crap used by creationists to support your own personal opinions.The fact that Satcomm is in agreement should indicate how far astray you've gone, but pointing that out is not going to cut it with me (it's simply guilt by association, and adhominem).Prepare for a major spanking in logic.A "victimless" crime is distinguished from other crimes, because all parties involved have consented to the activity in question. A consensual activity, crime or other, does not suddenly change to nonconsensual simply because the person was a victim of another crime in the past.For example, if a large percentage of secretaries turned out to have been violated as children, that WOULD NOT make being a secretary a NONCONSENSUAL activity.So, to answer your question, do I know how many X were victimized as children? Not exactly, no.Does it matter? Not one bit.And this holds true even if I were to accept your "do you know" insinuation, as if to suggest close to 90% of prostitutes had been abused.Other than Dworkin's flawed "I asked my man-hating friends" studies, we both know such statistics are not likely. But by all means if you have some credible statistics, bring 'em on.Before you do though, I should point out that it would be more important (statistically) to show how many people that were violated became X, than how many X were violated... that is if you want to make the charge that engaging in X is beyond the will of those who have been victimized (which means they are incapable of truly giving consent) and so becomes an extension of their victimization.Then again, while you are compiling those statistics why not find out how many abused children become adults that drink. Or how about how many go to therapy? How about how many get rank and file jobs (like the secretary example above) instead of administrative level jobs?In general, do people with self-esteem issues stemming from childhood traumas (sexual or other), tend toward activities and occupations considered "lower" or "illicit" or indicative of "having problems"? Hmmmmmmm. Does that make all of those activities nonconsensual and so further parts of their victimization?Should victims be the rule by which society measures allowable activity for people who have not been victimized? [QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++
Sure, in a Disney world all prostitutes are doing it out of a healthy self-esteem and free choice, but how often do you really think this is the case, even where leagal?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This is probably the comment that sent me over the edge.How many people with jobs at DisneyWorld are doing it out of healthy self-esteem and free choice (think particularly hard about the people picking up trash and scrubbing toilets)? How often do you think that's the case ANYWHERE and in ANY POSITION which is not glamorous?Realistically, most people take the jobs they have out of economic necessity and what was available to them, because most jobs are service jobs with relatively low pay and little esteem-building potential.If your response is that most people consider prostitution lower than most other jobs, all I have to say is that a majority of people in the US believe in Xtianity. Just because people think something does not make it so, other than in the "self-fulfilling prophecy" style witchhunt activities (and circular logic use) which follow.Let's take a licensed masseuse as a starting example. Nothing wrong there. Just someone rubbing other people's body parts, working out stress and giving pleasure to relax their client. I assume you don't believe THAT is wrong (even if statistically they were all abused as children).But should that masseuse start rubbing certain areas of skin, and working out certain types of stresses, then that person becomes "unskilled" and "untalented" and "a prostitute". The person would suddenly be "lower."Well schraf, that only happens when one starts with the belief that sexual organs, and sexual pleasure, and sexual tensions are "lower" or more base than other organic realities of being a human. It only happens when you attach a certain amount of guilt to such body parts and activities.In other words, it only happens to the degree of prudishness you have grown up with or have since accepted into your life.Here's a wake up call. There are many cultures which do not hold this view at all. Actual living people (who have not been abused as children) really do believe that the human body is natural, that it's functions are normal, and that sexuality is basically good and pleasurable. This means no guilt or shame. No necessary difference (except level of pleasure) between the masseuse and the prostitute (or other sexual career).This is not to say that all people in the sex industry are part of this culture.I'm certain that, due to the ease and speed it can make a person money, sexual careers draw people in on a financial basis rather than because the participants are openminded. And I would agree with your conclusion, that this is a mistake for such people (those with self-esteem issues). But I would say the same thing for scrubbing toilets for the rest of their lives (an activity many people view as lower than prostitution... I certainly would).What this does mean, is that there are people in the industry who haven't been abused and enjoy what they do and do not agree that their work is "lower" than other job choices. They simply have different standards than you.Thank the Gods for different standards. Vive le difference! For without that, we might not have toilet scrubbers at all.As it is, some countries and even some US states allow for prostitution (and other sexual occupations). It is legal there and so not a crime, much less a victimless one.If you want to know how many people in those areas choose to do it because they like it, why don't you (instead of making insinuations) buy a ticket and find out for yourself. I'd recommend visiting the Prostitution Information Center in Amsterdam... they'd certainly shed some light on the subject (even if it is a red light).Personally (while in the free countries of Europe) I have known prostitutes, and nonprostitutes. I have known people abused when they were children and people that were not. None of the people that were abused became prostitutes. Those that chose to become prostitutes, did so because they could make good money at something they liked and for which they felt no guilt at all.I realize that this is a personal anecdote and so not statistically conclusive. But it is more real than your insinuations used to paint an entire profession and the people within that profession with broad strokes from your prudish palette.And yes it is a profession--- in free countries--- just like being a masseuse. In fact it is the world's oldest profession, especially if one trusts comparisons between Bonobo communities and early human culture. Then again Bonobos "rape" their children from early ages so that must "prove" that their prostitution-style activities were caused by childabuse. Damn dirty apes! [QUOTE] by satcomm+++++++++++++++++++++
I think that child abuse goes hand in hand with other social disorders, as well. I'm sure one could find all sorts of childhood skeletons in the closets of people who commit murder, pedophilia, homosexuality, and abuse in general.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I could have built a slippery-slope argument about where schraf's prudish ideas lead, but why build one when Satcomm provides a reallife example.Interestingly enough, Satcomm either left "rampant liberalism" off the list of disorders, or maybe that's the cause for child abuse in the first place?I would love to have your (Schraf's) comments on Satcomm's charges of homosexuality being caused by child abuse. What if the statistics favor abused children becoming homosexual over entering sexual careers, would that mean homosexuality is nonconsensual and so no longer a victimless crime? I guess I'm assuming (given the PC crap you just spouted) that you wouldn't have anything against homosexuality. And let's not forget the drinking problem I mentioned earlier. Should we bring back sodomy laws and prohibition?In a "turnaround is fair play" tactic, I'd love to have Satcomm's explanation regarding Xtian connections to childabuse, specifically those relating Xtian teachings to abuse of children (in the name of Xtianity)and/or the children who then become killers. How about the social disorders of war (crusades), religious and racial bigotry (take your pick), and imposed ignorance (the inquisition, and current laws altering definitions of science in favor of ID theory)? Start looking things up (even in the bible), I think you'll find the connections startling.Somehow though, I bet both of you guys turn your back on statistics or the conclusions you'd be forced to draw (given your stand on prostitution) on these particular issues.Or maybe the lesson will sink in? I hope so, especially for schraf. I've had a lot of respect for you (logically) up till now. Believe me this spanking hurt me much worse than it hurt you.holmes

[QUOTE] by SPLx++++++++++++++++
Though I must say that I found the hard words direted against schraf to be a bit over the top...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Okay, I apologize. I totally blew a gasket when I read schraf's post. It hit home in several personal ways:1) I respect the opinions and logic I have seen schraf use up till now and it always troubles me to see someone who I know CAN use good logic, end up using the same bad logic they profess to fight against.IOW, I am harder on friends when they make a mistake than with my enemies.2) I am friends with some prostitutes (and escorts and porn actresses) and they are nothing like the stereotype schraf or Satcomm just painted. It is that demonizing which hurts their feelings and in turn, my own. Given that they were not abused as children, why abuse them now?3) I loathe the use of children in arguments, especially when arguing why we should restrict activities between consenting adults. On top of it being bad logic (totally irrelevant), it is using children for your own ends. While not on the same level as physical child-abuse, it is a form of child abuse (to my mind). I find it totally offensive.I thought I had made my post tongue-in cheek enough ("a spanking in logic?"), but obviously some of my knee-jerk rage must have shown through.Once again, I apologize schraf. I stand by the arguments I made but there was no call for my demeanor.For what it's worth, my apologies to Satcomm as well. You were mainly the butt of the jokes I was making, and that was rude of me... I don't really even know ya!holmes

Okay Satcomm, while I apologized for being a little emotion-laden in my treatment of you, the gloves stay off as far as logic is concerned.You were wrong about my being angry because schraf didn't "tow the party line." It was bad logic that offended me. There are much more credible arguments for regulating prostitution that she could have used which would not have offended me, even if I disagreed.In fact, as splx pointed out, the far left and right gang up on prostitution (even if from different sides). Schraf was towing the party line. I am out of step with the "liberal left" and I know it.And yes people can have/gain/lose credibility, even on an anonymous forum. Or at least I believe people can. If someone said I had lost credibility with them and pointed out a major mistake I had made I would care. If you don't feel this way, why come to a forum at all? [QUOTE] by satcomm (responding to my "spanking in logic" wisecrack)++++++++++++++++++++++
LOL, sorry Mr. Spock, you haven't driven out your emotions sufficiently to understand logic.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Uhhhh, why are you critiquing a joke? By that line in my post I had already admitted everything I wrote so far (including my characterization of you as a religiously bigoted hypocrite) had been mere ad hominem and guilt by association. My "spanking" crack was a signal that the good logic was about to begin.I might suggest that in the future you read through my posts before answering. My arguments tend to build and so some of your line by line refutations don't make sense given that the next line usually solves your problem. [QUOTE] by satcomm (responding to mt statement regarding victimless crime)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Psychology disagrees with you. There are plenty of cases where one or more of the "consenting" parties have had some sort of childhood trauma.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Please cite any psychological text which states that crimes involving the consent of all involved, become nonconsensual crimes simply because someone was a victimized as a child.There are plenty of cases where ALL consenting parties have had some sort of childhood trauma, and I'm not just talking about therapy sessions.Psychology often relates personal issues back to childhood trauma. Thus almost all of us are not consenting to what we do every day? Psychology NEVER SAYS THAT! [QUOTE] by satcomm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What does consensual activity have to do with a profession or career? Oh I'm sorry, the secretary has to consent to taking the job in the first place. Hmmm, that fits in with prostitution nicely. I doubt many prostitutes said when they were kids "Mommy, I want to be a prostitute when I grow up."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++While prostitution may not have been some child's career goal, it may end up being a logical choice of an adult to help achieve a career goal (by gaining financial freedom), or be an easy job that someone ends up liking (if they are not "career oriented" toward something else).I notice you conveniently left out my counter-examples to this very criticism. How many kids say "Mommy, I want to grow up to be a secretary"? Or how many kids said "Mommy, I want to grow up to clean toilets"? [Quote] by satcomm (responding to a summation-redundant question)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore your argument is a baseless asertion based on your own political bias.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Uhhhhhhh, if all I said was the specific line you were responding to then yes, but it was preceded by clear reasoning. Check it out once again. [Quote] by satcomm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So it may be that 9/10 prostitutes were abused and the other 1/10 simply needed cash to get by, and they knew some friends who were making a lot of money in the business. How does this support your claim?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++It means that even if the above case you just stated were to true, it does not logically follow that prostitution is nonconsensual, or that it should be criminalized. Do you get it? The statistics are irrelevant, because the logic is bad. [QUOTE]-----------------------------------------------------
by me=====================================
Other than Dworkin's flawed "I asked my man-hating friends" studies, we both know such statistics are not likely. But by all means if you have some credible statistics, bring 'em on.
Before you do though, I should point out that it would be more important (statistically) to show how many people that were violated became X, than how many X were violated... that is if you want to make the charge that engaging in X is beyond the will of those who have been victimized (which means they are incapable of truly giving consent) and so becomes an extension of their victimization.Then again, while you are compiling those statistics why not find out how many abused children become adults that drink. Or how about how many go to therapy? How about how many get rank and file jobs (like the secretary example above) instead of administrative level jobs?
==========================================response by satcomm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So you are prefacing, in preparation for her response, the fact that you will not accept any statistical data because there are other nonsensical ideas of yours involved?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----------------------------------------------------Perhaps I was not clear, because you clearly missed the point of what I said.I started by commenting that her insinuated statistic was unlikely to be accurate, except in some known biased studies (they have already been debunked). But if she had some new (and more credible) stats she should "bring 'em on."Then I was being helpful to her case (while at the same time pointing out a flaw in her logic). Given her intention, it is statistically more important to know how many X became Y, than how many Y happened to be X (which was her stated correlation).And finally I was driving home my initial point that while she may find a correlation between child abuse and sexual careers, she was likely to find correlations between child abuse and many other things. These other things she might not want to call nonconsensual, but she'd be forced to if she were to hold her stated position on prostitution.This is called a reductio ad absurdum.Did anyone else come up with the same interpretation as Satcomm? [QUOTE] by satcomm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Occupations and actions that are "lower" or "illicit" or "indicative of having problems" are often cyclic from youth. There is a cycle of trauma that progresses and often strongly influences the actions of the person in adulthood. I think that was the simple point being made in the first place.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I agree with this point, up to a point. Those with childhood issues that are in such occupations or involved in such activities have often been involved with them in a cyclical pattern from youth.This does not mean that everyone involved with such occupations or activities are in such a pattern or were traumatized as children (at least not in a way relevant to those occupations and actions).Nor does this mean that children who have been traumatized necessarily enter such cycles, or must continue within them.The simple point, which is agreeable enough, becomes complex and disagreeable once it is used to support much grander statements and conclusions. [QUOTE] by satcomm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just because a person had childhood trauma does not equal them being innocent of the current crimes they commit. It is merely being pointed out that childhood trauma plays a role in their decisions. They are still guilty of the crimes they commit, regardless. It was always their choice to make.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++With the exception of completely deranged people (meaning they have ABSOLUTELY no concept of reality or control over their actions... very few of these) I completely agree with this statement. I believe the point being made by schraf was quite the opposite. [QUOTE] by satcomm (responding to my hypocritical adhominem attack)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can't tell if this is an attack on my character, or if you're referring to an example I have posted. Either way, you use the term ad hominem hypocritically.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++While I was referring to your post it was done in a purely ad hominem, and hypocritical nature. I'm a big boy and can take my spankings where I deserve them.Thank you sir, may I have another? [QUOTE] by satcomm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't consider "rampant liberalism" a social disorder. At least not yet. I consider it a bad choice in mentality.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Hmmmmm. Pot calls kettle black? [QUOTE] by satcom (responding to my request schraf respond to satcomm's homosexual correlation)+++++++++++++++++
This is a pointless argument. Schraf has demonstrated in the past that her and my views on homosexuality are totally different. So there we have it. Just because her and I agree on one issue, doesn't mean that we both agree on everything. That's a pretty narrow-minded assertion.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You seem to not understand reductios.IF you are right regarding a correlation between abuse and homosexuality, THEN schraf must logically hold YOUR POSITION on homosexuality. In other words if you're right then you're right, and schraf cannot just "disagree" with you.That is to say, she cannot disagree with you, unless she gives up her original position.Given that she will probably not like your position, she will likely reevaluate her original position.I even pointed back to my original reductio (which you missed) regarding prohibition. [QUOTE] by satcomm (responding to correlation between Xtianity and social disorders)++++++++++++++
You'd love to hear my comments based on my faith in CHRISTianity so you can aptly criticize them?You score no points by attacking the historical church in general.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I said nothing about your faith. Nor was I necessarily interested in attacking just the "historical church" (as if that was somehow another faith).You posited that social disorders are caused by child abuse. I merely asked you to look into statistics on abused children to see how many came from strict religious families who abused them in keeping with their "morality." It's particularly enlightening when you look at serial killers. I forget which lame-o evengelist tried to make a name tying porn to serial killers through Bundy. Research into this claim (both on Bundy and killers) backfired.The bible itself urges parents to abuse their children, up to and including killing them when necessary. Several Baptist ministries have fallen afoul of the law recently for practicing these very tenets.I then added some social orders you did not mention, which have very close ties to the bible (wars, racial bigotry, one might mention homophobia, etc etc...).This is not to slam Xtianity, and say IT is the source of all social disorders and child abuse. It is merely to point out that people in glass churches shouldn't be casting the first stone.Heheheh, is the irony that Satcomm is using the Xtian faith to throw stones at prostitution lost on anyone?Anyhow, if the horribly mixed metaphor-parable doesn't work as a reminder that your position on prostitution is problematic, then your research into the statistics I mentioned will result in a reductio for you.BTW, I write Xtianity or Xtian, because it is a good short-hand. If you feel this is demeaning and have a better shorthand way of saying it, I'll use it. Hell, I am using sonnikke's derogatory "evos" for evolutionary theorists because it is very handy. [QUOTE] by satcomm (on my guess that they'll give up on statistics if inconvenient)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nah, I'd turn my back on statistical data that is either nonsensical or not pertainent to the issue at hand.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++So we stand in agreement. Statistical data correlating child abuse and consensual activity between adults is nonsensical and not pertinent to the issue at hand. [QUOTE] by satcomm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A man leading, correcting, and disciplining a woman goes against her philosophy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I certainly hope you are wrong. I never pegged her as sexist.If so, I could have one of my female friends (particularly the ones she just insulted) argue the same position.That said, it is certainly not against my philosophy for women to lead, correct, and discipline me. Let's see if she'll spank me back.holmes{Shortened yet more overlong lines of plus symbols - AM}

​

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-15-2003]

[QUOTE] by arachnid+++++++++
Is prostitution still victimless when a crack baby is born?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Yes.Women addicted to drugs have drug addicted babies. That is a problem. Only they have babies with regular boyfriends and husbands just as much as with Johns.Would that make regular sex a "problem" we have to deal with?I might also point out that even if I were to accept the "crack baby" argument, it would only apply to women as prostitutes. There are men in the prostitution trade as well as women (gigolos and "male prostitutes"), and many may have drug habits as well.Thus I think the better argument here, and it is the first one you made, is the general connection between drug use and prostitution.Unfortunately this is another red herring. Prostitution is often used by drug addicts because it is an easy way to make money fast, and with open hours which a drug habit tends to necessitate.But eliminating prostitution will not end drug use, which is the real problem we are talking about. Prostitution neither increases drug use, nor does it make drug addiction easier to live with, and it is only one of countless ways that drug addicts can and do make money.If anything, with legalized prostitution men are less likely to end up going to a "crack whore" as many clean, respectable alternatives are available. One doesn't have to duck into backalleys with whoever one can find.If anyone's been to Amsterdam's redlight district you know it can be downright showy, cozy, and bright. If you end up with a stereotypical "crackwhore", it is because that is what you want.While there are surely women with drug problems, even in the redlight district, legalization depresses such a market and helps drive out pimps which use addiction to control their prostitutes.In short, there are more crackwhores on the streets where prostitution is illegal, and worse still it's illegality funnels men who seek prostitutes toward crackwhores.I hope it didn't seem like I was jumping on you at all. And thanks for your compliments on my original post.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-14-2003]

[QUOTE] by jdean++++++++++++++++
Are they not whores? Do you really think men who watch porn are in it for the respect factor? They chose the profession, they can deal with the social stigma.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++They may have chosen the profession, they may be able to deal with social stigma. But that does not mean they do not feel pain when people criticize them (especially with lies), nor does that make it right that ignorant people should criticize them.I'm still finding it ironic to be defending prostitutes from stone throwing Xtians.Have any of you read the Bible? This is the specific example used by God to explain how you should not judge others.holmes

[QUOTE] by satcomm++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm still finding it ironic how narrow-minded some liberals are when they make broad generalizations about Christians.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I didn't say I was defending prostitutes against ALL Xtians.Neither did I imply that Xtians as a whole, attack prostitution. I have already made reference to the Netherlands and it's acceptance of prostitution. The Netherlands has a very large Xtian community who tolerate (and some engage in) prostitution.I simply said that it was ironic I had to defend prostitutes from ANY devout Xtian AT ALL.And these comments were focused at two specific Xtians... you and jdean. [QUOTE] by satcomm+++++++++++++++++++++++
I do not judge the people, but the actions of the people. And I don't condemn them, I condemn the sin. There is a big difference.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Yes you did judge the people. Reread your statements about the type of people they are.But this is irrelevant. Whether you judge "the people" or "their actions", you are advocating PUNISHMENT of the people.I never said everyone should like them. I never said everyone should become like them. All I said is that the charges against them are false, and that they shouldn't be punished.Your quote from Matthew does not help your case either. While it may be wise advice (that you may know what kind of person an individual is by their actions), it does not provide wisdom on what to do with them.If the crowd ready to stone the adultress at mount olive had plead with Jesus that they were simply punishing her for her deeds and not for who she was, would Jesus really have stepped away?Clearly Jesus was preventing the people from punishing a prostitute. There is no way around this.Wasn't the message one of mercy and understanding?And are you really backing jdean's callous and meanspirited post?Would you have argued with Jesus if he said it wasn't nice for jdean to call the adultress a whore (in the vindictive manner he did)?I also want to address your comment (in another post) that prostitution is not a victimless crime because both people involved are hurt.Whether both people involved in an activity are injured or not, is irrelevant to determining consensuality... and thus whether it is a victimless crime.All injury (or harm) does is argue for an activity to be considered a crime in the first place.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.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-15-2003]

[QUOTE] by jdean+++++++++++++++++++
Who the hell said I was Christian??? Your judge of character rivals your grasp of reality. Seriously, I think an amputee has a better chance of getting a hold of the real world than you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++My grasp of reality is just fine, but I may not always be the best judge of character. Very funny zinger you got in though.I admit I assumed you were a Xtian given your previous posts (in other threads) have been rather right leaning. My mistake if this assumption was wrong. Sorry. [QUOTE] by jdean++++++++++++++++++++
Why do you feel so deeply for prostitutes? I'm guessing you have a relative who is one. Otherwise, I just don't see how you could get so upset over a prostitutes feelings getting "hurt".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Now this is the funny part. While I may have made an errant assumption, you somehow missed clear statements I made in two previous posts (including the one you were responding to).Yes, I have friends that are/were prostitutes (as well as escorts and porn stars). No I do not have any relatives that are/were.It's like having friends in the military and hearing dumbasses refer to them as jarheads (or babykillers), or friends that work on cars and hearing them called dumb grease-monkeys.Yes they can take the abuse, but it does hurt, and they shouldnt have to take it. [QUOTE] by jdean++++++++++++++++
My thoughts and his thoughts are apples and steak. We are not the borg collective.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++He was responding to my response to YOUR POST. This made me question why he would do so... especially given his professed religious inclinations. [QUOTE] by jdean+++++++++++++++++++++
There was nothing mean spirited about my post. Prostitutes are whores just as Sally Jean who humps every guy on the block is a whore. One gets paid the other doesn't. Stating prostitutes deserve to get aids is mean spirited. There is a difference.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++While I agree there is a difference between calling someone a whore and wishing they'd get aids, that doesn't make calling someone a whore a nice thing to do.Unless you were using the term "whore" as a term of endearment, like one gay calling another a "fag", it was meanspirited... just not as mean as you could have been. [QUOTE] by jdean++++++++++++++++++
Adultress is a PC synonym for whore. Don't be so naive.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I'm not naive. I was simply using the term the Bible gave to the girl whom Jesus saved at mount olive.I assumed she was a prostitute, but I didn't want to use that specific term and have satcomm come back on me for making a wrong assumption. [QUOTE] by jdean+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do believe prostitution should be legal and regulated. A person who provides a service for free should be able to charge for the service if there is a demand. And of course, there will always be a demand for that service.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Well then we stand in agreement. Not sure why you had to attack me so personally, and why you said I had such a weak grasp of reality.If you believe this, didn't you think my initial post made sense?holmes

[QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I disagree with the notion that (mostly) males seem to have that sexual access to females (or males) through the purchasing of their bodies is some kind of right; therefore, prostitution is normal. I think sex is normal. Buying sex is archaeic.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Well, if by archaic you mean part of the ancient make-up of human beings then I would agree. I don't understand why you skipped my comments about the Bonobos which directly related to this point.In Bonobo communities sex is both shared (for free) and traded (for profit) between all sexes for different things. They have replaced threats of violence with trade in sex as the primary method of conflict resolution (usually over discrepencies in resource distribution).This inate behavior (withholding and granting sexual favors) is found in human culture as well. It takes place within relationships (for social reinforcement as well as material trade) just as much as outside of them (just for trade).It's not just a few men who have been used in relationships (or even on dates) for money and/or services and later realized that it would have been more honest if the girl had simply said she was a prostitute that was only interested in money. In other words, they got used by a prostitute, though the prostitute called herself a girlfriend or wife.I think it's sort of ironic that you claim it is "mostly males" which think prostitution is some sort of right. Facts are that it was "mostly men" who made it illegal in the first place... in order to gain control over women!And there are many women, growing in number too, fighting to regain their right to control their body (including selling sexual services) as they see fit. The fight for abortion rights is almost a mirror image for the fight to legalize prostitution, and I guess this makes sense as they are both battles for whether women control either end of their reproductive cycles. [QUOTE] by schraf++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Can't court the females effectively? Can't learn the social skills that will get you some? Don't worry! You can simply buy the sex you always wanted, since it's now illegal to take it by force."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This is pure ad hominem, and shows less than careful thought on the subject. There are many reasons people go to prostitutes other than an inability to "court females effectively."In truth, the desire for sex is wholly separate from a desire to have a relationship. While almost everyone wants sex within their relationships, the proscription that sex must be part of a relationship is not held by everyone. The latter is a social construct, often mixed with a prudish distaste for sex (which only relationships can "excuse" or "validate").For those without such internalized proscriptions the need for sexual release is much the same as wanting a back rub.There are many times in life where one desires a release of sexual tensions but would not want, or cannot have, a relationship. If one has a "fuck buddy" on hand, or access to sex clubs, or a significant "meat market" bar, then there is little problem in finding this release. Unfortunately such things aren't always at hand, or aren't worth investing time and money into. That's when prostitutes are very convenient. It is a fair trade for that physical release JUST LIKE GOING TO A MASSEUSE!!!!I wish you didn't ignore this point I had made either (in addition to the Bonobos). Unless you have problems with masseuses?I mean do you think "who are these losers that can't get someone to rub their back?", "How socially inept do you have to be to need a masseuse?"They are essentially one and the same thing, unless one is a prude. I'm sorry but that is a fact. Without the guilt and stigma, sexual organs are just body parts that build up with tension and provide pleasure when that tension is released.Of course, many people that have internalized the bond between sex and relationships wind up going to prostitutes as well, when they find the social construct does not always work in reality.The first general group is the class that you just slammed. Should the "socially inept" that cannot "court women effectively" be punished and not allowed to have some sexual fun now and then? If women are willing to provide this comfort in a fair exchange, it seems cruel for you to ridicule and punish those not as attractive or socially skillful as the average person.And let's take a look at some of these "socially inept" people we are talking about.There is a bordello in Holland designed specifically for people with disabilities (mental and physical). Many people are physically repulsed by the idea of being with those who are mentally and physically handicapped (or how about physically deformed). Yet sexual release is just as important for them. Thenkfully Holland realized this particular case was so important that that bordello's services (since it is restricted to those cases) is covered by health insurance.How about the elderly who may not have the time or the interest in seeking another longterm relationship, but would like some temporary companionship and sexual satisfaction?How about those suffering from conditions (noncommunicable) which prevent them from entering long term relationships, or being able to "get some"? There was a scandal when (I think in Australia) a teen boy dying from cancer had a wish to have sex before he died. Seeing as he was lacking in "good looks" and "social skills" his doctors and some friends arranged for him to be with an escort. He was very happy for this opportunity.The second group of people are not restricted by their inability to "get some", but rather the inability of their partners to "put out". Illness, extended separations, and other life events may prevent one's partner from being able to share sexual intimacy. Rather than dropping the first partner completely (due to lack of physical intimacy), or entering into another relationship which puts the first one at risk, a person will go to a prostitute as a temporary release until their significant other is able to provide this again.There are many times where a person (unable to have sex) has fully enouraged their partner to go to prostitutes so as not to affect their own emotional relationship.The third group are those where the nature of their work prevents them from meeting others or carrying on a longterm relationship. If one is limited to relatively short "windows of opportunity" to "get some", then it becomes time and cost effective to go to a prostitute rather than trying to find a date. It is also more honest than getting new girlfriends all over the country or the world, which you never intend to, or logically would be unable to see again. Why do you think bordellos are big around port towns?It can also happen (an extreme example of the third group) that relationships have been destructive or are distracting to a person's work (even if they don't move around a lot). The need for sexual release is there, but strong emotional relationships are too time consuming and emotionally draining.... imagine having to spend hours with your masseuse every day in idle chitchat when all you wanted was a backrub.I hate to quote Al Goldstein, but he put it well (for this case) when he said that one doesn't pay a prostitute to have sex with you, you pay her to leave you alone afterward.The fourth group are those persons who may want to experiment with people that he (or she) would not have ready access to in the course of their regular life. And I'm not talking about guys looking for girls much better looking than they could normally get (though there is this as well). It could be the intrigue of an exotic beauty from some other country (or section of town). Or some woman promising sexual delights that one might like to try (having had no partner interested in that so far, but one wants to try it sooner rather than later).It's easy to tell someone to look for and hold out for someone that matches one's "fantasy" criteria. But that is not facing reality. No one is going to go to a bar and keep asking "Hi, do you like anal sex? I'm looking for a girl that likes anal sex", especially when one hasn't tried it yet to know that's what one wants. Prostitution allows one to try out many different fantasies in order to get a better understanding of onesself (which helps them know what they want in a real relationship).Honestly, your characterization of people who go to prostitutes as basically socially inept came off as heartless to me. Even a little bit of thought should have pushed you passed the cardboard effigies you decided to burn. [QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Personally, I tend to think of prostitution as a product of restrictive, putitan social constructs...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This is a perfect example of the what gets me hot under the collar with your arguments against prostitution. You would never have accepted such flippant "I tend to think" commentary on other subjects, but do so here.It is easy enough to show that you are completely wrong.First of all the Bonobo research I referenced should have made you think twice about your opinion. Bonobos do not have ANY puritanical constructs and yet engage in the same goods-for-sex behaviors that humans do.There are some (maybe many) within the "swinging" lifestyle that go into prostitution, as well as hire prostitutes. There is no puritanical streak in this community and yet it continues to go on within it. Personally I have not heard anyone in the lifestyle community saying it was only for "pathetic" people, or should be wiped out. That has only come from prudes.Even a little bit of historical or anthropological research into prostitution, especially with regards to ancient societies, will reveal the FACT that prostitution has been with us forever, and is not the product of nor promoted by restrictive, puritanical societies.To be honest, this seems like a bit of wishful thinking on you part.Puritanical societies have always moved to wipe out prostitution as it increases patriarchal control within those societies. While such moves definitely increase the profitability for those brave enough to continue plying their trade, no one should thank puritan thinkers for this kind of contribution to the business. [QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
because if people were simply able to have sex with a willing partner without feeling guilty or strange, people wouldn't feel the need to go buy a body to use.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Not having been a prostitute (I'm assuming), or having had no interest in going to a prostitute, it's easy to slam people that do. While some may truly seek out a "body to use" that is not usually the case. Most people looking for prostitutes want a human on the other end, someone with emotions and desires, otherwise inflatable dolls would have wiped out the prostitute industry long ago.This is underscored by the Bonobo and lifestyle examples I gave above. None of them feel strange or guilty with having sex with anyone... in addition, they do not feel strange or guilty when a person is willing to trade sex for something else (good or service) which they can provide in turn.I think my point should be clear by now. People going to prostitutes are (by and large) not the ones with a hangup, people ripping into prostitution are the ones with a hangup. [QUOTE] by schraf (responding to my secretary reductio)+++++++++++++++++
....I don't think this is a good example. Being raped as a child would seem to tend to have a pretty strong effect on what you grew up thinking sexuality was all about, while being raped as a child wouldn't have a lot to do with how you grew up thinking how typing or colating should be performed, don't you think?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I didn't say the children were raped, I said violated, and I think in another part "victimized". The idea being that a child is traumatized in some general sense. A child beaten and drug through nonsexual slave labor may very well have some issues about working in secretarial or other nonsexual careers. That does not make such work nonconsensual.In fact, your new statement seems counterproductive to your original argument. Raped children would have anxieties about performing sexual activities and so less inclined to go into prostitution, right?Unless you are saying that sexually abused children learn to like sexual things that they shouldn't, and thus go into prostitution unable to realize how wrong it is? That's a huge bit of circular logic... which starts from the assumption that sex, or promiscuous sex, or at the very least trading sex for money is wrong.It seems to me any link between abused children and prostitution is through self-esteem issues. Prostitution is an easy way to make money and does not require a lot of formal education (which people with self-esteem issues would shy away from). It's illicit or illegal nature may also provide outlets for self-punishment or conversely a sense of "rebel glamour".But the point I was actually trying to make was about the statistically-correlated blame you were tossing onto prostitution. Just because some children who are sexually abused (or other), and have identity issues which may tend to drive them toward careers which are less glamorous, or blatantly illicit, does not allow you to fault those careers for that correlation. [QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wonder if you think it is possible for a prostitute to be raped? I mean, the customer is just getting what he paid for, right? What about the pimps?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Pure ad hominem. Of course a prostitute can be raped. Unless the prostitute (from now on "P") agreed beforehand to play a rape scenario, a customer is going well out of bounds to try that.It's funny that you should ask if a P can be raped and then mention pimps. One of the only reasons P's put up with pimps is that they offer protection from rapists.This is not to condone pimps. By and large they are worthless (as they take money from the Ps) and are perhaps more harmful than rapists (they beat Ps and hook them on drugs for greater control).The Hughs brothers' documentary "American Pimp" provides some insight into that world, as do many of Iceberg Slim's autobiographical novels.Your moral outrage seems misplaced on this issue.Legalizing prostitution reduces the need for pimps (because the girls can get good legal security), allows them to gain power over pimps (they can get police help against such beings without beings arrested themselves), and ultimately cripples that side of the business.It is the prohibition of prostitution which empowers pimps and makes the whole world of the P more dangerous.This is another point where Prostitution and abortion rights are nearly analogous. When pressed underground, abortions become more dangerous to women. Many butchers, posing as doctors, come out of the woodwork to "help" women in need. This is exactly what the pimps do (though pimps maintain a parasitic relationship afterward). [QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do not deny the possibility of there being some prostitutes which are in their occupation out of a great feeling of self-worth. However, I am not as yet convinced, as you seem to be, that many, or most, are.According to the statistics I found (admittedly at a pretty over-the-top "everything is prostitution" site) it said that the average age of females entering prostitution was 13 years old. The sex trade in very, very young children overseas is quite popular with Western and tourists. The site also stated estimates for incest/childhood sexual abuse for prostitutes ranging from 65%-90%.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Snooze. Using this same method, we can also show how people are forced to work from very young ages for very long hours, for little or no money at all sorts of "regular" jobs. This IS the majority of people working in the garment industry. Shall we close the garment industry.Percentages, especially coming from third world countries, are nothing but a scare game. One country has nothing to do with another, and a case of slavery has nothing to do with a women choosing to do something of her own free will.BTW, you might want to give those stats another look. Prostitution is illegal in most of those "overseas" countries they are talking about. Prostitution goes on of course, as it does everywhere. It's only the illegality which allows for more rampant use of child prostitutes.All your percentages might argue for, is that P OUGHT to be legal and it OUGHT to be regulated. Waste less time worrying about women that want to do it, and more time using existing child-labor laws (whoops 3rd world countries don't have those) to stop child slavery (including P-slaves). [QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You mentioned something about "all those studies" being debunked, but I think I missed where and by whom this debunking had been done. Can you please elaborate on which studies you specifically object to, and what subsequent studies have shown differing results?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You insinuated there were high numbers correlating P and child abuse. I said there were none that I knew of that delivered such high correlations except older studies which had been debunked.I will NOT enumerate and elaborate on studies which have been debunked.The reason I will not do this is because it will take some time to compile a list and it's time which I am not willing to invest in this part of our argument. If it helps, I discovered them during my Sociology days, and reread some during research for a documentary on pornography.The studies were debunked by many academics based on flawed techniques (no need for counter studies) and so I did not keep records of them. If you are interested, just look up Dworkin and go from there. She and her pals made some "objective" studies by asking women in counseling what brought them to X (you name it).Ultimately, the onus is on you to produce studies which support your position, not me to produce studies which I can prove are wrong. If you provide studies I will be more than happy to invest time looking at them. [QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I did go looking for evidence which disconfirmed my ideas, and I found some, but most references were not actual studies but popular press books. Having said that, I am not a particular fan of certain kinds of feminist writing and research and there is a lot of really horrible crap passing as science in the social sciences.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I agree, my days in sociology (and psychology) increased my skepticism of the social sciences. They have some use, but much of it turns out to be half-assed pondering followed by statistical manipulation. They are at their best when limited to neutral descriptions of activities and/or histories of cultures. [QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
...What percentage of all the sex workers in the world, would you say, feel good about their jobs?Just because there are some people who feel good about being prostitutes doesn't mean that most, or even many, do.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I addressed this fallacious line of argument already. Nevertheless I will try to make my point again.What percentage of all the secretaries in the world feel good about their job? How about janitors? How about dishwashers? How about waiters/waitresses? How about fastfood restuarant workers?My guess is the percentage of people in P that like their job is higher than for those scrubbing toilets, working in a slaughterhouse, and working mines (oh let's talk about child labor in 3rd world countries on that one).But if I'm wrong, what does it matter? If people don't like the job they work at then they should get another job. If they can't because they are being forced to work at it, then the issue is slavery not the occupation they are being forced to do. If they can't because they need lots of money and this is the fastest way to get it, then the issue is what causes them to need money in such a manner they cannot do something else.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. Illegality makes everything worse for women (just like with abortions). Legality improves conditions and empowers women... not just men.I'm glad my initial "over the top" post didn't keep you from responding. Unfortunately, your response did not show much (if any) improvement in logic and evidence. I tried to show a bit more restraint in this post, and so hammer home the original points I was trying to make.I really think you are in error on this topic and the logic and evidence proves me right. While I don't ask that you come out of this argument liking prostitution, I hope you understand that the cliches you have used are not worthy of being used, that they are not reasons for considering prostitution a crime (much less a victimless one), and that there is a reason it exists in human society besides mysanthropy, mysogyny, and restrictive, puritanical cultures.holmes{Yet another message edited for overlong lines of plus symbols - STOP IT HOLMES!!! - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-17-2003]

I will look at that study and see what I think about it.On its face it looks like a bunch of garbage. 90% lost their virginity through sexual assault?Even if everything that study says is true, it runs into the problems I stated in my last post regarding why such stats cannot be used to blame prostitution itself, even if it does define the majority of prostitutes as having problems (and so should not be prostitutes).holmes

[QUOTE] by jdean++++++++++
I have never eluded to believing in God if you pay attention to my previous posts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++I just admitted I made an assumption because your previous posts were right leaning and NOT that they said you believed in God.That's twice you haven't properly read something I wrote. [QUOTE] by jdean+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Life is synonmous with strife. Applies to all not just those in the sex industry.
I called them whores to get a rise out of you. It worked. I am quite fond of strippers and porn stars. Actually just the other day I ran into an old high school chum who was stripping.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++If all you do is write to get a rise out of people, you just hit my kill filter chum. I came here to discuss and debate, not get sucked into meaningless conversations with jerks. [QUOTE] by jdean+++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have muddled other's post with mine. No where did i refute anything you said...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Again, you can't seem to read. I didn't say your post was an attempt to refute mine.I stated quite clearly my realization that we had been in agreement the whole time, and then puzzled why you'd attack me and prostitutes so personally since we were in agreement.I got my answer now. You are a jerk, trying to get a rise out of me rather than saying anything intelligent. [Quote]by jdean++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't agree with your every one is happy no one hurts mentality.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I never said that, and I don't believe that. I stated quite clearly that there are people that get hurt and aren't happy.My mentality is just that EVERYONE is not in misery and EVERYONE is not getting hurt... and I believe the majority of people aren't working under those conditions (or at least it doesn't have to be that way). This goes double for areas where prostitution is legal.Since you just admitted that you make posts to simply piss people off, and you can't seem to read (maybe just to get a rise?) I will not be talking to you again.Let me clue you in, that doesn't mean you win, it means you're worthless and simply take up space and time on a discussion board. I hope the admin makes note that you are here just to be contrary and takes action.good night.holmes

quote:

---

I have got to say, holmes, that you make a lot of claims in your post but do not back them up at all.

---

Wow, which claims are those? The references to Bonobo community research, the references to swinging Lifestylists that allow for prostitution, the historical and anthropological evidence that prostitution existed outside of restrictive, puritanical societies?I figured this would be pretty easy to look up. But I'll get you references if you really need them.

quote:

---

You say that most people going to prostitutes wnat a real person with feelings. Upon what do you base this? Your blow up doll analogy is not effective, because I would imagine that blow up dolls cannot really simulate a real vagina very well, nor can blow up dolls actively do anything.

---

Uhhhhhh... upon knowing prostitutes and their customers. Duh.I already stated that much of this is personal anecdote (since there are no studies on personal satisfaction with prostitutes), but that carries a bit more weight than your purely ad hominem attack.The fact that you avoided all of the real cases I mentioned (for why a person would go to a prostitute), including the Dutch government supporting a brothel for those with disabilities underlines your lack of objectivity on this. Do you really need me to go get a reference for that case?You are right though, maybe blowup dolls (or real dolls... which by the way do simulate a real vagina pretty well) would never compete with a real person because they don't move.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."

quote:

---

I actually don't buy your claim that sexual release with a partner is necessary. Sexual release feels good and has a lot of benefits, but it doesn't have to be with a partner other than your own hand to gain the benefits.

---

I never said it was necessary. If I did please point out where I did and I'll change it.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.The masseuse example still fits. Why do you keep avoiding it?

quote:

---

If a 14 year old girl became a prostitute (as this is the average age of entry into prostitution) and stayed there until age 18, would the tricks she turned now that she is 18 be victimless?

---

Nice scare tactics. The average age based in what country? Or did you mean the world?Hmmmmmmmm. Why did you pick 18 as the age of majority? What is the age of majority in those other countries (if others were used)? When is it "normal" to engage in sex in those countries? Is it 18? Maybe a lot less?It sure as hell isn't 18 in the Netherlands, in fact you can strip and be in movies (not sure about prostitution) at 16-17. Sex is legal at 12. Spain at 13. I could go on but you get the idea.While quoting young ages may seem frightening, it isn't as such when put into cultural context. The issues in countries with lower ages of consent becomes issues of child labor, not child sex. I have already said I have a problem with child labor (regardless of the occupation)This is why stats are so misleading, they invite terror based purely on cultural difference and not the facts.Let's pretend for a second that you are talking about the US.If a girl did this before 18 she would be considered the victim. If she did this after 18 she would not be. If she chose to do all of this then what we are looking at is a huge grey area (though her clients should not have employed her). If she was forced into this, then she remained a victim of SLAVERY even after she was 18.When a child of 10 is forced to make shoes 10 hours a day for nothing, does it become less bad when the person hits 18? No.Is it victimless? If the person chooses to stay, then yes. Unless you intend to indite the whole shoe industry.The question is coerced work, not the work done. Your greater pity for those in sexual work, and a desire to connect that to people who freely choose to work in that field, shows your bias against sex. I think all forced labor is terrible.What does that have to do with a person willingly working in an occupation she chooses?You have not countered with any credibility, the fact that its illegality makes the situation worse. Legality cuts down on forced labor through regulation.BTW did those stats come from countries where it was legal or illegal to have sex for money? My bet is the lower figures came from countries where the national average for having sex is lower anyway, and prostitution is illegal... you tell me if I'm wrong.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-17-2003]

to the admin. I am totally sorry about the pluses, I will use the proper quote code from now on. It'll actually be easier!This is the first time I heard it was a problem. Was there an earlier post to me about this? If so, I hadn't read it, or received it in an email.Either way, I'll never do it again.holmes

quote:

---

This brings me back to my original contention, then; you have this idealized idea of Disney-hookers loving their jobs, and even if it were true that most of them had been molested, that prostitution was still a wonderful thing.

---

Your original contention was that prostitution was not a victimless crime because prostitutes may have been abused as children.Apparently my strong denounciation of your contention has made it appear I believe everyone loves being a P. I do not understand this as I stated that this is not the case.I stated very clearly I think the percentage of people happy to be working as a prostitute are higher than those working as toilet scrubbers (even in Disneyland), butchers in a slaughterhouse, etc...That does not imply they are happier than astronauts, lawyers, and professors.That does not in any way shape or form say that I think everyone loves their job.I think I set a very low bar for "average" job satisfaction in that career.FOR THE LAST TIME AND FOR THE RECORD: Not all prostitutes enjoy being prostitutes. Some were abused as children, some are being forced to work as prostitutes (even as children), some get diseases, some take drugs, some drink too much, some get raped, some get murdered.I do not idealize prostitution as I know the people in it, on both sides. Granted I have seen it mainly in countries where it is LEGAL... which is part of my overall argument against your stats (which come from countries where it is illegal).You are the one with an "idealized" vision of what it is to be a prostitute, because it is derived mainly from stats and feminist dogma.My contention is that the examples you list are arguments for legalization and regulation not keeping things the way they are.In this way, countries weed out the worse-case scenarios and as much as possible let the "disneyland" hookers reign in that occupation.

quote:

---

Do you deny that male desire for dominance and for feeling powerful is, or never has been, at the root of the sex trade, along with the historical exclusion of women from good-paying jobs?

---

I think this has to be the heart of the matter.The answer is YES. I deny the feminist garbage that sex is primarily a dominance issue between men and women, and therefore deny that the sex trade is "rooted" in the male desire for dominance.The counter-examples are many. Men are prostitutes (including being with women), women hire prostitutes (women and men), some men who hire prostitutes desire to be dominated, some women specialize in only that field (being dominant), what about when couples are hired by men/women?Now I AM NOT SAYING, that a majority of men do not have power or dominance issues, and that they don't like to feel powerful by buying a lady for the night, or that once bought they like to feel like they are in charge.I am simply saying the trade is not "rooted" in those social-temporal gender issues... it would exist outside of them as well.A masculinist, could easily turn the tables and point out how many women also play the power game in catching the most affluent men, and getting money out of men for very little work (some get away with it without having to have sex), so it is somewhat of a two way street.But that is getting off the subject.Trade in ANYTHING is "rooted" on inequity in money. Someone does a service for someone else for payment. An exchange of power.Women (up till very recently) have been cut out, or pushed down economically. They have been disempowered and restricted from access to the highest avenues of attaining power. Ease of access to making good money may very well convince a woman to try prostitution (though this also works for men).If that is all women were allowed to do, or have access to, then we'd be talking about a serious problem. I totally agree.I don't think this is the case, however, especially as this general oppression has been combined with laws against prostitution.You can't have it both ways, saying men want this and push women into it when it was the men who made it illegal in the first place.Or I suppose you can if it's a fractured-paranoid plot of one group of men wanting to dominate women through prostitution, and the other wanting to do it by not allowing women control of their own bodies.But this is all the more reason to allow it to be legal. Let the woman decide for herself. And yes, no one should be forced into it, people that have been abused should be encouraged not to go into it, and women in general should have equal access to other high-paying careers.I did not say the highest goal for a women is to be a prostitute.holmes

quote:

---

4. Your temper loss results in my views being more attractive.

---

This is incorrect. It makes my style look worse, but the substance should stand on its own.Posting just to get someone upset offers no real substance, and in this particular case was distracting.

quote:

---

Don't point your finger at me hypocrite.

---

I had already apologized for the tone of my first post, and I'll apologize for negative tones in others if you wish.Regardless of tone my first post had a quite a bit of substance to it. Yours did not (other than to say P's should take the heat).If you don't supply much substance and I don't know what's for real and what's to get a rise out of me, there is little point in responding.I am not the first to point this out to you.I realize I am now responding after declaring I would never respond to you again.I just wanted to point out that after I stated I was hoping the admin would take notice of what you were doing, the admin took a notice of something I was doing and chastised me.Ahhhhhh, the fresh taste of humble pie. Or is it crow? Either way, I'm the one eating it.holmes

quote:

---

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’.

---

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.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.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.I agree that prostitution should not be the considered the only profession worthy of women. Physical pleasure is not all women can do, or do best.I am only advocating the position that women's sexual organs, and how they like to have sex, is not the concern of the government.

quote:

---

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.

---

That's an interesting question. Does hiring a prostitute hinder a person's esteem and ability to work on social skills?For some it might, but then the internet revolution would be even more damaging to these people than hiring a prostitute.This raises the question of whether we need to sculpt society by proscribing activity that might harm the weakest links.

quote:

---

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’.

---

My examples have been very limited as my posts are long enough already. Some men hire prostitutes just to talk, or to talk as well as have sex. I'm not about to claim this is the majority, but it part of the wide variety of activities that go on.You can get to know prostitutes as much as you choose to find out, and they choose to allow, much like any other service person you hire.

quote:

---

By your definition I guess I’m a prude... it’s the part about paying for it that hangs me up.

---

Well, to my mind prudishness is a scale. Actually its a spectrum from total hedonist to total prude.You are prudish in that you feel there is something different about sexuality that must be protected or treated differently than say... an ability and desire to cook, to give a massage, etc etcThen again you are more hedonistic than people that don't allow promiscuous sex at all.I've got some prudish tendencies myself, just not with regards to prostitution.

quote:

---

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.

---

That's fine. People can have their own boundaries. I really think it's great that people have differences.Like I said, I have my own boundaries that some might find strange.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 (in fact finding the rules of "modern massage" needlessly restrictive), and2) that imposing one group's boundaries on another (even if they are the majority) is not the best policy for anyone.

quote:

---

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.

---

I wish the world was much more open sexually. Much more free.I belong to the sexual lifestyle ("swinging"). Many of my friends do too. I've never heard anyone in this lifestyle go off on prostitutes.Some even engage in prostitution (client and provider).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), or hiring a sexual entertainer (as compared to any other entertainment).Trading sex for goods and services (or money) may very well be inate.It has existed in all societies, over the entire course of human history. I might note it flourished in societies with more free sexual attitudes. And Bonobo research suggests that even before written history sex was a common method of barter for humans.I have also pointed out that even people who don't like prostitution often end up granting or withholding sex within their relationships in order to get something they want (emotional or physical). This is trade even if no one likes to think of it that way.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-19-2003]