<strong>The exceptions are far less important than the rule, I'm afraid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're completely ignoring the fact that because it is currently illegal in most places, it attracts the "wrong crowd" that already have baggage. Your argument is basically the same as saying pot leads to coke abuse because 99% of all coke snorters have used pot.
The truth is that regulated legal prostitution will lead to a decrease in violence against prostitutes (not just by pimps, but by johns and cops as well), will lead to better medical conditions, will lead to lower drug use, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>You're completely ignoring the fact that because it is currently illegal in most places, it attracts the "wrong crowd" that already have baggage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prostitution, legal or illegal, naturally attracts the "wrong crowd" and most definitely those with "baggage". Having "baggage" is essentially a requirement to participate in either side of it.
It would lessen the crime surrounding the business, sure, but let's not go overboard.
[quote]<strong>Your argument is basically the same as saying pot leads to coke abuse because 99% of all coke snorters have used pot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it's nothing of the sort. You're just trotting out another pet peeve of yours that seems to have some kind of murky connection.
tonton:
[quote]<strong>The truth is that regulated legal prostitution will lead to a decrease in violence against prostitutes (not just by pimps, but by johns and cops as well), will lead to better medical conditions, will lead to lower drug use, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true. I think you overestimate how large the improvement would be, however.
(And also, this is a much better argument being put forward than the "Don't oppress me with your morals, Jesus boy!" arguments that were around earlier in the thread. Mission accomplished. )
<strong>Having "baggage" is essentially a requirement to participate in either side of it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I would definitely disagree with this. If you live by a certain moral code, then yes. But that moral code should not be the foundation of law. It's not a problem in a lot of places in the world. In some places there's no 'stigma' created by the catholic church.
Pet Peeve? Sure, if you call governmental oversite into personal acts a pet peeve. I consider it unconstitutional myself. This isn't about personal desires. I've no desire to screw a whore and I don't smoke pot. I don't want the government involved in personal decisions either.
You do.
That's a shame. Let them decide for you if you like but leave me alone. That's all I'm saying.
<strong>Well I would definitely disagree with this. If you live by a certain moral code, then yes. But that moral code should not be the foundation of law. It's not a problem in a lot of places in the world. In some places there's no 'stigma' created by the catholic church.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm talking about actual social disorders. Nothing to do with religion. Can you discuss anything at all about this issue without having your point melt into the same tired stuff about religion mixing with government?
The only person I see still talking about the religious aspect is you. Let it go.
[quote]<strong>Pet Peeve? Sure, if you call governmental oversite into personal acts a pet peeve. I consider it unconstitutional myself. This isn't about personal desires. I've no desire to screw a whore and I don't smoke pot. I don't want the government involved in personal decisions either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Discussion or soapbox? Which is it you want?
Perhaps you should preface your posts with:
**Soapbox post - I didn't really pay attention to any of the previous posts, but I'll use them as a springboard for a rant I have stored up**
[quote]<strong>You do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do I?
Really? That's interesting.
Care to explain how you came to that conclusion or, better yet, admit you haven't been paying attention to anyone else's viewpoint (shocking!) and start over from square 1?
<strong>I'm talking about actual social disorders.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am too. There's no social disorder required or even implied in using or being a whore. There is a moral 'disorder', but that's all. You're confusing the two. Your morals and a fictional social disorder.
Unless you can come up with some evidence of social disorders.
Look at where and <a href="http://www.davidbuss.com"; target="_blank">who Buss is</a>. And then look at my location field.
I throw Diamond in there because his books are fucking brilliant.
These aren't idle thoughts, bunge, for the most part they aren't even MY thoughts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've read the second one (by Buss). I thought it was quite poor.
Most of it justifies what most people would regard as social disorders, i.e. extreme jealousy, with cod evolutionary psychology.
I particularly liked the part where he claims that most women who get beaten up by their jealous partner were actually cheating.
The foreword were he recounts his own experience of being extremely jealous (to weirdo stalker levels) just makes me think the entire book is an excuse for his behaviour.
But mostly the book doesn't apply to prostitution, he's talking about your wife paying too much attention to other people at parties and strategies to combat this (physically attacking them).
edit: more thoughts
In fact, despite his rather contrived conclusion that a stable, loving monogamous marriage is the ideal, most of his research supports men wanting varied sexual experiences and women wanting stability and protection.
Marriage + legalized prostitution would fit his theories a great deal better than what he concludes for the obvious reason that 'marriage' does not equal 'varied sexual partners'. He himself uses the statistics on the incredibly high amounts of adultery and divorce to support his points in the book I believe.
<strong>But mostly the book doesn't apply to prostitution, he's talking about your wife paying too much attention to other people at parties and strategies to combat this (physically attacking them).</strong><hr></blockquote>
The book doesn't cover it so much (and yes, his jealousy book is not his best), but he himself does (as I know since I am a student at this fine university).
[quote]<strong>I particularly liked the part where he claims that most women who get beaten up by their jealous partner were actually cheating.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the particular studies he referenced that was the case. He made it a point to say in lecture that this was not a universal fact, but that most jealousy-related spousal abuse cases did contain a "reasonable" suspicion of infidelity. Which isn't a very radical idea if you can read that without thinking "Oh no, he's saying spousal abuse is OK!"
[quote]<strong>Marriage + legalized prostitution would fit his theories a great deal better than what he concludes for the obvious reason that 'marriage' does not equal 'varied sexual partners'. He himself uses the statistics on the incredibly high amounts of adultery and divorce to support his points in the book I believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said before, I'm not arguing for or against, I'm criticizing the structure of the arguments being put forth and presenting some empirical fact.
And I know very well Buss' assertions, so you miss my point and you're looking at it from the wrong direction. My argument is not that prostitution is "unnatural", it's that prostitution is often the manifestation of a social problem. There are many "natural" inclinations of man that are, as we know them today, social problems.
--
I think, overall, you miss the point of his assertions. It's not to justify but to explain. What one does with the explanation is another matter entirely. He studies the evolutionary tactics and history of people, whether or not these things are "good" are other issues entirely.
Saying "An effective means of reducing the risk of infidelity from your partner is to physically impeded outside interaction" is not saying "You should physically your spouse's interaction witht he outside." And reading it that way is just silly.
Buss is a weird guy and it takes a little while to get past his creepy exterior (just look at his picture), but once you let go of your natural inclination to mistake his explanation for justification it makes perfect sense.
<strong>Perhaps not required 100% of the time but most certainly implied.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is where we are missing each other. The 'problems' associated with being and/or using a prostitute are completely societal. They're in your head. They're not in mine. That's why I keep returning to the 'puritan' argument. These ideals are set in your head through hundreds of years of religious influence.
Now I missed the links last night, I'll have to read them later. If there's a case in there for something other than people just being insecure with regards to society's norms, then I'll gladly revisit the idea of there being a legitimate disorder.
<strong>This is where we are missing each other. The 'problems' associated with being and/or using a prostitute are completely societal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well of course they're societal problems, that's the point. You cannot simply wish away the society which this all is going to take place in. You cannot ignore this.
The reality of this society is that those involved with the sex trade suffer from emotional and social problems, all as defined by the society we're in. They are there and they exist. That is fact.
Whether or not legislation should take the initiative or if the society should evolve first is the question.
Another point you seem to have a difficult time grasping: I'm not arguing for or against either side. I'm presenting the argument.
[quote]<strong>That's why I keep returning to the 'puritan' argument. These ideals are set in your head through hundreds of years of religious influence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How, then, do you explain civilizations (modern and ancient) that condemn prostitution that have no religious dogmatic structures?
And even beyond that, how do you counter ther argument that religion itself is merely an organized method of dealing with commonly-held moral and social beliefs?
Another point you seem to have a difficult time grasping: I'm not arguing for or against either side. I'm presenting the argument.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually I picked up on that (eventually ) and was backing off some points.
By societal I'm saying that society is imposing a belief on you, creating a belief that there must be something wrong with someone that has sex for money. I'm arguing that there is nothing wrong with someone that chooses to do it simply because they choose to do it.
Do a lot of head cases currently turn towards it? Yes. Is that because by definition you need to be a head case to do it? No. Clean it up and things will be better off. Erase the stigma and the head cases will reduce.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
How, then, do you explain civilizations (modern and ancient) that condemn prostitution that have no religious dogmatic structures? </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Do a lot of head cases currently turn towards it? Yes. Is that because by definition you need to be a head case to do it? No. Clean it up and things will be better off. Erase the stigma and the head cases will reduce.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a possibility. Hardly a matter of "it will happen", but yes, that is possible. That still doesn't change how things are now.
Both sides are strong on this issue (unlike, say, one side being very strong and the other amazingly weak like marijuana rights).
Even in matriarchal societies like those of many North American Indian tribes or much of southern India?</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL!
I have no idea what their culture was like! So feel free to give some details, but when it comes down to it, if their culture made the decision one way and we choose to go another, there's no inherent problem in my book. I could be arbitrary, it could be centered around the fact that birth was important to the long lasting population of the culture. At this point it time it's basically an arbitrary choice.
As for the now, I see places where prostitution works and I see where it doesn't. Where it's illegal, I see virtually no success stories. Where it's allowed, you get a mix.
First of all, you are the most narrowminded, conceited person I've ever come to find in this world. You tell Fellowship he is unaccepting, and then you condemn him for basing his belief on the matter on a deep personal relationship with Christ.
Second, and I don't know why you all don't see this, a comparison to alcohol or drugs is insane. First of all, alcohol actually has value. It even has health benefits. Only in excess is it a problem.
Pot is the same way, it has medicinal value which is why people are trying to make it legal.
Furthermore, why should we legalize something that will ultimately lead to MORE broken families, divorce, orphans, single-parent homes with children who don't know their families, disease, AIDS, violence, and death? Why on earth would you think this would be a good thing?
Do you think about anything but sex, alcohol and drugs?
First of all, you are the most narrowminded, conceited person I've ever come to find in this world. You tell Fellowship he is unaccepting, and then you condemn him for basing his belief on the matter on a deep personal relationship with Christ.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not Jesus-Allah-Buddha. I cannot condemn anyone.
[quote]a deep personal relationship with Christ. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]Second, and I don't know why you all don't see this, a comparison to alcohol or drugs is insane. First of all, alcohol actually has value. It even has health benefits. Only in excess is it a problem.<hr></blockquote>
Sexual release with no strings attached can have benefits too. Your views on sex are not universal. You have every right to try to pursuade people to agree with you but you have no right to force them to.
[quote]Pot is the same way, it has medicinal value which is why people are trying to make it legal.<hr></blockquote>
I don't care what kind of value pot has. It's called personal responsibility. If you want to ingest toxic chemicals or jump off a cliff without a parachute, go right ahead. I can attempt to persuade you to not do those things (assuming that I am actually nosy enough to care) but I have no right to stop you.
[quote]Furthermore, why should we legalize something that will ultimately lead to MORE broken families, divorce, orphans, single-parent homes with children who don't know their families, disease, AIDS, violence, and death? Why on earth would you think this would be a good thing?<hr></blockquote>
Legalizing prostitution will reduce disease including AIDS, violence, and death. Keeping it illegal assists with that. Also, treating LEGAL prostitutes (yes, they do exist) with a little respect would go a long way to getting rid of the stigma against them. They are consenting adults and what they do for a living is none of your god damn business.
[quote]Do you think about anything but sex, alcohol and drugs?<hr></blockquote>
Rock and roll...well, at least the modern equivalent. Bad Religion...RHCP...Unwritten Law...I think about money. Money is good. Occassionally I gaze up into space and dream of going to the stars. By the way, I don't do drugs nor would I solicit prostitutes.
[quote]<strong>That's a pretty satisfying life for you I'm sure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*sirens begin to blare* RED ALERT! RED ALERT!
Spock: Captain, a singularity has just appeared off the starboard bow. It is ripping a hole in the very fabric of space...Fascinating...It seems to be made of PURE HYPOCRISY. I shall call it OBJRA10.
<strong>How many of u here want your daughters to be prostitutes?? And how many of u would encourage your sons to find prostitutes for pleasure??
Prostitution just isn't right!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
This has probably been addressed, I haven't read down yet to find out.
This statement is your own personal preference. I personally don't want my daughter to become a prostitute, and I wouldn't urge my son to seek one out, and my opinion of prostitution doesn't make any difference whatsoever. Whether you agree with it or not, prostitiution is here to stay. I don't see why we have to ignore all the problems associated with it, just because we don't agree with it. Clean up the industry, legalize it, and regulate it, and give these women a chance to live as normal a life as possible, without taking away their profession.
Most prostitutes have been sexually abused as children. Finkelhor and Browne state that child sexual abuse leads to feelings by the victim of betrayal, powerlessness, stigmatization, and the sense that sex is a commodity. These feelings often make children vulnerable to revictimization, including child prostitution.18
2/3 of prostitutes were sexually abused from the ages of 3-16. (The average age of victimization was 10).19
2/3 of prostitutes abused in childhood were molested by natural, step-, or foster fathers. 10% were sexually abused by strangers.20
More than 90% of prostitutes lost their virginity through sexual assault.21
70% of prostitutes believed that being sexually abused as children influenced their decisions to become prostitutes.22
91% of prostitutes sexually abused as children told no one. Only 1% received counseling for the effects of the abuse.23
EFFECTS OF CHILD ABUSE
Children who are sexually abused are 27.7 times more likely than non-victims to be arrested for prostitution as adults.24
Men and women who were raped or forced into sexual activity as children or adolescents were four times more likely to work in prostitution compared with non-victims.25
57% of prostitutes reported having been sexually assaulted as children; 49% reported having been physically assaulted as children.26</strong><hr></blockquote>
1 in 3 women are raped. - National Statistic
So what you are saying is, because 2/3 of prostitutes were sexually abused as children, prostitution should be kept illegal. That's a strong case you have there.
I'd say that these statistics should present a strong case to change societal habits, to educate our children and parents far more extensively, and to protect people through stronger laws and convictions, not keep prostitution illegal, where people can exploit these children even more, under the protection of nationwide secrecy.
Whether we agree with prostitution is besides the point. Prostitution has existed, and will exist forever. It has been illegal for how many years? The laws haven't prevented it, in fact the laws around prostitution have caused it to be this tragic, in many cases.
Why not just try legalizing it, with very strong regulations and enforcement, including severe punishment for people who attempt to abuse the situation. Allow women (and MEN) to set up business in this industry. You people seem to forget that Men prostitute themselves as well. If it doesn't work out, change the law again.
My point is, at least try and make the current situation better.
Comments
<strong>The exceptions are far less important than the rule, I'm afraid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're completely ignoring the fact that because it is currently illegal in most places, it attracts the "wrong crowd" that already have baggage. Your argument is basically the same as saying pot leads to coke abuse because 99% of all coke snorters have used pot.
There is no true correlation.
<strong>
The truth is that regulated legal prostitution will lead to a decrease in violence against prostitutes (not just by pimps, but by johns and cops as well), will lead to better medical conditions, will lead to lower drug use, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As Harry Nilsson would say...
"He's got a point there!"
[quote]<strong>You're completely ignoring the fact that because it is currently illegal in most places, it attracts the "wrong crowd" that already have baggage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prostitution, legal or illegal, naturally attracts the "wrong crowd" and most definitely those with "baggage". Having "baggage" is essentially a requirement to participate in either side of it.
It would lessen the crime surrounding the business, sure, but let's not go overboard.
[quote]<strong>Your argument is basically the same as saying pot leads to coke abuse because 99% of all coke snorters have used pot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it's nothing of the sort. You're just trotting out another pet peeve of yours that seems to have some kind of murky connection.
tonton:
[quote]<strong>The truth is that regulated legal prostitution will lead to a decrease in violence against prostitutes (not just by pimps, but by johns and cops as well), will lead to better medical conditions, will lead to lower drug use, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true. I think you overestimate how large the improvement would be, however.
(And also, this is a much better argument being put forward than the "Don't oppress me with your morals, Jesus boy!" arguments that were around earlier in the thread. Mission accomplished.
<strong>Having "baggage" is essentially a requirement to participate in either side of it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I would definitely disagree with this. If you live by a certain moral code, then yes. But that moral code should not be the foundation of law. It's not a problem in a lot of places in the world. In some places there's no 'stigma' created by the catholic church.
Pet Peeve? Sure, if you call governmental oversite into personal acts a pet peeve. I consider it unconstitutional myself. This isn't about personal desires. I've no desire to screw a whore and I don't smoke pot. I don't want the government involved in personal decisions either.
You do.
That's a shame. Let them decide for you if you like but leave me alone. That's all I'm saying.
<strong>Well I would definitely disagree with this. If you live by a certain moral code, then yes. But that moral code should not be the foundation of law. It's not a problem in a lot of places in the world. In some places there's no 'stigma' created by the catholic church.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm talking about actual social disorders. Nothing to do with religion. Can you discuss anything at all about this issue without having your point melt into the same tired stuff about religion mixing with government?
The only person I see still talking about the religious aspect is you. Let it go.
[quote]<strong>Pet Peeve? Sure, if you call governmental oversite into personal acts a pet peeve. I consider it unconstitutional myself. This isn't about personal desires. I've no desire to screw a whore and I don't smoke pot. I don't want the government involved in personal decisions either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Discussion or soapbox? Which is it you want?
Perhaps you should preface your posts with:
**Soapbox post - I didn't really pay attention to any of the previous posts, but I'll use them as a springboard for a rant I have stored up**
[quote]<strong>You do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do I?
Really? That's interesting.
Care to explain how you came to that conclusion or, better yet, admit you haven't been paying attention to anyone else's viewpoint (shocking!) and start over from square 1?
<strong>I'm talking about actual social disorders.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am too. There's no social disorder required or even implied in using or being a whore. There is a moral 'disorder', but that's all. You're confusing the two. Your morals and a fictional social disorder.
Unless you can come up with some evidence of social disorders.
<strong>There's no social disorder required or even implied in using or being a whore.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps not required 100% of the time but most certainly implied.
[quote]<strong>Unless you can come up with some evidence of social disorders.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465021433/qid=1043303577/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-3911909-2425614?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"; target="_blank">Read</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684850818/ref=pd_sim_books_1/002-3911909-2425614?v=glance&s=books"; target="_blank">Read</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465031269/qid=1043303638/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/002-3911909-2425614"; target="_blank">Read</a>
Look at where and <a href="http://www.davidbuss.com"; target="_blank">who Buss is</a>. And then look at my location field.
I throw Diamond in there because his books are fucking brilliant.
These aren't idle thoughts, bunge, for the most part they aren't even MY thoughts.
<strong>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465021433/qid=1043303577/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-3911909-2425614?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"; target="_blank">Read</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684850818/ref=pd_sim_books_1/002-3911909-2425614?v=glance&s=books"; target="_blank">Read</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465031269/qid=1043303638/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/002-3911909-2425614"; target="_blank">Read</a>
Look at where and <a href="http://www.davidbuss.com"; target="_blank">who Buss is</a>. And then look at my location field.
I throw Diamond in there because his books are fucking brilliant.
These aren't idle thoughts, bunge, for the most part they aren't even MY thoughts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've read the second one (by Buss). I thought it was quite poor.
Most of it justifies what most people would regard as social disorders, i.e. extreme jealousy, with cod evolutionary psychology.
I particularly liked the part where he claims that most women who get beaten up by their jealous partner were actually cheating.
The foreword were he recounts his own experience of being extremely jealous (to weirdo stalker levels) just makes me think the entire book is an excuse for his behaviour.
But mostly the book doesn't apply to prostitution, he's talking about your wife paying too much attention to other people at parties and strategies to combat this (physically attacking them).
edit: more thoughts
In fact, despite his rather contrived conclusion that a stable, loving monogamous marriage is the ideal, most of his research supports men wanting varied sexual experiences and women wanting stability and protection.
Marriage + legalized prostitution would fit his theories a great deal better than what he concludes for the obvious reason that 'marriage' does not equal 'varied sexual partners'. He himself uses the statistics on the incredibly high amounts of adultery and divorce to support his points in the book I believe.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
<strong>But mostly the book doesn't apply to prostitution, he's talking about your wife paying too much attention to other people at parties and strategies to combat this (physically attacking them).</strong><hr></blockquote>
The book doesn't cover it so much (and yes, his jealousy book is not his best), but he himself does (as I know since I am a student at this fine university).
[quote]<strong>I particularly liked the part where he claims that most women who get beaten up by their jealous partner were actually cheating.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the particular studies he referenced that was the case. He made it a point to say in lecture that this was not a universal fact, but that most jealousy-related spousal abuse cases did contain a "reasonable" suspicion of infidelity. Which isn't a very radical idea if you can read that without thinking "Oh no, he's saying spousal abuse is OK!"
[quote]<strong>Marriage + legalized prostitution would fit his theories a great deal better than what he concludes for the obvious reason that 'marriage' does not equal 'varied sexual partners'. He himself uses the statistics on the incredibly high amounts of adultery and divorce to support his points in the book I believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said before, I'm not arguing for or against, I'm criticizing the structure of the arguments being put forth and presenting some empirical fact.
And I know very well Buss' assertions, so you miss my point and you're looking at it from the wrong direction. My argument is not that prostitution is "unnatural", it's that prostitution is often the manifestation of a social problem. There are many "natural" inclinations of man that are, as we know them today, social problems.
--
I think, overall, you miss the point of his assertions. It's not to justify but to explain. What one does with the explanation is another matter entirely. He studies the evolutionary tactics and history of people, whether or not these things are "good" are other issues entirely.
Saying "An effective means of reducing the risk of infidelity from your partner is to physically impeded outside interaction" is not saying "You should physically your spouse's interaction witht he outside." And reading it that way is just silly.
Buss is a weird guy and it takes a little while to get past his creepy exterior (just look at his picture), but once you let go of your natural inclination to mistake his explanation for justification it makes perfect sense.
<strong>Perhaps not required 100% of the time but most certainly implied.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is where we are missing each other. The 'problems' associated with being and/or using a prostitute are completely societal. They're in your head. They're not in mine. That's why I keep returning to the 'puritan' argument. These ideals are set in your head through hundreds of years of religious influence.
Now I missed the links last night, I'll have to read them later. If there's a case in there for something other than people just being insecure with regards to society's norms, then I'll gladly revisit the idea of there being a legitimate disorder.
<strong>This is where we are missing each other. The 'problems' associated with being and/or using a prostitute are completely societal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well of course they're societal problems, that's the point. You cannot simply wish away the society which this all is going to take place in. You cannot ignore this.
The reality of this society is that those involved with the sex trade suffer from emotional and social problems, all as defined by the society we're in. They are there and they exist. That is fact.
Whether or not legislation should take the initiative or if the society should evolve first is the question.
Another point you seem to have a difficult time grasping: I'm not arguing for or against either side. I'm presenting the argument.
[quote]<strong>That's why I keep returning to the 'puritan' argument. These ideals are set in your head through hundreds of years of religious influence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How, then, do you explain civilizations (modern and ancient) that condemn prostitution that have no religious dogmatic structures?
And even beyond that, how do you counter ther argument that religion itself is merely an organized method of dealing with commonly-held moral and social beliefs?
<strong>
Another point you seem to have a difficult time grasping: I'm not arguing for or against either side. I'm presenting the argument.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually I picked up on that (eventually
By societal I'm saying that society is imposing a belief on you, creating a belief that there must be something wrong with someone that has sex for money. I'm arguing that there is nothing wrong with someone that chooses to do it simply because they choose to do it.
Do a lot of head cases currently turn towards it? Yes. Is that because by definition you need to be a head case to do it? No. Clean it up and things will be better off. Erase the stigma and the head cases will reduce.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
How, then, do you explain civilizations (modern and ancient) that condemn prostitution that have no religious dogmatic structures? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Misogyny.
That's a possibility. Hardly a matter of "it will happen", but yes, that is possible. That still doesn't change how things are now.
Both sides are strong on this issue (unlike, say, one side being very strong and the other amazingly weak like marijuana rights).
[quote]<strong>Misogyny.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even in matriarchal societies like those of many North American Indian tribes or much of southern India?
<strong>
Even in matriarchal societies like those of many North American Indian tribes or much of southern India?</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL!
I have no idea what their culture was like! So feel free to give some details, but when it comes down to it, if their culture made the decision one way and we choose to go another, there's no inherent problem in my book. I could be arbitrary, it could be centered around the fact that birth was important to the long lasting population of the culture. At this point it time it's basically an arbitrary choice.
As for the now, I see places where prostitution works and I see where it doesn't. Where it's illegal, I see virtually no success stories. Where it's allowed, you get a mix.
First of all, you are the most narrowminded, conceited person I've ever come to find in this world. You tell Fellowship he is unaccepting, and then you condemn him for basing his belief on the matter on a deep personal relationship with Christ.
Second, and I don't know why you all don't see this, a comparison to alcohol or drugs is insane. First of all, alcohol actually has value. It even has health benefits. Only in excess is it a problem.
Pot is the same way, it has medicinal value which is why people are trying to make it legal.
Furthermore, why should we legalize something that will ultimately lead to MORE broken families, divorce, orphans, single-parent homes with children who don't know their families, disease, AIDS, violence, and death? Why on earth would you think this would be a good thing?
Do you think about anything but sex, alcohol and drugs?
That's a pretty satisfying life for you I'm sure.
<strong>BR,
First of all, you are the most narrowminded, conceited person I've ever come to find in this world. You tell Fellowship he is unaccepting, and then you condemn him for basing his belief on the matter on a deep personal relationship with Christ.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not Jesus-Allah-Buddha. I cannot condemn anyone.
[quote]a deep personal relationship with Christ. <hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure if <a href="http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1565170.php"; target="_blank">Jerry Thacker</a> would approve of that.
[quote]Second, and I don't know why you all don't see this, a comparison to alcohol or drugs is insane. First of all, alcohol actually has value. It even has health benefits. Only in excess is it a problem.<hr></blockquote>
Sexual release with no strings attached can have benefits too. Your views on sex are not universal. You have every right to try to pursuade people to agree with you but you have no right to force them to.
[quote]Pot is the same way, it has medicinal value which is why people are trying to make it legal.<hr></blockquote>
I don't care what kind of value pot has. It's called personal responsibility. If you want to ingest toxic chemicals or jump off a cliff without a parachute, go right ahead. I can attempt to persuade you to not do those things (assuming that I am actually nosy enough to care) but I have no right to stop you.
[quote]Furthermore, why should we legalize something that will ultimately lead to MORE broken families, divorce, orphans, single-parent homes with children who don't know their families, disease, AIDS, violence, and death? Why on earth would you think this would be a good thing?<hr></blockquote>
Legalizing prostitution will reduce disease including AIDS, violence, and death. Keeping it illegal assists with that. Also, treating LEGAL prostitutes (yes, they do exist) with a little respect would go a long way to getting rid of the stigma against them. They are consenting adults and what they do for a living is none of your god damn business.
[quote]Do you think about anything but sex, alcohol and drugs?<hr></blockquote>
Rock and roll...well, at least the modern equivalent. Bad Religion...RHCP...Unwritten Law...I think about money. Money is good. Occassionally I gaze up into space and dream of going to the stars. By the way, I don't do drugs nor would I solicit prostitutes.
[quote]<strong>That's a pretty satisfying life for you I'm sure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*sirens begin to blare* RED ALERT! RED ALERT!
Spock: Captain, a singularity has just appeared off the starboard bow. It is ripping a hole in the very fabric of space...Fascinating...It seems to be made of PURE HYPOCRISY. I shall call it OBJRA10.
Judge not yadda yadda yadda.
[ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>How many of u here want your daughters to be prostitutes?? And how many of u would encourage your sons to find prostitutes for pleasure??
Prostitution just isn't right!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
This has probably been addressed, I haven't read down yet to find out.
This statement is your own personal preference. I personally don't want my daughter to become a prostitute, and I wouldn't urge my son to seek one out, and my opinion of prostitution doesn't make any difference whatsoever. Whether you agree with it or not, prostitiution is here to stay. I don't see why we have to ignore all the problems associated with it, just because we don't agree with it. Clean up the industry, legalize it, and regulate it, and give these women a chance to live as normal a life as possible, without taking away their profession.
<strong>CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
Most prostitutes have been sexually abused as children. Finkelhor and Browne state that child sexual abuse leads to feelings by the victim of betrayal, powerlessness, stigmatization, and the sense that sex is a commodity. These feelings often make children vulnerable to revictimization, including child prostitution.18
2/3 of prostitutes were sexually abused from the ages of 3-16. (The average age of victimization was 10).19
2/3 of prostitutes abused in childhood were molested by natural, step-, or foster fathers. 10% were sexually abused by strangers.20
More than 90% of prostitutes lost their virginity through sexual assault.21
70% of prostitutes believed that being sexually abused as children influenced their decisions to become prostitutes.22
91% of prostitutes sexually abused as children told no one. Only 1% received counseling for the effects of the abuse.23
EFFECTS OF CHILD ABUSE
Children who are sexually abused are 27.7 times more likely than non-victims to be arrested for prostitution as adults.24
Men and women who were raped or forced into sexual activity as children or adolescents were four times more likely to work in prostitution compared with non-victims.25
57% of prostitutes reported having been sexually assaulted as children; 49% reported having been physically assaulted as children.26</strong><hr></blockquote>
1 in 3 women are raped. - National Statistic
So what you are saying is, because 2/3 of prostitutes were sexually abused as children, prostitution should be kept illegal. That's a strong case you have there.
I'd say that these statistics should present a strong case to change societal habits, to educate our children and parents far more extensively, and to protect people through stronger laws and convictions, not keep prostitution illegal, where people can exploit these children even more, under the protection of nationwide secrecy.
Whether we agree with prostitution is besides the point. Prostitution has existed, and will exist forever. It has been illegal for how many years? The laws haven't prevented it, in fact the laws around prostitution have caused it to be this tragic, in many cases.
Why not just try legalizing it, with very strong regulations and enforcement, including severe punishment for people who attempt to abuse the situation. Allow women (and MEN) to set up business in this industry. You people seem to forget that Men prostitute themselves as well. If it doesn't work out, change the law again.
My point is, at least try and make the current situation better.