Stephann
Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline
|
Hi Chains,
We've agreed to disagree on the fundamentals, so this is simply debate here, though the opinions I'm stating are my own.
but because they are true for most pro's (think of Thailand, the philipeans, or poor urban ameria here) I write what I write. Middle class and rich american women don't need a law which will leagalize their crime if most people commiting the crime will go on being hurt by it. poor people being paid poorly for sex isnt going to change because rich people don't have to risk jail time.
Crime doesn't become legalized. An activity is legalized. The issue isn't if these women should have their crimes made legal, but if their acts should be considered crimes at all. People are paid poorly to make hamburgers, pick beans, and cut grass. That won't change, if you make these activities illegal either. In Latin America, there are work slaves who aren't expected to give sex; they're exploited in another way. The issue isn't that sex workers in the US are exploited, the issue is that they are exploited because their activities are currently considered criminal.
Wait...so prostitution is illeagle for all those reasons which make up modern humanity, and keeping poor people poor, Classim, is somehow NOT on the list for some reasons ? Maybe if its illeagle for all those reasons that are bigger, older, and smarter than yourself, its illeagle for the right reasons. The status quo isn't wrong just because its the status quo.
Poor people aren't poor, because they trade sex for money. I don't ever accept that just because someone is older or better studied, that they 'know what's best' for me. I have the same right to a vote and voice as any expert. The status quo isn't right, because it's the status quo. Change needs a good reason, though. I think the evidence points towards lower crime rates, and increased safety for society if prostitution is decriminalized. Consider that many progressive countries do not have laws against prostitution. Many countries we consider 'backwards' have very severe penalties against prostitution. Or do their older, smarter, wiser leaders know something that ours do not?
Prostitution is illeagle precisely because people, sociologists, criminologists, economists, ect generally agree that many MORE poor children do much BETTER by not becoming whores.
No. It's illegal, because the laws were written decades before sociologists, criminologists, and economists even had names. It was written as the expression of puritanical values, with it's roots in Judeo-Christian tenets.
I once worked for a pyramid scheme for a week and a half. 'many' people made a few million at it, while the other 99 + percent of us basically got screwed over. Come to think of it, we were young and gullible and swayed by the pictures of the sucessful on the office wall-just like young women thinking they, too, will be rich if they let so and so be their pimp.
Do you think pyramid schemes should be illegal? Would you not be angered, if you didn't have the opportunity to join one, if you wished?
Women exercising empowerment through their own wallets and jobs and not having to sleep with a man who throws cash at them is what modern feminism is all about and has been since my mothers generation. I and many like me pass up those women who expect it while eating out with interesting girls with real lives of their own who like to be wined and dined by dont depend on it.
It isn't a question of if a woman must sleep with men, for pay. It's a question of if women wish to sleep with men, for money. In fact, no small number of feminists advocate legalization of prostitution. It's fine that you think men and women 'should' wine and dine with real lives. It's not so fine that you think people shouldn't be allowed the choice to do so, in the manner they wish to do as consenting, free thinking adults.
ok. by that logic, a father or mother buying their child a christmas gift or a meal is paying for love. Some men pay for sex through gifts or cash. Some meerly facilitate a night out on the town and even, gasp, know their woman will help pay her share, based on what she makes, for some of the nice things they share too.
Sometimes, sure.
Those of us, male or female, worth a second, third, tenth date see this mutual facilitation more and more as affection grows.
Absolutely wrong. Some people will see it this way. Not everyone desires or embraces affection. No small number of women marry men for financial security, and then proceed to pursue 'romantic' interests outside of that marriage. You're painting an ideal as fact, and it it simply isn't so.
Nobody buys a whore a meal without expecting sex because she's a whore. I'll buy a female co-worker coffie once in awhile because I could use the company. Is she a whore?
You're assuming whores don't have emotions? Boyfriends? Non-professional romantic contacts? Just because a whore can sleep with a man to buy a sandwich, doesn't mean other men won't take her out to dinner.
gee, you mean 18th century london had a verson of craigslist or the 'massage' section of the yellow pages? If your going to go for historical documentation, what about Hamarabi's code or the Bible? Just because its not new, like murder, doesnt mean its not a crime.
Prostitution MUST be okay if the ENGLISH did it. They were also raping indiginous women from africa to india at that time-whats your point? Wasn't that also the era of siphilis and jack the ripper?
So you're saying Jack the Ripper and syphalis would never have existed without whores?
The bible makes a poor example. All manner of religiously sanctioned murder, incest, rape, and war are justified in the name of 'The Lord.' I highly doubt much done in His name, to that effect, was in keeping with His will.
-just because you can quote the title to a book which doesnt have much to do with your argument about contemporary society doesnt mean much. Prostitution happened back then. it happens now. Its going to happen a hundred years from now or untill we nuke ourselves into sterility. it doesnt make it worthy of leagalization.
No. But again, the status quo isn't inherently right. It simply demands positive change to be necessitated before it's made. I believe a compelling intellectual case for that change has been made. I think most of opponants of this change do so from an emotional, vice rational decision.
Regards,
Stephan
_____________________________
Nosce Te Ipsum
"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer
Men: Find a Woman here
|
RE: Sex workers in the BDSM and D/s lifestyles - 
Profile
RE: Sex workers in the BDSM and D/s lifestyles - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread