An example of why I am against prostitution

[Darkness]

Many of the liberal feminist defenses of the institution of prostitution make the assumption that sex-work is commensurable with all other types of work — that it does not matter if you serve soft drinks and fries to customers or you let somebody penetrate you in an orifice. My knowledge of psychology harkens back to the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud. I tend to think sex is something heavy. From my knowledge it seems plausible (and likely) that many of our adult neuroses have their roots in early childhood sexual experiences. Sex-positive feminism is predicated on the notion that sex is something light, and I think that is a very naive viewpoint to hold. There is a reason rape is so traumatic. Sex is such a central point in our human constitution.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Tis best to not presume that we'll all respond in a stereotypical fashion.
But the legal status of prostitution is closely linked with the issue.

I wasn't assuming everyone will respond that way.

Or perhaps I have a very different values regarding government's authority over us.
We may each "figure it out", yet still hold different opinions.

Different opinions about government interference? Yes and I agree.

 

[Flankerl]

In a perfect world where everything was voluntary I am sure prostitution would be fine.
In the world we live in it is an awful business.
Relative sold girl (15) for

Well are you also against regular work because there is slave labour and children that have to work?

 

[Alceste]

Many of the liberal feminist defenses of the institution of prostitution make the assumption that sex-work is commensurable with all other types of work — that it does not matter if you serve soft drinks and fries to customers or you let somebody penetrate you in an orifice. My knowledge of psychology harkens back to the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud. I tend to think sex is something heavy. From my knowledge it seems plausible (and likely) that many of our adult neuroses have their roots in early childhood sexual experiences. Sex-positive feminism is predicated on the notion that sex is something light, and I think that is a very naive viewpoint to hold. There is a reason rape is so traumatic. Sex is such a central point in our human constitution.

I agree with this to some extent, but there is another aspect to this. Given that the majority of prostitutes come from a background of abuse, the effects of which are manifested in a lack of physical boundaries, if they genuinely feel that sex is something light, who are we to argue? Who are we to limit their freedom to profit from their own lack of boundaries?

It's one thing to contemplate the ethical and psychological implications of the sex trade from an impersonal perspective, but when it comes to poverty, the decisions people make are purely pragmatic. A woman in poverty who has not been abused might think "How will I pay for groceries today? I think I will borrow money or steal some food." A woman who has been abused might think "How will I pay for groceries today? I think I will suck a dick."

Who are we to say to her, "no, you can't have any groceries today because up in our lofty towers we've decided your unique skill set - which you may perceive as one of the only positive things to come out of your history of abuse - has disturbing ethical and psychological implications."

 

[Alceste]

Well are you also against regular work because there is slave labour and children that have to work?

I'm against unregulated, dangerous work where the workers are not protected from exploitation by a variety of harm reduction measures.

For example, I think it's totally not cool that prostitutes are 18 times more likely to be murdered than the general population. That is not a significant risk factor in any other job.

Does that mean I think it should be outlawed, though? No - just the opposite. I think it should be completely legal and carefully regulated to protect the workers from unnecessary harm.

 

[Darkness]

I agree with this to some extent, but there is another aspect to this. Given that the majority of prostitutes come from a background of abuse, the effects of which are manifested in a lack of physical boundaries, if they genuinely feel that sex is something light, who are we to argue? Who are we to limit their freedom to profit from their own lack of boundaries?

It's one thing to contemplate the ethical and psychological implications of the sex trade from an impersonal perspective, but when it comes to poverty, the decisions people make are purely pragmatic. A woman in poverty who has not been abused might think "How will I pay for groceries today? I think I will borrow money or steal some food." A woman who has been abused might think "How will I pay for groceries today? I think I will suck a dick."

Who are we to say to her, "no, you can't have any groceries today because up in our lofty towers we've decided your unique skill set - which you may perceive as one of the only positive things to come out of your history of abuse - has disturbing ethical and psychological implications."

(i.) My point is that a "lack of physical boundaries" is inherently disordered and there is no fundamental reason why we should respect it. The key word is "genuinely". I do not believe prostitutes genuinely feel a lower threshold to physical intimacy. I believe it is wholly insincere feeling. I believe that your idea of freedom is an inherently disordered ideology generated by alienated labor in capitalist society. I do not place much value in arbitrary choice. My idea of freedom is quite close to the Platonic conception in Republic. As I said, I fundamentally disagree with equating arbitrary choice with freedom. Arbitrary choice will ensure our slavery to our own monstrosity.
(ii.) What I find disturbing is that people can so easily justify monstrosity. Where do we draw the line in the sand? I am sure many poverty stricken people in the third world would gladly sell their body parts to rich buyers in the first world, but I do not think that is a valid reason for setting up a market in body parts. Examples such as these are strong reasons for why we should reject freedom as arbitrary choice.

Basically in the Medieval Scholastic debate between St. Aquinas and Meister Eckhart on one side and John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham on the other, I am very much more in the Intellectualist tradition rather than the Voluntarist tradition.

P.S. I apologize for the technical language of my posts. I am currently finishing up my masters program in political philosophy and I naturally think in terms of philosophers, their books and their notions. I find it very difficult to translate out of that technical language into common vernacular.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

(i.) My point is that a "lack of physical boundaries" is inherently disordered and there is no fundamental reason why we should respect it. The key word is "genuinely". I do not believe prostitutes genuinely feel a lower threshold to physical intimacy. I believe it is wholly insincere feeling. I believe that your idea of freedom is an inherently disordered ideology generated by alienated labor in capitalist society. I do not place much value in arbitrary choice. My idea of freedom is quite close to the Platonic conception in Republic. As I said, I fundamentally disagree with equating arbitrary choice with freedom. Arbitrary choice will ensure our slavery to our own monstrosity.
(ii.) What I find disturbing is that people can so easily justify monstrosity. Where do we draw the line in the sand? I am sure many poverty stricken people in the third world would gladly sell their body parts to rich buyers in the first world, but I do not think that is a valid reason for setting up a market in body parts. Examples such as these are strong reasons for why we should reject freedom as arbitrary choice.

Completely valid and understandable positions from people who have the sheltered luxury of such ethically lofty opinions.

 

[Darkness]

Completely valid and understandable positions from people who have the sheltered luxury of such ethically lofty opinions.

You do realize that I am vehemently against the simple arrest of prostitutes do you not? Prostitution should not be a crime for the prostitute. I am not a conservative-moralist from a fundamentalist tradition. I am a ******* Communist for crying out loud! What I advocate is a system where those who are caught prostituting themselves receive psychological and economical assistance. I only advocate jail-time for johns. The problem with legalizing and regulating prostitution is that it normalizes and legitimizes the institution. It provides legality to the degradation of human sexuality and that is something I refuse to endorse. But, I guess it is easier to make snide comments against me then do anything constructive.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Completely valid and understandable positions from people who have the sheltered luxury of such ethically lofty opinions.

Really? Because there are prostituted women and exited prostitutes who would agree

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But, I guess it is easier to make snide comments against me then do anything constructive.

I fail to see how your lofty opinions are any more constructive than my snide comments.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Really? Because there are prostituted women and exited prostitutes who would agree

Indeed. And those prostitutes who agree have actual validity for their opinion.

 

[Alceste]

(i.) My point is that a "lack of physical boundaries" is inherently disordered and there is no fundamental reason why we should respect it. The key word is "genuinely". I do not believe prostitutes genuinely feel a lower threshold to physical intimacy. I believe it is wholly insincere feeling. I believe that your idea of freedom is an inherently disordered ideology generated by alienated labor in capitalist society. I do not place much value in arbitrary choice. My idea of freedom is quite close to the Platonic conception in Republic. As I said, I fundamentally disagree with equating arbitrary choice with freedom. Arbitrary choice will ensure our slavery to our own monstrosity.
(ii.) What I find disturbing is that people can so easily justify monstrosity. Where do we draw the line in the sand? I am sure many poverty stricken people in the third world would gladly sell their body parts to rich buyers in the first world, but I do not think that is a valid reason for setting up a market in body parts. Examples such as these are strong reasons for why we should reject freedom as arbitrary choice.

Basically in the Medieval Scholastic debate between St. Aquinas and Meister Eckhart on one side and John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham on the other, I am very much more in the Intellectualist tradition rather than the Voluntarist tradition.

P.S. I apologize for the technical language of my posts. I am currently finishing up my masters program in political philosophy and I naturally think in terms of philosophers, their books and their notions. I find it very difficult to translate out of that technical language into common vernacular.

Me, I don't believe there is any metaphysical ideal form of anything that all physical iterations of that thing aspire to become, but to each her own.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Indeed. And those prostitutes who agree have actual validity for their opinion.

So do you think our ethical opinions can only be based on personal experience for it to be valid?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So do you think our ethical opinions can only be based on personal experience for it to be valid?

I think ethical opinions not based on personal experience more often than not tend to be personal projections and insecurities masquerading as well-considered ethical and moral positions.

 

[Alceste]

So do you think our ethical opinions can only be based on personal experience for it to be valid?

I think he might be making a distinction between opinions bred in the comfort of never knowing the kind of economic hopelessness that drives some women to prostitution, and opinions bred from the experience of it.

I make a similar distinction, but I think we can get a realistic sense of the causes and effects by listening to prostitutes and reading studies about the causes and effects. It's just that most people don't bother to do either of those things.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I think he might be making a distinction between opinions bred in the comfort of never knowing the kind of economic hopelessness that drives some women to prostitution, and opinions bred from the experience of it.

I make a similar distinction, but I think we can get a realistic sense of the causes and effects by listening to prostitutes and reading studies about the causes and effects. It's just that most people don't bother to do either of those things.

And I don't get that from what Darkness said, I don't think he was judging prostitutes themselves.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well in all of these kinds of threads about the sex industry at least two people respond that way.
Prostitution is the problem, I think you have read enough of these threads to figure it out. But maybe you are just not very sympathetic to poor/ vulnerable women? You only see it as a problem when they are literally being directly forced by someone else.

Prostitution isn't the problem. Forced sex work is.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Prostitution isn't the problem. Forced sex work is.

blink blink

 

[Sunstone]

A few years ago, I spent a couple days googling up studies of prostitution because Thistle Farms, which does outstanding work integrating ex-prostitutes back into society, so to speak, had asked me to review a book jointly written by several of the ex-prostitutes they'd been helping. So I figured I ought to know at least a minimum about prostitution if I was going to offer up my opinion of their book.

What I discovered was the issue seems to be less well researched than you might suppose. There are a number of studies, but -- so far as I could find -- no where near the number of studies you might think there would be. Which led me to wildly speculating that, perhaps, it just might be the case, that society is a wee little bit unsympathetic towards the plight of women who engage in prostitution in so far as the issue seems to usually be addressed as a matter of "cleaning up the city" and "getting dem whores off our streets" via police and prosecutions, rather than as a matter of finding out things about prostitution that could help rehabilitate prostitutes.

But, hell, I'm probably just delusional and in reality everyone of our wise leaders is in favor of reaching out to a brutally exploited group of people and giving them a hand up and out of life of exploitation, violence, drug addiction, short lifespans, and mental and physical illness. Or, at the very least, doing the many practical things that would improve their lives should they remain prostitutes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

blink blink

You seriously think all prostitutes are forced into it? Not at all. Some people actually enjoy sex work, you know. In some places it's legal and regulated.