Prostitution

[Alejandro C]

Yesterday i learned what a terrible problem prostitution has been in Cuba. I knew it was bad but my teacher was giving us details... when he went 4 years ago the first thing he did when he got off the plane is go around exploring he said there were women everywhere throwing (literaly) themselves. he said one came up to him and kissed him and put her arms around him and said 'how am i doing so far' after about five minutes he was propositioned over 10 times and finally got sick of it and went back to the hotel. outside the hotel he saw a cab and decided not to give up for the night. he asked the cabbie to show him around. the cabbie showed him a good restaurant and when my teacher came back out the cabbie was still there. when he got in the cab the driver offered his sister to my teacher (he had gone and gotten her from where they live) for $4.



after hearing this about cuba i started to wonder if other people would be opposed to the prostitution in cuba.

i noticed in the abortion forum that some people talk about sex like i would talk about eating a good steak or enjoying a cigar.

for the purpose of argument lets assume that men and women can have safe sex with people of age. though that is not true.

i am very adamantly opposed to prostitution and depressed by what is going on there. my beautiful cuban sisters are selling themselves.

on the other hand most of you believe a woman can do whatever she wants with her body, no matter what the consequences and that she should not be looked down or judged for it. this makes her 'free.'


and keep it civil.

[Iepilei]

the oldest profession around... I somehow doubt anyone will be able to eradicate it now... the church has been trying it for years.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

do you think they take visa or mastercard?

[Alejandro C]

well if anyone can do it it will be fidel.

so you two .... agree with allowing prostitution or not?

[Frances of Assisi]

Selling ones'self is extremely immoral. I agree with Alejandro C. I heard Castro used to be tougher, but its harder to do so now.

We can only hope the people stop themselves.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

im a freedomist, I think if someone wants to have sex for money then they can do what they want, what goes on between consenting adults should be none of the governments business

[Zombie]

Prostitution exists absolutely everywhere, not just Cuba. Did you ever try to venture into the "dark" areas of your town?
You'd be surprised at how many of them working girls you can get your hands on in a couple of minutes.

Riley, consenting adults? do you think most of the prostitutes out there do this out of CONSENT? get a grip on reality man.

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

I think that the numbers of prostitutes can be brought down. If it's really high right now then maybe the system that they have is not working. Alejandro, you said that when your teacher got of the plane he was meet by a prostitute. Maybe the Cuban police should concentrate a little bit more were the tourist are so they can eliminate prostitution for the tourist. (hotels, airports, resturants) While cracking down on the prostitutes that target the tourist they should also crack down in other parts. But I'm not a police so I wouldn't know how all this works.

I too am opposed to prostitution and saddly it is big in my country too. Puerto Rico right now has it bad with prostitutes and drugs.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

I know what you are saying Zombie but in Cuba isnt virtually everything free???? so why would they need to be prostitutes?

also there are many woman who dont "have" to but actually enjoy it and want to do it mainly in highly developed countries like USA and UK

[Red Flag]

Prostitution was the first profession ever.. you cant stop it.. i am also a freedomist like my comrade and believe the state should have no concerns over what people choose to do in their own personal lives.

[Alejandro C]

the prostitutes in Cuba are only for the tourists. you guys should study a little bit about contemporary Cuba. not everything is free. at the behest of Raul Cuba has introduced american dollar stores where cubans can find things they can't normally get. the tourist section is the only place they can get the dollars so most of Habana is centered around the tourists. doctors are working driving cabs just so they can support their families.

are the two freedomists also communists?

i'd be interested in how those two conflict.

[BuyOurEverything]

Nothing wrong with prostitution. There is a lot wrong with puritans and religious people trying to force their morals on consenting adults. Some women are forced into prostitution because of poverty but that's a problem with the government (or in Cuba's case, the embargo) and not with prostitution.

[RyeN]

If the woman is seling her body because it is what she enjoys doing to support herself that is ok I guesse. Im not a woman but I cant imagine that any one of them would want to chose this profesion if thier was another opportuinty. Prostotues are often people of circumstance that have been oppresed so much that they need to sell thier body's to survive.

I dont know about cuba but the majority of prostotutes in north america have pimps for protection. This is even worse because often in situations like this the pimp is exploiting the woman using drugs abuse and emotion to control her. This I think is wrong.

To completley get rid of prostotution you would need to eliminate the demand. I think that as religion falls and people become more open about sexuality that there will be less of a need for people to pay for such services. I dont look down on anyone and think that prostitues are providing a service essential to men who are socialy akward and cant pick up a girl.

[Alejandro C]

so you two would think nothing of me paying your sister or your mother to have sex with me.

or paying your dad to have sex with me, or your grandfather?

you wouldn't have a problem with that?

[RyeN]

If thats the way my sister or morther or grandfather chose to live who am I to condem them. Or for the same purpose if you chose to procure thier services once again I have no plce to say wether or not it should be taking place.

[lostsoul]

people are not selling their body as a hobby...they are doing it for money.

because they need money, for rent, food, etc....


basically they are "forced" into it, but economic certiumstances.


the people is not with the hookers, i think the people is with the socety in general instead of punishing the hookers they should try to help them get normal jobs...or punish the people who are using the hooker service.


I read somewhere that in Mao's china, people who tried to pay for sex went for a nice vaction in a labour camp.

[redstar2000]

It seems to me a little realism is in order here.

Cuba does not "crack down" on prostitution simply because it is an additional source of hard currency...which Cuba desperately needs to buy high-tech (expensive) stuff on the world market that it cannot produce itself.

The hard-currency shops that Cuban prostitutes shop in are profit-making enterprises. She purchases things that are imported at one price and sold to her for a higher price. She pays in dollars or euros. The profit that the Cuban government makes from that transaction eventually ends up in the central bank...where part of it goes to import more consumer goodies and part of it goes to buy crude oil or spare parts for Cuba's refineries or a high-tech medical device or...whatever they think they need most.

To put it crudely, if Cuba "eliminated" prostitution, the power would be off in Havana for an extra hour each day...no fuel for the city's generators.

As to the motivations of the women involved, you can get stuff at the hard-currency shops that is simply unavailable otherwise. Even basic things like toothpaste or toilet paper are often unavailable in the state stores...much less something like a new refrigerator, air-conditioner, personal computer, etc.

The fact of the matter is that there are not enough tourists "to go around"...hence the vast majority of "prostitutes" are probably lucky to turn one trick a week and thus the "eagerness" with which unattached male tourists are "set upon".

I suspect that the overwhelming majority of women who engage in prostitution do so from motives of economic necessity...and all efforts to "suppress" it are simply futile attacks on women's clear perceptions of their own economic realities.

In a real communist society, of course, there is no money, no commodity exchange, and hence no economic motive for prostitution.

It can only exist in a class society.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Ben Sir Amos]

When I first visited Havana in 1998 I stayed at the Habana Libra which is closer to the business part of town. There were plenty of prostitutes in and around the hotel, but I didn't see so many elsewhere. If your teacher met so many, maybe he should've tried a different part of town.

I understood that the place was cleaned up after that and on subsequent visits, prostitution has not been so visible to me. I guess it might be happening on the same scale but it may have moved on to a different district, which happens in a lot of other capital cities.

The worst aspect of the prostitution was the pimps. They really do seem to be the same the world over.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I am disturbed by a society where women who have to sell their bodies to meet their needs. I am not opposed to prostitution for any other reason then the women may be coerced into that line of work for fear of starvation, etc. If the woman wanted to have sex for a living, I would have no problem with that.

[swapna]

im a freedomist, I think if someone wants to have sex for money then they can do what they want, what goes on between consenting adults should be none of the governments business

Still Prostitution victimizes young women and children. None of the women enjoy prostitution. They do it because they are really poor in the under developed countries and out of "greed" for money in the developed countries.
Many teenage girls are misled or forcibly thrown into prostitution.

[Saint-Just]

Prostitution is a result of a morally corrupt society. No one chooses prostitution if they are a well developed and morally sound individual, and of course they are without poverty.

Prostitution degrades women, makes relationships and sex meaningless and therefore pulls apart society and the morals and relationships society has developed. It is hard to combat prostitution in an underdeveloped society though.

It is terrible that prostitution exists in Cuba, perhaps it is because of change in the system of society in Cuba.

[Red Flag]

not all prostitutes are prostitutes out of neccessity believe me.. how do you explain porn stars then, it's a multi million dollar! some people are just greedy and wants lots of money and fast, no matter how they get it..

and like i said, the very first proffession EVER was prostitution.. i think instead of getting rid of it, we should decriminalize it

[ComradeRobertRiley]

I would never use pay for sex personally, but I do think it should be decriminalised as well, like I said before, freedomist.


BTW. I was in Albania about a month ago and a couple of times when in cafes I was asked if I wanted a prostitute, he said they are 1 Euro for sex.

[dopediana]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 05:02 AM
If the woman is seling her body because it is what she enjoys doing to support herself that is ok I guesse. Im not a woman but I cant imagine that any one of them would want to chose this profesion if thier was another opportuinty. Prostotues are often people of circumstance that have been oppresed so much that they need to sell thier body's to survive.

I dont know about cuba but the majority of prostotutes in north america have pimps for protection. This is even worse because often in situations like this the pimp is exploiting the woman using drugs abuse and emotion to control her. This I think is wrong.

To completley get rid of prostotution you would need to eliminate the demand. I think that as religion falls and people become more open about sexuality that there will be less of a need for people to pay for such services. I dont look down on anyone and think that prostitues are providing a service essential to men who are socialy akward and cant pick up a girl.
oh yes! let's eliminate the demand for sex! castrate all the men!

a study was done in brazil. only 2% of prostitutes do it because they like it. many prostitutes are often brutalized by pimps and clients. it's no fun being a whore.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Diana what if the survay was done in the USA or England? I am certain the % would be alot higher apparently it is fun being a whore in developed countries, I do accept what you are saying though in poor countries.

[Zombie]

it is fun being a whore in developed countries

man what a pompous ignorant thing to say. what the fuck you know about what others feel like?
you think that just because you live in a so-called "developped country" that you are automatically living better, and having more fun? then you never saw what slums, ghettos, or poor areas in or out of "developped" areas look like my friend.

i suggest you turn off your computer, get your fat ass out of your chair, put on some clothes, and get in the real world.

[Zombie]

to those who said they never paid (or would never pay) for a pro, what do you make out of porn? you think that just because you're looking at it, no harm has been done to anyone?

[Xprewatik RED]

Prostitution spreads disease, enslaves people and serves no purpose in society. Why don't you read about the slave trade? Ukrainian, Polish, Latvian, Russian, Central Asian, Hispanic women are virtually kidnapped from impovershed villages and shipped to the west where they are SLAVES, they are bought and sold and can never repay their OWN debt. There is a murky under world to what your television tell you, making ignorant comments such as,"THEY LIKE IT", are degrading, they have an article in national geographic on this problem. Not that government should regulate sex, but there is a limit.

[BuyOurEverything]

people are not selling their body as a hobby...they are doing it for money.
because they need money, for rent, food, etc....
basically they are "forced" into it, but economic certiumstances.

People don't generally do any job as a hobby, they do it for money. Does that mean everyone completely hates their job and is being forced to do it by economic circumstances? Some are but not all.


Prostitution spreads disease, enslaves people and serves no purpose in society. Why don't you read about the slave trade? Ukrainian, Polish, Latvian, Russian, Central Asian, Hispanic women are virtually kidnapped from impovershed villages and shipped to the west where they are SLAVES, they are bought and sold and can never repay their OWN debt. There is a murky under world to what your television tell you, making ignorant comments such as,"THEY LIKE IT", are degrading, they have an article in national geographic on this problem. Not that government should regulate sex, but there is a limit.

Well all sex spreads disease not just prostitution. It serves the same purpose to society as alcohol, movies, books, music, porn, magazines, junk food and anything else that makes people happy. It's not the prostitution that enslaves people, it's the economic system. Some people are forced to work in clothing factories for long hours in shitty conditions for little pay. Does that mean we should ban clothing manufacturing because it is immoral and enslaves people? Of course no, we should crack down on the people who are doing the exploiting and make better conditions for the workers and try and make it so nobody is forced to work to pay off their debt.


Prostitution is a result of a morally corrupt society.

Corupt of who's morals? Yours? Prostitution doesn't go against my morals. Legislation of morals is always a bad idea.


No one chooses prostitution if they are a well developed and morally sound individual, and of course they are without poverty

So nobody chooses prostitution if they follow your morals. What's your point? Not everyone believes the same stuff you do. As for poverty, not everyone who has sex for money is in poverty.

[redstar2000]

The worst aspect of the prostitution was the pimps. They really do seem to be the same the world over.

You know I've heard and seen so much propaganda on this subject that I'm beginning to get a little skeptical.

Does anyone really know how many women "have pimps" at all?

Or much else of the details of these women's lives?

That black guy in the fur coat and fancy car that you see on dummyvision...just how "typical" is he, really? A scary fairy-tale for the white folks, perhaps?

It seems to be that when we deal with the representations of the ruling class--as opposed to first-hand experience or information from people we think are reliable sources--we should not just "assume" that we are being given an accurate picture.

The ruling class has its own priorities...and telling us the truth about anything is not one of them.


Prostitution is a result of a morally corrupt society.

No, morality has nothing to do with the matter at all. It is an economic activity like any other--the woman (occasionally young man) is the worker and the john (customer) is the boss.

All forms of wage-slavery are degrading...there's nothing "special" about prostitution in that regard.

Whenever we sell our labor-power, we are all "hos". Yes, that's a shameful thing to be...and is why Marx called shame "a revolutionary emotion".

It serves only the interests of the ruling class for workers to "look down" on other workers or adopt an attitude of "moral superiority" to other workers.

We're all in the same boat.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Ben Sir Amos]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 12:11 AM

The worst aspect of the prostitution was the pimps. They really do seem to be the same the world over.

You know I've heard and seen so much propaganda on this subject that I'm beginning to get a little skeptical.

Does anyone really know how many women "have pimps" at all?

Or much else of the details of these women's lives?

That black guy in the fur coat and fancy car that you see on dummyvision...just how "typical" is he, really? A scary fairy-tale for the white folks, perhaps?




Okay, pimps are probably not quite the same the world over. I didn't see anyone in Havana wearing a fur coat.

I was thinking more in terms of pimps who control access to the money, in this case controlling access to the sites where most money can be made from prostitution and mediating the relationship between woman and client, expropriating the money and contributing nothing worthwhile to the core activity.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Zombie read!!!! "apparently it is fun being a whore in developed countries"

Also get off my chair? ive been to about 23 countries not all "developed" countries such as Albania, they still use horse and cart. Ive seen prostition in poor countries first hand arse hole.

Also where the hell did this come from?:
"you think that just because you live in a so-called "developped country" that you are automatically living better, and having more fun?"

What makes you think such bullshit? your the one who is lacking real experiances, maybe its you who should "get your fat ass out of your chair, put on some clothes, and get in the real world."

BTW there no need to start flamming me either!! because this is the responce you get!

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 07:11 PM

Prostitution is a result of a morally corrupt society.

No, morality has nothing to do with the matter at all. It is an economic activity like any other--the woman (occasionally young man) is the worker and the john (customer) is the boss.

All forms of wage-slavery are degrading...there's nothing "special" about prostitution in that regard.

Whenever we sell our labor-power, we are all "hos". Yes, that's a shameful thing to be...and is why Marx called shame "a revolutionary emotion".

It serves only the interests of the ruling class for workers to "look down" on other workers or adopt an attitude of "moral superiority" to other workers.

We're all in the same boat.
Great stuff, rs2k!

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Granted, if were going to be a prostitute, then you shouldn't do it for money. If you make it legal to solicit sex, but illegeal to pay for it, then that would elimanate the people who are in prostitution for money from those who are in it for pleasure. As in, prostitution should not be a money making occupation, therefore it would be impossible for a person to become oppressed by it, however, I also agree with those people who prefer to have it completely abolished. It spreads disease, only detracted people from taking up an occupation more productive to society as a whole.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 12:11 AM

Prostitution is a result of a morally corrupt society.

No, morality has nothing to do with the matter at all. It is an economic activity like any other--the woman (occasionally young man) is the worker and the john (customer) is the boss.

All forms of wage-slavery are degrading...there's nothing "special" about prostitution in that regard.

Whenever we sell our labor-power, we are all "hos". Yes, that's a shameful thing to be...and is why Marx called shame "a revolutionary emotion".

It serves only the interests of the ruling class for workers to "look down" on other workers or adopt an attitude of "moral superiority" to other workers.

We're all in the same boat.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Well the idea sickens me to an extremely high degree redstar2000. Would you feel comfortable having a relationship with a women who had slept with other men just for the 'pleasure' of it. Or even indeed a prostitute. Would you even be able to trust her when she considers sex just a matter of pleasure, is she likely to be faithful since she doesn't consider sex an intimate matter?

How can you explain the number of women that feel sex has strong meaning to it and emotional responsibilities attached to it?

I suggest we put all 'pimps' into labour camps for the remaining period of their lives. And, that we put prositutes into moral and emotional rehilitation, and then we make prostitution illegal and the penalties for it severe, this is all in a revolutionary socialist society. Prostitution is the oldest profession because it is the most decadent, who is with me?

[Xprewatik RED]

I suggest we put all 'pimps' into labour camps for the remaining period of their lives. And, that we put prositutes into moral and emotional rehilitation, and then we make prostitution illegal and the penalties for it severe, this is all in a revolutionary socialist society. Prostitution is the oldest profession because it is the most decadent, who is with me?

I agree. Enless you just want a hooker, it really ruins a city to have these filths walking around. How many diseases could be halted with the destruction of prostitution?

[Spanish_Guerillas]

prostitution can be eliminated possibly for a long time ro short if there is no money around and only plastic credit. like marx said in the communist monifesto the credit thing. but cuba was always with prostitutes before and after the cuban revolution. so cant really blam fidel. even in rich developed countries prostituion well still exist cause they want more money. i say put them in labour camps and make them work untill there sexual minds falls apart.

[Zombie]

I think if someone wants to have sex for money then they can do what they want, what goes on between consenting adults should be none of the governments business


also there are many woman who dont "have" to but actually enjoy it and want to do it mainly in highly developed countries like USA and UK



I am certain the % would be alot higher apparently it is fun being a whore in developed countries

you're the king of generalizations. i don't know if your friends think you're impressive with all your mighty fine talk, but you're quit not there mate. not one.single.bit.

flamewars? bah :P

[redstar2000]

Remember that "joke thread" we had in Theory and you asked me why I made you "Minister of Public Morality" in my imaginary "government"?


Well the idea [of prostitution] sickens me to an extremely high degree redstar2000.

Planning never to have a job, then? Or just a "really good one" without a boss?


Would you feel comfortable having a relationship with a women who had slept with other men just for the 'pleasure' of it. Or even indeed a prostitute. Would you even be able to trust her when she considers sex just a matter of pleasure, is she likely to be faithful since she doesn't consider sex an intimate matter?

Well, um, I have...both. Looking back, I realize that it was part of my education...coming to terms with the fact that women really are autonomous individuals just like me.

You see I grew up in an era of lies--the 1950s--when people pretended to believe in "sexual morality", "good" girls and "bad" girls, faithfulness, etc. and everyone was lying.

In the 1960s, the lies started to crack...by now they are so much rubble. In the present era, the only sensible position is to assume that everyone "fools around" whenever the opportunity presents itself.

What that means is that "trust" between intimates has to be based on something other than sex...which I think is a good thing.

What makes a relationship is not two (or more) bodies rubbing together...it is minds that are "in emotional dialog" with one another that constitute a relationship.

People can have, believe it or not, passionate love affairs without ever touching; and people can have sex five times a day with the same person for 50 years and never really know each other at all.


How can you explain the number of women that feel sex has strong meaning to it and emotional responsibilities attached to it?

And how explain the numbers that don't?

The reason that both men and women still focus on sexual exclusivity is, I think, an egotistical one. We "like" the idea of being the "center" of someone's universe, physically and emotionally. (Almost never do we apply the same standard to our own behavior, of course.)

Well, humans also were once quite fond of living at the "center of the physical universe", the special favorite of "God", the "crown of creation".

We've learned better than that. We know objectively that we are an extremely trivial part of a very large universe and that there are no gods at all.

And that's ok.

Now we are learning to make a distinction between emotional involvement with another person and the physical act of sexual intercourse. To be sure, we hairless primates are slow learners, especially compared to our close cousins, the Bonobos.

But we'll get there. The trend is a clear one and not all the labor camps in the world will stop it...or even slow it down.

Speaking of which...


I suggest we put all 'pimps' into labour camps for the remaining period of their lives. And, that we put prostitutes into moral and emotional rehabilitation, and then we make prostitution illegal and the penalties for it severe, this is all in a revolutionary socialist society.

Your obvious relish here is very revealing. Why do you like the idea of harshly punishing people who have done no harm?

You realize that you are not talking about major or even minor members of the old ruling class here. You're not talking about war criminals or cops or even some loud-mouth "conservative".

Just ordinary people trying to "get by" in a very harsh world.

What is the real source of your wrath? And of those who enthusiastically agree with you?

Misogyny?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

Thank you Xprewatik RED and Spanish_Guerillas.

Remember that "joke thread" we had in Theory and you asked me why I made you "Minister of Public Morality" in my imaginary "government"?

Yes, this is why I assumed you said that, but I didn't know that I had displayed my opinions on this kind of subject at that time. Perhaps there should be a Ministry of Public Morality.

Planning never to have a job, then? Or just a "really good one" without a boss?

I do have a job and a boss. Anyway, I find work to have far different emotional and physical implications than sex.

I think this is a subject that is hard to argue. I engage in emotional dialogue with my partner, but we also show our emotions through physical affection. Part of our relationship is us relying on each other for physical gratification. You are right that we have sex for pleasure, but there is certainly a feeling inside me that in doing so you are pleasing yourself and someone else and it is an activity that you should only share with someone you share an emotional bond with.

These kind of relationships are built partly on attraction towards someone. Because part of this kind of love is a desire to create and raise children with that person or/and to have sex with them for pleasure and to share something exclusive to those two people. Sex is an expression of that physical attraction, and since physical attraction is part of the love and bonds the two people, sex must remain part of that bond.

Almost never do we apply the same standard to our own behavior, of course

Surely we do, people often reject cheating on their partner because of this standard and the understandings and loyalty that is created between two people in a relationship. I certainly apply it to my own behaviour.

Your obvious relish here is very revealing. Why do you like the idea of harshly punishing people who have done no harm?

I find the idea of punishing people who have done no harm abhorrent. I do of course view this as a great crime and therefore those who are guilty of it as having done much harm and deserving of punishment and I do relish their punishment.

What is the real source of your wrath? And of those who enthusiastically agree with you?

Who knows? I could come up with a few suggestions as to the source but I don't think you would agree. It certainly isn't misogyny. I think women are entirely equal to men and I treat them as such. I would just as harshly punish a man for promiscuity as I would a woman. I believe women just as capable as men and that they have just as much to contribute to society. My boss is a woman.

Interestingly my partner does not hold the same views as me. We don't communicate very well since she speaks mandarin and her english is at a level such that: sleep=sheep, impossible=impressable and foreigner=forger . She thinks that it is acceptable to engage in a relationship with the intention that it may not last, in addition she views sex as more focused on pleasure than me. Still, she believes that one should remain faithful, although I would suggest that you are correct in saying most people do not apply the standards they expect of others to themselves. Thus I must keep a good eye on her. That actually creates some friction, that we have different attitudes to relationships and sex. I may have 'high moral standards' myself, but in reality I can't enforce them on others, to participate in society and enjoy life I cannot do so because most people do not conform to my standards. That is why a Ministry of Public Morality is needed :D

[mentalbunny]

Very interesting CM.

I don't have anything against prostitution as such, but I am against the causes of prostitution (poverty, drugs (well drug-related crime), organised crime, etc) and these need to be addressed.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

What you on about this time? and I see that instead of actually replieing to my post and answering a question you try to be cool, with your pathetic responce.

[BuyOurEverything]

Well the fact is, Chairman Mao, not everyone views sex the same way you do and seeing as promiscuity doesn't harm society, you have no right to impose your morality on anyone but yourself. It's no different than someone saying that because they believed cows were sacred, it was immoral to eat beef and anyone caught doing so would be arrested and punished.

Allthough I disagree with labour camps, I'm all for punishing pimps as long as we treat all CEOs and anyone else that exploits workers accordingly.

[Saint-Just]

I know not everyone views sex the way I do BuyOurEverything, I view those people as morally bankrupt.

seeing as promiscuity doesn't harm society

Consider this: it does harm society. If that is true my opinion may actually be on the correct path.

Whether I have the right to impose my morality on others is a very complex subject. But simply, with legitimised power I would suggest that I must have some kind of consent to do so. As it is I don't have that power and as a result not the right nor the means to impose my morals on others.

If you read my last post you an see that I have to tolerate the morality of others to some degree. I certainly wouldn't tolerate outright promiscuity but I do tolerate some more sexually liberal views, I would find it difficult to live a good life if I did not. As it is I can enjoy myself somewhat even though others don't have the same morals I do.

To some extent you are right about me not having the right to impose my morals, but I would if I had the chance. The morals of societies change over time however, and politics and economics influences that, but what I propose is a rather extreme and unexpected change. As a result I could expect little support. I believe that ultimately people would be happier if they accepted my morals views though.

The issue here was originally prostitution. I really do find prostitution highly objectionable, so much so I would like to see people responsible punished and for prostitution to disappear entirely. There are a lot of people who agree with me, thus the illegality of prostitution in many countries. The difference is that I would be far more active and severe in prohibiting the practice.

[Borincano]

Prostitutes around the world still do it because they need the money, either to support their kids, the bills...etc, but now it's increasingly done to keep up a drug habit.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I feel that promiscuity is OK, but the money motive however is not. People get lonely, some people may never find that person who is just right for them. I myself have a very difficult time meeting people. I am very opinionated, and shunned by most people because of my views. Since coming out as a communist, I feel that I have been subject to more prejudice than blacks, gays, or arabs, and I've made a lot of sacrafices to keep my views public. I've found it VERY difficult for a person like myself to meet like minded people, and perhaps the only place I can have a reasonable conversation is here, but regardless, sex is one of the most basic instints of a person, but it should not be exploited for profit. Perhaps the only way to have a relationship with another person where sex is not a factor whatsoever is over the internet, but besides that it takes predecence over most things in many people's lives, always has and always will. I think the best think form of legislation would be to ban prostitution, but make it law that a person who is promiscuious, or even just a normal person, to be tested for STDs when they have sex with a person, and negligence to do so resulting in the spread of an STD would be considered murder. I know that may sound a bit harsh, but the purpose is to get a message across, BE RESPONSIBLE! The way I see it, STDs are an epidemic, a plague, and they must be treated as such.

[FabFabian]

It's good to tell that the majority of the speakers on this topic are men. :rolleyes: I just can't believe the level of stupidity or is it naiveity that is being expressed here.

Any woman who tells you she enjoys selling HERSELF for money is lying to herself and society. Delusion central.

Anyone who says that promiscuity is alright is some kind of anarchistic, hippy chucklehead. Have you ever heard of STD's??? It is because of this attitude that rates of std's such as gonarhea and clamydia are on the increase for those under the age of 25. Jesus tapdancing Chris!!! Syphillis is making a comeback...SYPHILLIS... a disease that was on the wane for decades is now showing up in teens!!!

Mao, if only more people had your good sense.

[marxstudent]

Prostitution spreads diseases, no? :blink:

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I'm afraid it is impossible to make legislation against promiscutity unless you outright ban sex without marriage, and in such an event, marriage would be no more than some perfunctatory ritual done every time someone wants sex. -_- I'm all for the banning of prostitution, however I feel that promiscuity is another matter entirely.

[BuyOurEverything]

Any woman who tells you she enjoys selling HERSELF for money is lying to herself and society. Delusion central.

Of course and anyone that doesn't express your same idea of pleasure and happiness is simply deluding themself.


Prostitution spreads diseases, no?

Sex spreads disease. Sneezing and coughing spreads disease. Kissing can spread disease. Blood transplants can spread disease. Not washing your hands can spread disease. Sharing food can spread disease. Public drinking water can spread disease. Running water can spread disease. Instead of making these illegal, we should focus on ways of reducing the disease that is spread. In the case of sex and prostitution, make condoms as available everywhere along with information on STDs. Have free STD clinics and research other cures and preventions for these diseases. The fact that it spreads disease is a ridiculous argument for its abolition and is easily recognized for what it is: outdated, puritan, pseudo-religious morality. If any other job had an unsafe workplace where disease was commonly spread, any sane person would say that the working conditions should be improved, not that the occupation was immoral and should be abolished.


I'm afraid it is impossible to make legislation against promiscutity unless you outright ban sex without marriage, and in such an event, marriage would be no more than some perfunctatory ritual done every time someone wants sex. I'm all for the banning of prostitution, however I feel that promiscuity is another matter entirely.

I agree with you in terms of an end result. In a final communist society, it would be against the law to take money for sex but to make it illegal now would just be legislating outdated morality and would be useless anyways as enforcing it with any efficiency would be a collosall waste of money and manpower that could be much better used elsewhere. Enforcing it as it is enforced now is useless and just makes the conditions for women worse. It needs to be legalized, unionized and treated like any other proffesion. Perhaps eventually there will be socialized prostitution: people who's job it is is just to have sex with people. Interesting idea.

CM: The issue of legislating morality is a tricky one however if we want to develop a truly modern and free society, practices should only be banned if they are proven to be harmful to other non consenting parties.

[marxstudent]

Sex spreads disease. Sneezing and coughing spreads disease. Kissing can spread disease. Blood transplants can spread disease. Not washing your hands can spread disease. Sharing food can spread disease. Public drinking water can spread disease.

These things you mentioned have a less chance of happening and their effects are not as serious compared to sex w/ an unknown partner who you know has been w/ like 20 different guys right before you. Yes there's still a chance even w/ a partner you think you would know but there's way less of a chance.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 08:42 PM
It's good to tell that the majority of the speakers on this topic are men. :rolleyes: I just can't believe the level of stupidity or is it naiveity that is being expressed here.

Any woman who tells you she enjoys selling HERSELF for money is lying to herself and society. Delusion central.

Anyone who says that promiscuity is alright is some kind of anarchistic, hippy chucklehead. Have you ever heard of STD's??? It is because of this attitude that rates of std's such as gonarhea and clamydia are on the increase for those under the age of 25. Jesus tapdancing Chris!!! Syphillis is making a comeback...SYPHILLIS... a disease that was on the wane for decades is now showing up in teens!!!

Mao, if only more people had your good sense.
That sounds like a little bit of over-generalization to me.

[mentalbunny]

I think we all agree that prostitution for the most part is not a good or pleasurable thing. So why don't we stop arguing about the semantics and go force our governments to take more care of the part of the population that is likely to turn to, or actualy does practice, prostitution. What needs to be combatted is poverty, drug addiction, organised crime and the lack of opportunities for women to find jobs that would bring more emotional and intellectual fulfillment.

[Inocente]

Cuba is now famous among the tourist also for it young prostitutes. It is becoming a pedophilian market.

It isn't it a shame, all the sacrifice all the cuban nationals to make their beleive survive for so many years, and they end up in the sacrificing of a young cuban virgin for an AMERICAN DOLLAR.

Puta life sucks! :ph34r:

[redstar2000]

Perhaps there should be a Ministry of Public Morality.

Sounds like a great idea! :o


Anyway, I find work to have far different emotional and physical implications than sex.

On what logical grounds? You go to work and do what you're told to do for money. What's the difference between you and any other prostitute?

Don't say that there are things you won't do for money. Prostitutes say that too.


Because part of this kind of love is a desire to create and raise children with that person...

In the U.S., the divorce rate is around 60% and stable (for the moment); I assume the figures are similar in the U.K. That means that there are six chances in 10 that you will not raise children with the partner who has them; in fact, there's a fairly good chance you will end up raising some other guy's kids and some other guy will raise yours.

If you find this appalling, recall that kids are still kids...yours are no more "special" than anyone else's.


. I do of course view this as a great crime and therefore those who are guilty of it as having done much harm and deserving of punishment and I do relish their punishment.

What is the "great crime"? In bourgeois society, everything is for sale. Why single out prostitutes or pimps?

In communist society there is no money and nothing is for sale; prostitution and pimping are impossible.

In your Leninist version of state-monopoly capitalism, prostitution is possible...but I cannot see that there is anything "wrong" with it. In fact, to be consistent, your Ministry of Light Industry should organize a chain of state-owned bordellos where women could pursue this "career choice" in relative safety and free from individual (petty bourgeois) pimps. When an individual woman was ready to leave "the life"--very few women are "life-long" prostitutes--she could apply for new training, etc.


I would just as harshly punish a man for promiscuity as I would a woman.

Another revealing remark! Now it's not just prostitution that is a "crime" but even promiscuity should be "punished".

Good grief!

What in the world is all this based on???


Thus I must keep a good eye on her. That actually creates some friction...

No doubt! Very few people like the feeling of being spied on.


I know not everyone views sex the way I do...I view those people as morally bankrupt.

On what grounds???


Consider this: it [promiscuity] does harm society. If that is true my opinion may actually be on the correct path.

But "your opinion" is sheer assertion. Where is the evidence that this assertion has any validity at all? Not to mention that "harm society" is such an ambiguous phrase that it could be twisted to mean anything.


To some extent you are right about me not having the right to impose my morals, but I would if I had the chance.... I believe that ultimately people would be happier if they accepted my moral views though.

Well, the kind of views you express used to be the law. Obviously, people were pretty damn unhappy with those laws.

Doesn't that suggest something to you?


I really do find prostitution highly objectionable, so much so I would like to see people responsible punished and for prostitution to disappear entirely. There are a lot of people who agree with me, thus the illegality of prostitution in many countries. The difference is that I would be far more active and severe in prohibiting the practice.

Well, in the time of the first Queen Elizabeth, convicted prostitutes were stripped to the waist and whipped through the streets of London.

Does that appeal to you?

Let's take a look at some other "pit stops" on the road you propose to travel.


Prostitutes around the world still do it because they need the money, either to support their kids, the bills...etc, but now it's increasingly done to keep up a drug habit.

Prostitution is "stressful" work and many women use various narcotics to relieve that stress. Women don't become prostitutes to support their "drug habit", they take drugs to support their "work habit".


Anyone who says that promiscuity is alright is some kind of anarchistic, hippy chucklehead. Have you ever heard of STD's??? It is because of this attitude that rates of std's such as gonorrhea and chlamydia are on the increase for those under the age of 25. Jesus tapdancing Christ!!! Syphilis is making a comeback...SYPHILLIS... a disease that was on the wane for decades is now showing up in teens!!!

This piece of shit could have come straight from the pages of Mein Kampf. I'm not being "rhetorical" here; Hitler's infamous work actually has pages devoted to STDs, especially syphilis.

The appeal, such as it is, is to fear. In the 17th century, it would have read "Woe unto ye fornicators, ye shall rot on Earth and burn in Hell". Since "Hell" has lost its terrors, the neo-puritans must fall back on fear of sickness; their new slogan is "SEX =DEATH".

If they could, they'd put labels on everyone's genetalia...like the "warnings" on packs of cigarettes.


So why don't we stop arguing about the semantics and go force our governments to take more care of the part of the population that is likely to turn to, or actually does practice, prostitution.

Because we do not have the power to "force" capitalist governments to do or not do anything...except in the last few days before the revolution. And then there's no point in bothering.

We'll do it ourselves.


It [prostitution] needs to be legalized, unionized and treated like any other profession.

A small voice of sanity amidst the howling wilderness of neo-puritanical idiocy.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

You go to work and do what you're told to do for money. What's the difference between you and any other prostitute?

Because I don't sacrifice my dignity and tear the moral fabric of society at work.

In the U.S., the divorce rate is around 60% and stable (for the moment); I assume the figures are similar in the U.K. That means that there are six chances in 10 that you will not raise children with the partner who has them; in fact, there's a fairly good chance you will end up raising some other guy's kids and some other guy will raise yours.

I believe it is 1/3 in the UK, around 33%. I wouldn't raise someone else's kids I can assure you, nor would I let anyone raise my own. I know these things and I have to set aside my morals to a large extent to function in our society, although it is often not enjoyable.

Another revealing remark! Now it's not just prostitution that is a "crime" but even promiscuity should be "punished".

I think it is unrealistic to punish promiscuity. I would just make it unacceptable in society. I do thing it is highly immoral though.

But "your opinion" is sheer assertion. Where is the evidence that this assertion has any validity at all? Not to mention that "harm society" is such an ambiguous phrase that it could be twisted to mean anything.

You give far too little credit to my intelligence. My statement was ironic, I was trying to show the previous user who posted that their opinion was sheer assertion and that it did not prove my ideas wrong. They made an equally unsubstantiated assertion, simply saying that promiscuity does not harm society.

Well, in the time of the first Queen Elizabeth, convicted prostitutes were stripped to the waist and whipped through the streets of London.

Does that appeal to you?

Today we have far more humane ways of dealing with them, but we still address the issue. I admit my views on this matter are traditional and as I have said before not politically motivated (and yes I know tradition is affected by politics, but as I explained to you before my acquisition of these traditional views is not politically motivated).

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I adhere to the idea that women are no different than men, therefore a communist society should give them neither privilage nor punishment. Surely you would object giving a man an equal living for spending his days sleeping around with various women as the rest of the hardworking individuals in a communist society who are actually doing something productive, therefore, why should the state have to support a woman whose only contribution to society is sleeping with all their men? I can tolerate promiscutity as perhaps a lifestyle, but the very idea of forcing society to support such individuals is utterly absurd.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 11:46 AM
I think we all agree that prostitution for the most part is not a good or pleasurable thing. So why don't we stop arguing about the semantics and go force our governments to take more care of the part of the population that is likely to turn to, or actualy does practice, prostitution. What needs to be combatted is poverty, drug addiction, organised crime and the lack of opportunities for women to find jobs that would bring more emotional and intellectual fulfillment.
Yes I agree mentalbunny. That would be the first stage in combatting prostitution along with arresting 'pimps'. The second would be arresting more pimps and then enforcing the laws on prostitution. Unfortunately are government does not have the political will, power or resources to do the things you mentioned.

[redstar2000]

Because I don't sacrifice my dignity and tear the moral fabric of society at work.

Everyone "sacrifices their dignity" if they are wage-slaves.

In fact, only the self-employed individual--including prostitutes who work without pimps or madams--can claim even a semblance of "dignity" in monopoly capitalism.

As to "tearing the moral fabric of society", that is sheer fabrication. What is the "moral fabric" of a society that depends on ruthless and unending exploitation?

Indeed, does the phrase even have any meaning at all? Ever?

What the hell is a "moral fabric"? Can you buy it by the yard? Or the meter?


I wouldn't raise someone else's kids, I can assure you, nor would I let anyone raise my own.

That sounds almost like you're saying "I wouldn't wash somebody else's car nor would I let anyone wash mine".

Private property in children?


My statement was ironic...

Ok, but that still leaves you with some broad and sweeping assertions for which you have provided no evidence.

Thus, I repeat: on what is all this stuff based?

By the way, I overlooked this charming little bit of rhetoric...


Unless you just want a hooker, it really ruins a city to have these filths walking around. How many diseases could be halted with the destruction of prostitution?

Hitler was similarly offended by "filth walking the streets" of Vienna...it was eastern European Jews who bothered him.

And this one...


I say put them [prostitutes] in labour camps and make them work until their sexual minds fall apart.

There will be no "labor camps" in communist society, and now and then I find that regrettable...I have my own list of those who belong in one. There's just something really appealing about the sight of a neo-puritan digging a canal! :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

Because I don't sacrifice my dignity and tear the moral fabric of society at work.

No of course you don't, now would you like fries with that?


here will be no "labor camps" in communist society, and now and then I find that regrettable...I have my own list of those who belong in one. There's just something really appealing about the sight of a neo-puritan digging a canal!

True that :D

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

The simple fact is that so long as there is capitalism, and so long as there is unemployment, there will be prostitution. Even without prostitution, people are often forced to take to other (more serious) types of crime just to make sure they get the necessities for survival. It would be rediculous for a communist society to allow prostitution as an occupation, but it would be equally absurd to expect a capitalist country to exist without prostitution or crime.

[FabFabian]

One thing that pisses me off about forums like this is the lack of reading and cognition skills that become evident.

Midnight, I disagree with you that men and women are the same. The are different biologically and are socialized differently.

Promiscuity from my mine, and if I might be so bold to include Chairman Mao's, perspective is not from a moral view. Promiscuity is just plain stupid. One who is promiscuious has no respect for themeselves or their partners. You can take that Free Love crap and shove it for all I care. As a citizen of society I don't want to have to pay for other people's selfish and stupid ways because they can't be bothered to think about the consequences of their actions. A person who identifies themselves as Left would know and understand this.

[redstar2000]

One thing that pisses me off about forums like this is the lack of reading and cognition skills that become evident.

Tell me about it.

I will repeat for the third time: in communist society there is no money, no market, no buying and selling of anything...and therefore prostitution is impossible!

There is no need to "prohibit" what can't be done.


Promiscuity is just plain stupid. One who is promiscuous has no respect for themselves or their partners. You can take that Free Love crap and shove it for all I care. As a citizen of society I don't want to have to pay for other people's selfish and stupid ways because they can't be bothered to think about the consequences of their actions.

In communist society you don't "pay" for anything.


A person who identifies themselves as Left would know and understand this.

A bold assertion and not justified historically or on this board.

Leftists have had wildly conflicting opinions on the subject of sex; the "free love" that you characterize as "disrespectful", "stupid", and "selfish" has actually been endorsed by many leftists, especially women leftists...Alexandra Kollentai comes to mind.

But what do you base your opinion on? Why is "free love" "disrespectful", "stupid", and/or "selfish"? You say it's not "morality", so what is it?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

As a citizen of society I don't want to have to pay for other people's selfish and stupid ways because they can't be bothered to think about the consequences of their actions. A person who identifies themselves as Left would know and understand this.

I assume you mean the health bill for treating STDs. There's nothing 'left' about your opinion at all. Not wanting to help others and pay for public health care especially when related to "morally corupt" acts is a basis of right wing ideology. Would you let someone who had contracted and STD suffer or die because you don't think they "thought about the consequences of their actions?" Would that same ideology carry over into other areas such as people injured playing sports or people who got hit while jaywalking?

[BuyOurEverything]

I adhere to the idea that women are no different than men, therefore a communist society should give them neither privilage nor punishment.

I agree.


Surely you would object giving a man an equal living for spending his days sleeping around with various women as the rest of the hardworking individuals in a communist society who are actually doing something productive, therefore, why should the state have to support a woman whose only contribution to society is sleeping with all their men? I can tolerate promiscutity as perhaps a lifestyle, but the very idea of forcing society to support such individuals is utterly absurd.

That doesn't sound very communist to me. What about other people with jobs you percieve as "easy?" Do you think they're lazy and other "hardworking people" shouldn't support them? That's the exact ideology of conservative capitalism. I would imagine that there wouldn't be nearly as large a market for male prostitutes as female so there wouldn't be many men employed in that field.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

You are missing the idea, we shouldn't be paying for people to be prostitutes because I don't see it as an occupation that contributes to society. We don't need to support them because society doesn't need them, we can make them into teachers, cooks, construction workers, soldiers, hell I don't know, anything but a prostitute.

[BuyOurEverything]

They contribute to society in the same way books, TV, drugs, alcohol, movies and music contribute to society. But I already know your views on those things.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 12:14 AM
Midnight, I disagree with you that men and women are the same. The are different biologically and are socialized differently.

Promiscuity from my mine, and if I might be so bold to include Chairman Mao's, perspective is not from a moral view. Promiscuity is just plain stupid. One who is promiscuious has no respect for themeselves or their partners. You can take that Free Love crap and shove it for all I care. As a citizen of society I don't want to have to pay for other people's selfish and stupid ways because they can't be bothered to think about the consequences of their actions. A person who identifies themselves as Left would know and understand this.
I agree absolutely. We should make promiscuity unacceptable in society.

One who is promiscuious has no respect for themeselves or their partners.

I think that is an important point.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Yes, women are different biologically, but both women and men are capable of doing most anything that they put their mind to, and in that respect they are equal. Socialized different? Women in the kitchen and men out in the world? Surely you do not adhere to that cult of domesticity? The "socialization" was built upon archaic, patriarchal, religious doctrine, and survived through spoken and unspoken tradition. I feel that discriminating people on the basis of sex has no more moral foundation than discriminating them on the basis of race, it is a feudalistic tradition designed to keep women oppressed. So I feel women should go work just like men, and children ought to be taken care of by the govt in communal daycare/boarding school, they should register for the draft the same way as men, and should be treated equally in all aspects.

[BuyOurEverything]

I agree absolutely. We should make promiscuity unacceptable in society.

Why? You still haven't answered that except some senseless rambling about morality that you haven't backed up with any kind of facts.


One who is promiscuious has no respect for themeselves or their partners.

One who is promiscuous while in a monogomous relationship may not have respect for their (previously) monogomous partner because they are betraying their trust but if you're not in a monogomous relationship, sleeping around has nothing to do with lack of respect. Perhaps you'd like to explain that.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 03:40 AM

I agree absolutely. We should make promiscuity unacceptable in society.

Why? You still haven't answered that except some senseless rambling about morality that you haven't backed up with any kind of facts.
Yes I have. There aren't many so facts to back up morality though, but I have made logical and substantiated arguments. If you have read all my posts you will see them. If I were to point to any kind of facts I would say that the divorse rate is far lower in the UK because my country is not so pervaded by immorality.

This is the reasoning I used here:

'we show our emotions through physical affection. Part of our relationship is us relying on each other for physical gratification. You are right that we have sex for pleasure, but there is certainly a feeling inside me that in doing so you are pleasing yourself and someone else and it is an activity that you should only share with someone you share an emotional bond with.

These kind of relationships are built partly on attraction towards someone. Because part of this kind of love is a desire to create and raise children with that person or/and to have sex with them for pleasure and to share something exclusive to those two people. Sex is an expression of that physical attraction, and since physical attraction is part of the love and bonds the two people, sex must remain part of that bond.'

'Would you even be able to trust her when she considers sex just a matter of pleasure, is she likely to be faithful since she doesn't consider sex an intimate matter?

How can you explain the number of women that feel sex has strong meaning to it and emotional responsibilities attached to it?'

[BuyOurEverything]

There aren't many so facts to back up morality though

Exactly.



Not everyone has the same views on emotional connections and relationships. If it makes you feel better to not be promiscuious, then don't be but unless you can back it up with facts, don't legislate it on society.

[Saint-Just]

Yes but it also makes me feel worse when other people do, so I would like to impose it on society. In addition I can't really follow my views precisely because they depend on the behaviour of others, I tend to haev to capitulate to the views of the majority to a small extent.

[BuyOurEverything]

Yes but it also makes me feel worse when other people do, so I would like to impose it on society. In addition I can't really follow my views precisely because they depend on the behaviour of others, I tend to haev to capitulate to the views of the majority to a small extent.

First of all, you only really need one person to share your morality. Second of all, thanks for finally admitting that you don't actually have and higher ground on this issue and that you are simply trying to force people to follow your morality so it would be easier for you.

[mentalbunny]

I have to say I'm anti-promiscuity in the long run since it nearly always leads to low self-esteem and that frequently causes depression. Correct me if you think I'm wrong. There's nothing wrong with the odd one night stand or fling but personally I think slutty behaviour just messes things up, sluts are never happy.

[redstar2000]

...but personally I think slutty behaviour just messes things up, sluts are never happy.

How would we have any way of knowing that?

Should we have a "slut survey"? And who would volunteer to take part, since identifying yourself as a "slut" now is like identifying yourself as a "queer" in 1950?

Will there someday be a "Slut Pride Day"?

Or a "Slut Liberation Movement"?

Or, perhaps, people will one day be sufficiently civilized not to be overly concerned with the sex lives of others...which is, when you stop and think about it, a rather trivial matter in the "great scheme" of things.

Well, I can hope...

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

I have to say I'm anti-promiscuity in the long run since it nearly always leads to low self-esteem and that frequently causes depression. Correct me if you think I'm wrong. There's nothing wrong with the odd one night stand or fling but personally I think slutty behaviour just messes things up, sluts are never happy.

The only reason that happens is because society tells women they should be ashamed of themselves if they've had sex with a few different partners, it has nothing to do with the act itself.

[mentalbunny]

Maybe BOE. And by the way I never said I was anti-sluts, if it is possible to say that. Fine if that's what you want to do but looking at everyone I know who's like that and they all seem like they're trying to rpove something and they aren't actually happy with themselves. I'm not going to stop their behaviour, they have every right to do what they like with their bodies, but personallyI don't go in for that.

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 08:36 PM
looking at everyone I know who's like that and they all seem like they're trying to rpove something and they aren't actually happy with themselves.
Being a social worker and working with AIDS patients, I in no way am a judgemental person, but have found that those who practice such negative acts usually were not given a loving healthy foundation in their formative years or taught socialization. I have found promiscuity is an all around demeaning act.

It is like a catch 22 situation. Those who practice receive what they perceive as love, just for a short while, but when its over, suffers the reality of the situation, which is, being completely used by someone else.

[redstar2000]

Cambodia's penchant for gang rape grows more common; Elite young men above the law prey on prostitutes seen as less than human

Phnom Penh, Cambodia -- Sipping a beer in an Irish pub, Doc looks every bit the privileged young man that he is. Neatly dressed in a buttoned-down shirt and khaki pants, he is polite and quick with a smile, especially when talking about his favorite pastime - gang rape.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGPE2JJQ81.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/26/MNGPE2JJQ81.DTL)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Alejandro C]

since prostitution is the direct product of capitalism it is wrong.

right?

[BuyOurEverything]

since prostitution is the direct product of capitalism it is wrong.

right?

No more wrong than selling anything else.

[Alejandro C]

so you're saying selling anything is wrong.

[BuyOurEverything]

No. In a perfect society, there wouldn't be any free enterprising but this is not a perfect society and people do what they have to do to survive, so it is not wrong. That was my point.

[Alejandro C]

i'm sorry i don't understand. you said in a perfect society there would be no free enterprise, which leads me to believe that you think free enterprise (capitalism) is bad because it detract from the perfectness of the society. but you also said that people do what they have to so free enterprise (capitalism) is not bad, or wrong. do you mean that if we were in a perfect economic society you would say prostitution is wrong, but since we are not prostitution is ok? i don't understand how existing conditions are always right when the outside conditions are so different and the very issue has changed.


also BOE please look at the freedom v. order topic, i created it because i was mostly interested in what you and senorache had to say about that subject.

[BuyOurEverything]

I belive in a perfect society, prostitution would be socialized, does that help? In other words, I don't agree with Albertson's, Safeway and the like exploiting workers and paying them shit but I still gotta buy my groceries.

[canikickit]

since prostitution is the direct product of capitalism it is wrong.

It makes sense. Prostituation is just another for m of wage slavery, as redstar has demonstrated.

These women do not enjoy their jobs. They do them so they can eat. I don't enjoy standing at the end of a production line, putting boxes into bigger boxes, but I do so to eat.

Prostituation should be legal.

By legalising it, the criminal element will no longer be inextricably linked to prostitution, these women will be able to earn a more secure income and the threat of violence will not be as prominent.


but you also said that people do what they have to so free enterprise (capitalism) is not bad, or wrong

People "do what they have to" under the capitalist system. The system itself is wrong, but the methods people use to survive (as opposed to prosper, at the expense of others) are acceptable, being that they are the only methods available.


do you mean that if we were in a perfect economic society you would say prostitution is wrong, but since we are not prostitution is ok?

If we were in the perfect economic society prostituation would be impossible, but since we are not the people do what they feel they must do.

Selling your body for sex is not far removed from selling your body for moving bricks from one place to another.


i don't understand how existing conditions are always right when the outside conditions are so different and the very issue has changed.

I don't understand this sentence.

The existing situation (vis-á-vis prostitution) is wrong, but how do you propose that situation is changed? We cannot select one boss-worker relationship and eliminate it before all the others.

The want/need for prostitution is as valid as the want/need for football, computer games or freshly baked bread. The difference is in the brutality of the worker-boss relationship.

[Soul Rebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 02:26 AM

since prostitution is the direct product of capitalism it is wrong.

It makes sense. Prostituation is just another for m of wage slavery, as redstar has demonstrated.

These women do not enjoy their jobs. They do them so they can eat. I don't enjoy standing at the end of a production line, putting boxes into bigger boxes, but I do so to eat.

Prostituation should be legal.

By legalising it, the criminal element will no longer be inextricably linked to prostitution, these women will be able to earn a more secure income and the threat of violence will not be as prominent.


but you also said that people do what they have to so free enterprise (capitalism) is not bad, or wrong

People "do what they have to" under the capitalist system. The system itself is wrong, but the methods people use to survive (as opposed to prosper, at the expense of others) are acceptable, being that they are the only methods available.


do you mean that if we were in a perfect economic society you would say prostitution is wrong, but since we are not prostitution is ok?

If we were in the perfect economic society prostituation would be impossible, but since we are not the people do what they feel they must do.

Selling your body for sex is not far removed from selling your body for moving bricks from one place to another.


i don't understand how existing conditions are always right when the outside conditions are so different and the very issue has changed.

I don't understand this sentence.

The existing situation (vis-á-vis prostitution) is wrong, but how do you propose that situation is changed? We cannot select one boss-worker relationship and eliminate it before all the others.

The want/need for prostitution is as valid as the want/need for football, computer games or freshly baked bread. The difference is in the brutality of the worker-boss relationship.
Actually, cani i have to say that one of those points is wrong.

I used to believe very much that womyn do not want to do these jobs, but after extensive research i have found the opposite. While most womyn do not want these jobs but must take them as a result of not having a real choice as to what they can do, many others do like having these jobs. Many womyn do feel that they have an important role as prostitutes. They feel they offer a valuable service to their clients: sexual release and someone to talk to. Although we may not see this, they do. We are on the outside looking in. We do not see the womyn that want to stay in prostitution, only those that want to get out. We only hear the negative aspects of it. Just check out "Live Sex Acts," or even "The Happy Hooker" to see what im saying.

Im not a supporter of prostitution, but i am for decriminalizing it. Like you said- it would offer a more safe environment and more benefits for the prostitutes. Many prostitutes work in dangerous conditions and are at risk for being beaten and raped. Because they are in an illegal profession if these things occur they cannot go seek help from police because they will be the ones getting arrested because they have to admit to being a prostitute. Also, i think it could help destroy the myth that prostitutes cannot get raped. Many believe that because a woman is a sex worker that she cannot be raped because she is always willing to do it. As sex workers they do and can get raped. The risk is very high. Also, if decriminalized they can get better health care, make more money, and actually have a retirement plan. They will recieve the benefits that most of us will recieve when working any other jobs.

I know this will sound hypocritical to many of you because you know i am a radical feminist, but not all feminists are against prostitution- we all dont agree on everything, which is why there are different kinds of feminists. I just wanted to make that clear...

[canikickit]

That's a good point, and one I don't disagree with. But I do think those women are in the minority. I think it's basically the same as any other job.

[Soul Rebel]

You're right it is like any other job: takes time and skill, its exploitive just like any other job, and we really dont have a choice as to what we can do (in a sense we do, but we really dont when we are being shaped and prepared by society to take and perform certain jobs and roles).

[BuyOurEverything]

Actually, cani i have to say that one of those points is wrong.

I used to believe very much that womyn do not want to do these jobs, but after extensive research i have found the opposite. While most womyn do not want these jobs but must take them as a result of not having a real choice as to what they can do, many others do like having these jobs. Many womyn do feel that they have an important role as prostitutes. They feel they offer a valuable service to their clients: sexual release and someone to talk to. Although we may not see this, they do. We are on the outside looking in. We do not see the womyn that want to stay in prostitution, only those that want to get out. We only hear the negative aspects of it. Just check out "Live Sex Acts," or even "The Happy Hooker" to see what im saying.

Im not a supporter of prostitution, but i am for decriminalizing it. Like you said- it would offer a more safe environment and more benefits for the prostitutes. Many prostitutes work in dangerous conditions and are at risk for being beaten and raped. Because they are in an illegal profession if these things occur they cannot go seek help from police because they will be the ones getting arrested because they have to admit to being a prostitute. Also, i think it could help destroy the myth that prostitutes cannot get raped. Many believe that because a woman is a sex worker that she cannot be raped because she is always willing to do it. As sex workers they do and can get raped. The risk is very high. Also, if decriminalized they can get better health care, make more money, and actually have a retirement plan. They will recieve the benefits that most of us will recieve when working any other jobs.

I know this will sound hypocritical to many of you because you know i am a radical feminist, but not all feminists are against prostitution- we all dont agree on everything, which is why there are different kinds of feminists. I just wanted to make that clear...

Good point, would you agree that it should be socialized then?

[kylie]

Prostitution encourages the idea that it is ok for men to use women as items, or commodities, to just fulfil mens wants. This encourages the continuation of sexist views against all women - not just the prostitutes, but all women.
It shouldnt be seen as just another trade, or trivialised by claiming its 'just sex'. Sex is a serious thing, a very developed form of social relationship, and as such how it is dealt with has big effects on us and our attitudes in general.

[Tiki Man]

I heard that in Japan, it is okay for the husband to have a sex partner when the wife is away and therefore unable to satisfy.

You may think of this as a rumor, but I received this information from someone who would defend Japanese culture until the end. Prostitution is simply a way to survive in a capitalistic world.

Imagine: People have high demand for painting fences. You could provide for yourself for a week if you were to paint this fence the person thinks they need to have painted. Again, you may think about painting fences as a complex thing that is integrated in relationships, but that is simply how your mind may have been raised. It doesn't have to be. People paint fences all of the time on the internet and sell images of painting the fences. A week's supply to live off of for an entire week for painting a fence that you are able to paint, for a person incapable of painting it themselves.

But it can all change depending on how a society views the act of painting fences.

[canikickit]

That is in no dispute, feoric. However maintaining the illegality of protitution propagates the degradation and dispair of these women. Punishing them for being in a bad situation is not productive.


I think it's basically the same as any other job.

I meant that in the sense that SenoraChe expanded on above - it is another job into which people are forced as a means of survival. It is different from most in that the effects on peopel dignity is somewhat worse.

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Prostitution can be good if it is done legally. With it ilegal, women serve at the obligation of a pimp, and are thus coerced into it, which by Kantian standards makes it automatically immoral.
Some may say that prostitution is using people as a means to an end (the good feeling), but if it was perfectly consentual from the woman, then she is being used as a means to an end no more than any other person being payed to provide a given service, such as putting smaller boxes into bigger boxes.

Illegal Prostitution= Pimper's Paradise

[Charred_Phoenix]

I'll be honest with you, I'm quite tired at the time of posting and I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread. Nontheless, here's my take on the issue: If the money is getting to the government, they can sell whatever they like to the tourists. It's not morally wrong to sell your body, if you have a problem with doing it, DON'T DO IT. But don't try to force your beliefs on others. Cuba, while under the embargo, needs all the money it can get; it can't afford to stamp out prostitution!

Edit: By the way, Tiki Man, just read your post. That's one wacky analogy. O_O

[kylie]

I meant that in the sense that SenoraChe expanded on above - it is another job into which people are forced as a means of survival.
Oh, well it wasnt particularly aimed at you, but i remember reading someone say something along the lines of what Mr Mojo Risin' said.

Some may say that prostitution is using people as a means to an end (the good feeling), but if it was perfectly consentual from the woman, then she is being used as a means to an end no more than any other person being payed to provide a given service, such as putting smaller boxes into bigger boxes.
I disagree, they are being used much more, and for worse means, than an average worker. When say someone is packaging items in a factory, the contribution this will have for society is individually small, but on a group scale, like all occupations, it will have an effect on society, in this case improving the economy. So its a positive role, helping society.
Prostitution on the other hand, while it will satisfy the consumers need for a while, it will also have negative long term effects. That persons attitude to women in general will be different, more sexually orientated than if they were not able to buy womens bodies for their own selfish wants.

It's not morally wrong to sell your body, if you have a problem with doing it, DON'T DO IT. But don't try to force your beliefs on others.
The problem is as i've said above its not the kind of thing that is limited to just those involved, the prostitute and the consumer. It also affects other women, who will not have even considered prostitution. The negative effect goes beyond those directly involved, in the same way a Nazi giving individual talks to people would. Although in prostitution it is more complex than that, but i can't think of a better analogy at the moment.

iCuba, while under the embargo, needs all the money it can get; it can't afford to stamp out prostitution!
Sexism, as a form of discrimination and barrier to equality, is just as important in achieving or continuing Socialism as economic factors, hence the need for a cultural revolution as well as economic one.

[Corvus Corax]

Who said there were no male prostitutes?

We are all talking under the assumption it is a totally female occupation.

C.C

[redstar2000]

There certainly are male prostitutes; they are just not as visible (usually).

But in San Francisco, for example, try the corner of O'Farrell and Geary streets. You'll see three to six young guys there every afternoon and early evening, "plying their trade". There are plenty of wealthy gay men in that particular city for whom the purchase of casual sex comes as naturally as it does for many heterosexual men.

Where there is a "demand", there is a "supply".

I agree that the existence of prostitution itself has a negative effect on all women. But I would suggest that effect is trivial in the over-all misogynist atmosphere that currently prevails.

For example, the common use of words like "****", "*****" and "slut" is far more wide-spread than encounters with prostitutes...and contributes far more to the generalized degradation of women. Even many women use those words to describe other women...in exactly the same way as one person of color will describe another as a "nigger". The degradation is "internalized" so that people who have been habitually spoken of in this fashion begin to "accept" the descriptions applied to them by their enemies.

Or, for instance, consider the entire advertising/entertainment complex...which unceasingly portrays women as consumers or consumed. The message is delivered a hundred times a day or more to every woman and girl: your purpose in life is to buy stuff and find a guy who will pay for it.

When I run across yet another study that shows that adolescent females suffer a catastrophic plunge in self-esteem compared to adolescent males, I'm not surprised. Who could not fail to feel utterly wretched at such a "future"?

I know some guys who think that feminists are "too angry". If I were female, I would find it very difficult not to be in a permanent state of absolute rage.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

I disagree, they are being used much more, and for worse means, than an average worker. When say someone is packaging items in a factory, the contribution this will have for society is individually small, but on a group scale, like all occupations, it will have an effect on society, in this case improving the economy. So its a positive role, helping society.
Prostitution on the other hand, while it will satisfy the consumers need for a while

So do you then believe that nobody should be allowed to make movies, write books or play music etc. as a career becaue it doesn't "contribute to society" or "help build the economy?"

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 07:31 PM

I disagree, they are being used much more, and for worse means, than an average worker. When say someone is packaging items in a factory, the contribution this will have for society is individually small, but on a group scale, like all occupations, it will have an effect on society, in this case improving the economy. So its a positive role, helping society.
Prostitution on the other hand, while it will satisfy the consumers need for a while

So do you then believe that nobody should be allowed to make movies, write books or play music etc. as a career becaue it doesn't "contribute to society" or "help build the economy?"
I think feoric would surely be in favour of creating films, writing books etc. precisely because they do contribute to society. I think the point was the prostitution does not contribute to society, similar to crime, that is why prostitution often is a crime.

[kylie]

So do you then believe that nobody should be allowed to make movies, write books or play music etc. as a career becaue it doesn't "contribute to society" or "help build the economy?"
I don't think they do not affect society, or the economy. So i can't answer the question, as the assumption behind it is wrong. I'm not sure where you would get the idea that i think movies, music, etc wouldnt affect people. Prostitution is not an art or form of expression, which these are, its completely different, and so i see no problem with thinking that prostitution harms society through encouraging sexism while at the same time thinking the arts are of a benefit to us.

[BuyOurEverything]

I don't think they do not affect society, or the economy. So i can't answer the question, as the assumption behind it is wrong. I'm not sure where you would get the idea that i think movies, music, etc wouldnt affect people. Prostitution is not an art or form of expression, which these are, its completely different, and so i see no problem with thinking that prostitution harms society through encouraging sexism while at the same time thinking the arts are of a benefit to us.

Anything, including prostitution, can be a form of expression and so, art. My point was there are things that people do simply for fun (some other examples would be alcohol, amusement parks, skateboarding, surfing, biking etc.) that don't neccesessarily "contribute to society" in the rigid sense that say, putting smaller boxes into larger ones does. You argue that prostitution doesn't sontribute to society but how does it contribute any less than other things people do for fun?

As for sexism, prostitututes simply provide a service for people, it is society's view of women that objectifies them. Massage therapists provide a similar service for people (providing pleasure) yet they aren't looked down on like prostitutes are. The only difference between the two is society's view of them. If everywhere you looked there were massage therapists in skimpy clothes selling products and rappers wrote songs about pimpin' their massage therapists, things would be different.

[kylie]

You argue that prostitution doesn't sontribute to society but how does it contribute any less than other things people do for fun?

As i have said, through affecting peoples views of women in general, causing sexist views to continue to exist(though this isn't the only cause of such views, as Redstar pointed out. Though i disagree that its influence is minimal.) Going to a movie(well, this one depends on content, movies being another source of sexist thinking), skating, etc, do not do this.

As for sexism, prostitututes simply provide a service for people, it is society's view of women that objectifies them.
And where does this view come from? things such as prostitution, the medias portrayal of women, the passing on of values through socialisation in the family school etc, pornography, and legal inequalities. These views of woman don't just appear from no-where.

Massage therapists provide a similar service for people (providing pleasure) yet they aren't looked down on like prostitutes are.
Because they are completely different. While in both pleasure is provided phsyically, this doesnt mean they are automatically similar. Fox hunting and fencing both offer entertainment through physical violence, are they basically the same?
Prostitution involves two people having sex, sex being a social situation. - This is how humans have come to think of sex, as something that happens between two people who are very socially connected(ie close, high levels of trust, etc).
Massage therapists on the other hand, give a service that is more close to medical treatment, as implied by 'therapist'.

The only difference between the two is society's view of them. If everywhere you looked there were massage therapists in skimpy clothes selling products and rappers wrote songs about pimpin' their massage therapists, things would be different.
Yes, as they would have crossed the line over to being of a sexual nature, from how you describe it being like strippers.

[redstar2000]

Yes, as they would have crossed the line over to being of a sexual nature, from how you describe it being like strippers.

This suggests that your "line" is going to get fuzzier and fuzzier--being of a "sexual nature" is going to be as difficult to define as "obscenity".

Consider novels that portray aggressive female sexuality (Erica Jong comes to mind): does this cross your "line"?

What of erotic videos (or "pornography" as our resident Minister of Public Morality would call them) produced, directed, and sold by women?

Suppose ballet were performed by nude dancers? Would that be different from "stripping"? How?

Are there any famous paintings of nude women that "cross the line"? Or sculptures?

Suppose an attractive young woman deliberately seeks out and marries a rich but much older man...is that prostitution? Should they be prosecuted?

It seems to me that in accordance with the prevailing capitalist ethic, it is impossible to legitimately treat people who work in the sex industry (all branches) any different from any other workers. And I don't see why we should view them in any other way. They are not cops or soldiers; they do not kill in order to defend the capitalist system. They are not scabs...consciously and deliberately undermining the solidarity of the working class (such as it is!).

Any harm that they may do is marginal compared to that of the general system as a whole; are you torn with "guilt" when you pay your light bill because you have "contributed" to the profits of some gigantic blood-sucking corporation?

Under capitalism, I support the abolition of all laws that criminalize consensual sex.

Under communism--where there is no money and no buying and selling of anything--prostitution is impossible.

Should we be so unfortunate as to get stuck with Leninist state-socialism (:o), the consistent position would involve setting up state-owned and operated bordellos...an unfortunate situation indeed, but that's what state-socialism and the retention of the market get you into.

One thing that will almost certainly prove impossible to implement: the revival of Christian sexual morality "wrapped in a red flag". If such attempts are made, they will serve only to make the red flag itself an object of contempt.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

Should we be so unfortunate as to get stuck with Leninist state-socialism (), the consistent position would involve setting up state-owned and operated bordellos...an unfortunate situation indeed

Why is that unfortunate? I see nothing wrong with it.


One thing that will almost certainly prove impossible to implement: the revival of Christian sexual morality "wrapped in a red flag". If such attempts are made, they will serve only to make the red flag itself an object of contempt.

Yes, something I've noticed happening here.


And where does this view come from? things such as prostitution, the medias portrayal of women, the passing on of values through socialisation in the family school etc, pornography, and legal inequalities. These views of woman don't just appear from no-where.

Prostitution and pornography are affected by society's view of women but in and of themselves, they aren't sexist. The media's portayal of women is indeed a cause of sexism. Legal inequalities are a result of sexism not a cause of it.


Because they are completely different. While in both pleasure is provided phsyically, this doesnt mean they are automatically similar. Fox hunting and fencing both offer entertainment through physical violence, are they basically the same?

Their similar, I don't really see your point.


Prostitution involves two people having sex, sex being a social situation. - This is how humans have come to think of sex, as something that happens between two people who are very socially connected(ie close, high levels of trust, etc).

That's some people's view of sex, perhaps it's even most people's view of sex but it's certainly not everybody's view of sex.


Massage therapists on the other hand, give a service that is more close to medical treatment, as implied by 'therapist'.

Well it's generally viewed as such but it's not intrinsically like that, just as sex isn't intrinsically an act between two 'very socially connected' people.


Yes, as they would have crossed the line over to being of a sexual nature, from how you describe it being like strippers.

Well like redstar said, there are many things of a sexual nature that aren't sexist. Also, what makes things of a sexual nature different from things of any other nature?

[redstar2000]

Why is that unfortunate? I see nothing wrong with it.

Well, I think working for a state-managed bordello would have a tendency to generate the other characteristics of wage-slavery over time.

"Speed-up", for example...the pressure from the boss to "do more work" for the same pay.

I don't think it would be very pleasant.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[kylie]

This suggests that your "line" is going to get fuzzier and fuzzier--being of a "sexual nature" is going to be as difficult to define as "obscenity".

The line for what is acceptable and what is not in germs of this kind of thing is simply whether or not it encourages sexist thinking. Marxism is not just about economic equality, but also between genders, ethnicities, etc. While racism can be dealt with relatively easily, due to it being down to mostly ignorance, sexism is tougher. this being due to its origins being much more widespread and accepted, as this thread shows.
Although what you quoted me as saying was actually just about how peoples views on things will differ depending on whether something is related to sex, and it being used as a commodity.

You've taken it out of context, but anyway, i can still respond to what you wrote:
Consider novels that portray aggressive female sexuality (Erica Jong comes to mind): does this cross your "line"?
What of erotic videos (or "pornography" as our resident Minister of Public Morality would call them) produced, directed, and sold by women?
Suppose ballet were performed by nude dancers? Would that be different from "stripping"? How?
Are there any famous paintings of nude women that "cross the line"? Or sculptures?
Suppose an attractive young woman deliberately seeks out and marries a rich but much older man...is that prostitution? Should they be prosecuted?
It would depend on each individual case, based on as i've said above, how it affects peoples views. Pornography is essentially a form of prostitution. And the case of the rich man, how is it they would be rich? I assume you are talking about under Communism or Socialism? As for Capitalism i don't care, the entire system needs to go so specific policy is of no interest to me. Just as how whether conservative or labour parties are elected.

Should we be so unfortunate as to get stuck with Leninist state-socialism (), the consistent position would involve setting up state-owned and operated bordellos...an unfortunate situation indeed, but that's what state-socialism and the retention of the market get you into.

Well seeing as how many people here seem to be saying that prostitution is ok, i would assume that therefore they have no problem with it being somehow carried on into socialism/communism.

One thing that will almost certainly prove impossible to implement: the revival of Christian sexual morality "wrapped in a red flag". If such attempts are made, they will serve only to make the red flag itself an object of contempt.
My views on this are not based on 'morals' but what will achieve equality among the genders.

Why is that unfortunate? I see nothing wrong with it.
Even ignoring that prostitution should be opposed by any Marxist, it would be ridiculous to have under Socialism resources spent on supplying bordellos and this kind of thing when there are more pressing issues, - such as preventing counter-revolution perhaps? - to be addressed.

Prostitution and pornography are affected by society's view of women but in and of themselves, they aren't sexist. The media's portayal of women is indeed a cause of sexism. Legal inequalities are a result of sexism not a cause of it.
Ok, so societies view of pornography and prostitution are affected by societies view of women. As i've said this view is derived partly from prostitution and pornography. We're going in a circle here.

Well like redstar said, there are many things of a sexual nature that aren't sexist. Also, what makes things of a sexual nature different from things of any other nature?
Again this has been taken out of context, i was replying to :

The only difference between the two is society's view of them. If everywhere you looked there were massage therapists in skimpy clothes selling products and rappers wrote songs about pimpin' their massage therapists, things would be different.

Ill elaborate more sometime tomorrow, its 5am and i'm tired.

[Tiki Man]

The majority seems to say prostitution is OK in a capitalist society where people need to support themselves in bad situations with little or no support from the government.

But I'm sure there would be an extremely low unemployment rate in a well established communist society, therefore not forcing people into those desperate positions as to have sex with some stranger for supporting yourself.

Anything that is needed is OK. For all generations, reproduction has been needed to live. That's why 99.99999% of people accept having sex with a partner. Also included may be farting. Farting is required. Farting could be considered rude by people, but even they easily forgive. The prostitutes need prostitution to live, therefore it is accepted by the majority.

[canikickit]

Well seeing as how many people here seem to be saying that prostitution is ok, i would assume that therefore they have no problem with it being somehow carried on into socialism/communism.

I think most people here have portrayed themselves as concuring with redstar's assertion that, under communism, prostitution would be impossible.

I'm also not sure who it is that has said that prostitution is "okay". Prostitution is not "okay" under capitalism, but it should be legal.


it would be ridiculous to have under Socialism resources spent on supplying bordellos and this kind of thing when there are more pressing issues, - such as preventing counter-revolution perhaps? - to be addressed.


All issues must be addressed.
"Counter-revolution" does not come into being in the abstract. It comes into being as a result of dissatisfaction with the revolution. People will not be satisfied with a revolution which leaves peopel out of work.

[BuyOurEverything]

Well, I think working for a state-managed bordello would have a tendency to generate the other characteristics of wage-slavery over time.

"Speed-up", for example...the pressure from the boss to "do more work" for the same pay.

I don't think it would be very pleasant.

You could obviously be say the same for any profession. I don't think that state run industries would result in that and I think they are necessary. I gather that you oppose all state run industries and I think it would have been more accurate to simply say that than just say you oppose state run brothels.


Even ignoring that prostitution should be opposed by any Marxist, it would be ridiculous to have under Socialism resources spent on supplying bordellos and this kind of thing when there are more pressing issues, - such as preventing counter-revolution perhaps? - to be addressed.

You're right, we shouldn't spend any resources on, say, housing becuause we should spend our resources on food. If we were in an emergeny situation and didn't have nearly the resources we needed to fight counter-revolutionaries then I would say fine, cut spening on brothels but just because there are more important things, doesn't mean that something is unimportant.


Ok, so societies view of pornography and prostitution are affected by societies view of women. As i've said this view is derived partly from prostitution and pornography. We're going in a circle here.

You don't think that if there was no sexism, men and women could provide sex to people with no lack of respect to their respectice genders?


The majority seems to say prostitution is OK in a capitalist society where people need to support themselves in bad situations with little or no support from the government.

But I'm sure there would be an extremely low unemployment rate in a well established communist society, therefore not forcing people into those desperate positions as to have sex with some stranger for supporting yourself.

Probably the same situations which force people to, say, put smaller boxes into larger boxes (I'm going to wear that analogy to death) in order to support themselves.


Anything that is needed is OK. For all generations, reproduction has been needed to live. That's why 99.99999% of people accept having sex with a partner.

Did I understand that correctly? Are you seriously saying that 99.99999% of people have sex in order to produce offspring?


I think most people here have portrayed themselves as concuring with redstar's assertion that, under communism, prostitution would be impossible.

Just like putting boxes into other boxes in order to support yourself would be immpossible under communism.


I'm also not sure who it is that has said that prostitution is "okay". Prostitution is not "okay" under capitalism, but it should be legal.

Well what do you mean by prostitution, having sex for money or having sex as a proffesion? Doing anything for money would be illegal but as a proffesion, having sex should be treated no differently than giving a massage or making a movie.

[kylie]

Sorry its taken a few days.

Anything that is needed is OK.
George Bush needs you to completely accept and intergrate as your own views the current dominant ideology in the US. Don't think, just take their word for it. Is this ok?

The majority seems to say prostitution is OK in a capitalist society where people need to support themselves in bad situations with little or no support from the government.


I think most people here have portrayed themselves as concuring with redstar's assertion that, under communism, prostitution would be impossible.
I'm also not sure who it is that has said that prostitution is "okay". Prostitution is not "okay" under capitalism, but it should be legal.

Ok, well i've been thinking you have ben saying prostitution should be allowed under communism too. That comment was wrong by me then.

"Counter-revolution" does not come into being in the abstract. It comes into being as a result of dissatisfaction with the revolution. People will not be satisfied with a revolution which leaves peopel out of work.
By counter-revolution i was talking of the problems that will inevitably be caused by Capitalist countries if a country was to move to Socialism. Though that was just an example to show how there are things much more important than creating publically owned prostitutes. Seeing as how one of the core uses of Socialism is to increase production enough to meet the needs of the entire population, and assist other countries where revolution may spread, i doubt a situation would arise where jobs couldn't be found for people.

we shouldn't spend any resources on, say, housing becuause we should spend our resources on food
I was talking more about labour resources, both the women involved, and the administrative labour that would be needed to organise it.

You don't think that if there was no sexism, men and women could provide sex to people with no lack of respect to their respectice genders?

No. I think that if all sexism was eradicated, and then for some reason prostitution was introduced, sexism would reappear.

[Saint-Just]

You don't think that if there was no sexism, men and women could provide sex to people with no lack of respect to their respectice genders?

No. I think that if all sexism was eradicated, and then for some reason prostitution was introduced, sexism would reappear.

feoric, what they suggest is that in a communist society people would provide sex for each other, people would have sex simply because they wanted to have sex. It is like prostitution but without the money. In prostitution two people consent to have sex with each other, one for pleasure and one for money. They suggest that in communist society without currency, people would simply have sex with each other for pleasure. Although, if they believe in a transitional stage to communism that would have strong capitalist elements in its economy then it would be prostitution.

[BuyOurEverything]

I was talking more about labour resources, both the women involved, and the administrative labour that would be needed to organise it.

Resources are resources. It takes labour to build a house and gather, produce and tranport food. You just dodged the question.


No. I think that if all sexism was eradicated, and then for some reason prostitution was introduced, sexism would reappear.

Why? If men and women both sold their services in a world where there was no discrimination, why would you think that sexism would again arise? Do you think that men are naturally dominant regardless of society?

[Saint-Just]

There are masses more female prostitutes than there are male prostitutes. Obviously males and females are different in that it is almost exclusively males who would want to go and have sex with someone they had never previously been introduced.

How many women enjoy being prostitutes? Since women do not use prostitutes it is evident that they rarely seek to have sex with men they do not know, therefore you could conclude that prostitutes do not enjoy it and so they are usually doing it for the money. Thus I would suggest that incidences of people having sex for no other reason than pleasure will be few in a society where money does not exist.

With prostitution it is men who are given a sexually aggressive status since it is almost entirely men who use prostitutes. Sexual aggression behaviour towards someone that their only purpose is for sex and that you seek to extract this act from them. Men seeing women as having the sole purpose of sex is sexism in one of its forms. Thus prostitution leads to sexism.

[Alejandro C]

Chairman Mao is right, prostitution must lead to sexism. most femists would agree that the evils that lie behind prostitution and pornography are the objectifications that take place. with prostitution especially, women or men are treated exclusively as sexual 'objects' -inanimate things with no feelings. something that is there expressidly for the customers pleasure. psychologically no more meaningful than a machine. when you treat sex like this, taking away all emotional ties and instituting an 'ownership' of the other person because you can buy them, you are horribly getting rid of everything there is to celebrate about sex. the treating of the opposite sex as objects during a point that can be the most critically psycologically of a relationship between the two sexes will undoubtedly lead to sexism. it would create a feeling of power, the same motivation for rape. it would also create a feeling of superiority and a forced submissiveness on the partner. this would probably create both a hyper-feminism and a renewed mysogeny. historically i would have to believe that the mysogeny would dominate since in indepent cultures it is overwhelmingly most often that mens sexuality dominated( though i don't like the sound of that sentence either and realize that its not very grounded, so please argue other points first)

[BuyOurEverything]

There are masses more female prostitutes than there are male prostitutes. Obviously males and females are different in that it is almost exclusively males who would want to go and have sex with someone they had never previously been introduced.

You really think this is a genetic difference between men and women and not just a societal difference? Just go to San Fransisco and there are oodles more man prostitutes and San Fransisco is by no means even close to free of sexism, just generall a little more open.


How many women enjoy being prostitutes?

How many small-box-in-big-box-putter-inners enjoy being small-box-in-big-box-putter-inners?


Since women do not use prostitutes it is evident that they rarely seek to have sex with men they do not know, therefore you could conclude that prostitutes do not enjoy it and so they are usually doing it for the money.

I really don't think you can speak for all women. Part of this may be due to the lack of male prostitutes. A larger part is probably because of our sexist culture.


Thus I would suggest that incidences of people having sex for no other reason than pleasure will be few in a society where money does not exist.

How would the lack of MONEY restrict the amount of people having sex for PLEASURE? Explain your reasoning.


Chairman Mao is right, prostitution must lead to sexism. most femists would agree that the evils that lie behind prostitution and pornography are the objectifications that take place. with prostitution especially, women or men are treated exclusively as sexual 'objects' -inanimate things with no feelings. something that is there expressidly for the customers pleasure.

The waitress at the restaurant's express purpose is to please me. Anyone who provides any serivice in exchange for money is in this same situation.


when you treat sex like this, taking away all emotional ties and instituting an 'ownership' of the other person because you can buy them, you are horribly getting rid of everything there is to celebrate about sex.

Maybe everything you celebrate about sex but not everybody thinks like you. Obviously many people have given up trying to make every sexual experiance a hugely emotional act of connecting and who are you to tell anyone what sex should or shouldn't be?


historically i would have to believe that the mysogeny would dominate since in indepent cultures it is overwhelmingly most often that mens sexuality dominated( though i don't like the sound of that sentence either and realize that its not very grounded, so please argue other points first)

So because something hasn't existed historically, it can never exist? There's something called progress.

[Alejandro C]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 09:19 PM

Chairman Mao is right, prostitution must lead to sexism. most femists would agree that the evils that lie behind prostitution and pornography are the objectifications that take place. with prostitution especially, women or men are treated exclusively as sexual 'objects' -inanimate things with no feelings. something that is there expressidly for the customers pleasure.

The waitress at the restaurant's express purpose is to please me. Anyone who provides any serivice in exchange for money is in this same situation.


when you treat sex like this, taking away all emotional ties and instituting an 'ownership' of the other person because you can buy them, you are horribly getting rid of everything there is to celebrate about sex.

Maybe everything you celebrate about sex but not everybody thinks like you. Obviously many people have given up trying to make every sexual experiance a hugely emotional act of connecting and who are you to tell anyone what sex should or shouldn't be?

the waitresses are there to bring you food, not act out anything you want sexually. all other services in society are based on something. bankers keep track of your money, actors make you laugh/cry/think, priest make you hate yourself, etc.
prostitutes are there expressedly to fuck you and take your money. should sex be something you should buy? if you can buy sex why not buy a wife, or buy a son, or buy a slave.
paying money for someone to be submissive is twisted. it is the mentality that 'i'm going to enjoy this because they don't really want to do this for me but they will if i pay them enough' ' i can buy you' ' i can own you '

[BuyOurEverything]

the waitresses are there to bring you food, not act out anything you want sexually. all other services in society are based on something. bankers keep track of your money, actors make you laugh/cry/think, priest make you hate yourself, etc.
prostitutes are there expressedly to fuck you and take your money. should sex be something you should buy? if you can buy sex why not buy a wife, or buy a son, or buy a slave.
paying money for someone to be submissive is twisted. it is the mentality that 'i'm going to enjoy this because they don't really want to do this for me but they will if i pay them enough' ' i can buy you' ' i can own you '

Prostitutes are there do give someone sex, just like waitresses are there to give them food and doctors are there to heal people. I see no reason for sex not to be something you buy, if you want to. I really don't see the connection from that to buying a wifekidslave. First of all, there is no obligations for members of a family. A 'wife' can just leave if she wants so it would be useless to buy one. If you're "buying" ie paying a slave then they're not really a slave at all are they? As for buying a son, do you mean like adopting? If prostitution was socialised, then the only people doing it would be those that wanted to. If a person wanted to have a dominant fantasy, that's really nobody's buisness, unless of course you want to punish people for their sexual fantasies.

[kylie]

Resources are resources. It takes labour to build a house and gather, produce and tranport food. You just dodged the question.

You're right, we shouldn't spend any resources on, say, housing becuause we should spend our resources on food. If we were in an emergeny situation and didn't have nearly the resources we needed to fight counter-revolutionaries then I would say fine, cut spening on brothels but just because there are more important things, doesn't mean that something is unimportant.
What question.

Why? If men and women both sold their services in a world where there was no discrimination, why would you think that sexism would again arise?
It goes back to what i said at the start that a man being able to go and use a woman for their own wants without knowing them and leaving straight afterwards would affect their view of all women. Due to them being objectified, and the way that this experience would affect how they see all women.

Do you think that men are naturally dominant regardless of society?
Sexisms origins are natural, though no i don't think that now we are more developed and less dependant on our physical side that sexism should naturally occur. It would be when sexist institutions were input that sexism would reappear. Though if sexism was removed, like you said, i don't see how it is that prostitution could come back, as i would think it had been identified as a source.

You really think this is a genetic difference between men and women and not just a societal difference? Just go to San Fransisco and there are oodles more man prostitutes and San Fransisco is by no means even close to free of sexism, just generall a little more open.
This doesn't neccessarily mean that in general men and women equally are interested in using prostitution. It could just be that this larger proportion of male prostitutes than usual is due to the fact that male prostitutes think this is where a lot of male prostitutes are, and therefore go there themselves, where they will be less 'unusual' than in other places. Or if it is that the majority of male prostitutes there were raised there, then couldn't it be that its due to the large amount there that this affects people who are brought up in this environment? They are brought up to think more than in other places that it is a possible thing to do?
This doesn't explain how to start with the city came to have more male prostitutes than normal though, i don't have the time to try and find out about that, but i will when i next come on here probably friday.

I really don't think you can speak for all women. Part of this may be due to the lack of male prostitutes. A larger part is probably because of our sexist culture.
It has been proven that due to the physical make up of males and females, that men are affected more by sexual thoughts than women. In general, that is.

[Saint-Just]

You really think this is a genetic difference between men and women and not just a societal difference? Just go to San Fransisco and there are oodles more man prostitutes and San Fransisco is by no means even close to free of sexism, just generall a little more open.

I do not know about the social and/or genetic differences between men and women to a great enough degree that I can comment on it. Anyway, I should have specified straight sex and straight prostitution, sexism does not exist between two homosexuals and therefore homosexual male prostitutes are irrelevent (I am assuming the male prostitutes in San Fransisco are homosexuals).


I really don't think you can speak for all women. Part of this may be due to the lack of male prostitutes. A larger part is probably because of our sexist culture.

When studies were done in the UK they found that women were almost certain not to have sex with a stranger whilst 90% of men would. They attributed this to genetic predispositions that make women look for a man who will look after them and their child whilst men only look for a woman to have sex with immediately. I certainly don't think there is a lack of male prostitues, I should imagine many men would be willing to fulfill this role, but there is no market for it. You could suggest that human should strive to ignore these genetic differences. I think we should reconcile them, if men want only sex and women only want a partner (its not entirely true but it is to a good degree) then men should provide women with secure partnership and women should provide men with sex.

Prostitutes are there do give someone sex, just like waitresses are there to give them food and doctors are there to heal people.

If sex is the same as food the rape (stealing sex) is as severe a crime as stealing food. I think you would agree with this since you see sex as not necessarily having any emotional implications, it would be as much of a crime as hitting someone.

[kylie]

(I am assuming the male prostitutes in San Fransisco are homosexuals).

Oh, i was assuming they were heterosexual. If this isn't the case then i agree, they are irrelivant in terms of sexism.

[che's long lost daughter]

Prostitution is everywhere...even in my country where people are primarily Catholic, it is very rampant. I am a woman and I know what these women are going through. I am not saying that I am pro-prostitution. I feel sorry for these women but this is their only choice. You can't blame them or ridicule them...if only they have another choice, I am sure they won't be doing this. The problem is with the men who treat these women as though they are sex objects...yes, their job is to have sex with you but they are still humans who have dignity so please, treat them with respect, they deserve it as much as all women do.

[BuyOurEverything]

What question.

Sorry, I should have said the issue. You said that because prostitution is less important than fighting counter-revolutionaries, it should be funded. I said that, by this logic, we shouldn't build houses because food is more important.


Sexisms origins are natural, though no i don't think that now we are more developed and less dependant on our physical side that sexism should naturally occur. It would be when sexist institutions were input that sexism would reappear. Though if sexism was removed, like you said, i don't see how it is that prostitution could come back, as i would think it had been identified as a source.

But my point is that prostitution isn't inherantly a sexist institution, sexism just makes it so. Just as a lot of movies are sexist, this doesn't mean that movies are inherantly sexist (sorry I couldn't think of a better example.)


This doesn't neccessarily mean that in general men and women equally are interested in using prostitution. It could just be that this larger proportion of male prostitutes than usual is due to the fact that male prostitutes think this is where a lot of male prostitutes are, and therefore go there themselves, where they will be less 'unusual' than in other places. Or if it is that the majority of male prostitutes there were raised there, then couldn't it be that its due to the large amount there that this affects people who are brought up in this environment? They are brought up to think more than in other places that it is a possible thing to do?
This doesn't explain how to start with the city came to have more male prostitutes than normal though, i don't have the time to try and find out about that, but i will when i next come on here probably friday.

If there wasn't a demand for them, they wouldn't be there. Maybe they started being one because it was more accepted but if they weren't getting any buisness, they would have quit shortly after.


It has been proven that due to the physical make up of males and females, that men are affected more by sexual thoughts than women. In general, that is.

How archaic. You accuse prostitution of being sexist yet you stick to the sexist ideology that women don't really enjoy sex.


I do not know about the social and/or genetic differences between men and women to a great enough degree that I can comment on it. Anyway, I should have specified straight sex and straight prostitution, sexism does not exist between two homosexuals and therefore homosexual male prostitutes are irrelevent (I am assuming the male prostitutes in San Fransisco are homosexuals).

You say that a male can pay a male for sex or a female pay a female without discriminating against them, so why couldn't a man pay a woman or a woman pay a man without discriminating against them. Do you think that if some prostitutes were black, people would discriminate against black people in general? Even if the world was free of racism?


When studies were done in the UK they found that women were almost certain not to have sex with a stranger whilst 90% of men would. They attributed this to genetic predispositions that make women look for a man who will look after them and their child whilst men only look for a woman to have sex with immediately. I certainly don't think there is a lack of male prostitues, I should imagine many men would be willing to fulfill this role, but there is no market for it. You could suggest that human should strive to ignore these genetic differences. I think we should reconcile them, if men want only sex and women only want a partner (its not entirely true but it is to a good degree) then men should provide women with secure partnership and women should provide men with sex.

I don't know how they came to the conclusion that it was genetic. If you did a survey 200 years ago (when the human race was still genetically the same as it is today) and asked women what they thought about working outside them home, I'd imagine they would have been opposed to it. Therefor, could you not conclude that genetically, women have an aversion to working outside them home?


If sex is the same as food the rape (stealing sex) is as severe a crime as stealing food. I think you would agree with this since you see sex as not necessarily having any emotional implications, it would be as much of a crime as hitting someone.

First of all, you assume that all theft is the same, from stealing a person's wallet to stealing their house and car. Secondly, rape robs a person of their dignity, not just a service, and the rapist dominates them which is different from just stealing. The third obvious difference is that rape is a physical attack and you actually physically hurt the victim.


I feel sorry for these women

How humane of you... do you feel the same about people trying to support themselves by working at Burger King?


if only they have another choice, I am sure they won't be doing this

You're sure are you? If you didn't need money, would you go to work?


The problem is with the men who treat these women as though they are sex objects...yes, their job is to have sex with you but they are still humans who have dignity so please, treat them with respect

So you don't believe that these women are sex objects just because they sell sex? Does this mean that you don't think prostitution is inherantly sexist? If so, how can you be opposed to it?


they deserve it as much as all women do.

Exaclty, there's nothing inherantly degrading about their proffesion and people should stop treating them like there is.

[Tiki Man]

I just don't think the government should oppose or promote prostitution. If the women feel the need to be prostitutes, they need the job.

However, what we could do is have government-funded "dating agencies" and stress loyalty to one partner. The need for prostitution would go down, therefore lowering government interference needed.

In fact, it should be a crime to cheat on your married spouse.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Oh yeah, prostitution... great stuff... let's just ENCOURAGE women to be used like objects and playtoys for men when they're feeling trapped and scared enough in society as they already are... Fuck that. Let's LIBERATE women, not continue to use them as fuckdolls.

Women hold up half the sky!

[BuyOurEverything]

Oh yeah, prostitution... great stuff... let's just ENCOURAGE women to be used like objects and playtoys for men when they're feeling trapped and scared enough in society as they already are... Fuck that. Let's LIBERATE women, not continue to use them as fuckdolls.

Women hold up half the sky!

Er, maybe that was too harsh.

Try not using so much rhetoric and actually debate the issues. Explain to me why prostitution is neccesarily more sexist than any other proffesion.

[Saint-Just]

I'm with you Mazenov.


You say that a male can pay a male for sex or a female pay a female without discriminating against them, so why couldn't a man pay a woman or a woman pay a man without discriminating against them. Do you think that if some prostitutes were black, people would discriminate against black people in general? Even if the world was free of racism?

Some? Some prostitutes are black, in some countries the majority of them are. I would suggest that if the majority of prostitutes were black they would be discriminated against.


I don't know how they came to the conclusion that it was genetic. If you did a survey 200 years ago (when the human race was still genetically the same as it is today) and asked women what they thought about working outside them home, I'd imagine they would have been opposed to it. Therefor, could you not conclude that genetically, women have an aversion to working outside them home?

I don't know how they came to that conclusion either, but I know very little about science, as I said I cannot discuss science well.


First of all, you assume that all theft is the same, from stealing a person's wallet to stealing their house and car. Secondly, rape robs a person of their dignity, not just a service, and the rapist dominates them which is different from just stealing. The third obvious difference is that rape is a physical attack and you actually physically hurt the victim.

Finally you admit that sex has some emotional implications.

I don't think we will resolve this. Our view of sex is fundamentally different in that we attribute different value to it.

[BuyOurEverything]

Some? Some prostitutes are black, in some countries the majority of them are. I would suggest that if the majority of prostitutes were black they would be discriminated against.

If the majority of prostitutes were black, even if that was a very small fraction of black people, you think that black people in general would be treated as whores? Also, you say if the majority were black. So you admit that if prostitutes were half male and half female, there would be no discrimination?


Finally you admit that sex has some emotional implications.

Sex CAN have emotional implications. I've never debated that.


I don't think we will resolve this. Our view of sex is fundamentally different in that we attribute different value to it.

It's not really about our personal views of sex. If you think that all sex should be a deep emotional experience, then don't hire prostitutes. Not everyone thinks that way though, and they should be allowed to do what they want.

[Saint-Just]

If half of prostitutes were male and half female, yes I agree there would not be sexism. However, that will never happen since females are not demanding male prostitutes.

If sex has emotional implications it is obviously not the same as food or receiving another service, it is unique and should be treated as such.


It's not really about our personal views of sex. If you think that all sex should be a deep emotional experience, then don't hire prostitutes. Not everyone thinks that way though, and they should be allowed to do what they want.

Well, I believe it is fundamentally wrong and that using a prostitute is a crime that harms societ and therefore I am not willing to let people do what they want in regards to having sex.

[The Engineer]

What if food did have emotional implications? should it be treated differently? Obviously not. It's food, dammit! It gets eaten, not judged. Emotion has nothing to do with it at all. There are plenty of people who get emotional about lots of crazy stuff, the issue has to be aproached objectively. You say prostitutes are treated as objects by society because sex (horrors!) is involved. Big deal. They perform a service consentually for money. McDonalds workers are treated as objects (burger *****, get me a big mac on the double!) , they too perform a service for money. Sex is not involved (unless somebody hasn't filled me in on something) at McDOnalds, but people treat all kinds of workers as objects. Simply because a person gets emotional about something doesn't make it right or wrong. What's wrong is abusing people, harming them, and taking away their rights. If a person consents to an activity, than that activity cannot be possibly infringing on their rights. Protecting your own sensitive morals is no reason to attack prostitutes in general who haven't done anybody any wrong.

[Saint-Just]

Thats fine 'The Engineer', but I think you will find that the law is based on morality, and it also takes emotion into account. Unless you want to rewrite the basis for western law then your points are not relevant.

[BuyOurEverything]

are plenty of people who get emotional about lots of crazy stuff, the issue has to be aproached objectively.

Exactly what I was going to say.


Thats fine 'The Engineer', but I think you will find that the law is based on morality, and it also takes emotion into account. Unless you want to rewrite the basis for western law then your points are not relevant.

Well law shouldn't be based on personal morality because everybody's is different. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if a "sexually liberal" person wrote the laws and said everyone had to sleep with more than one partner. ANd for the record, I obviously completely support rewriting the basis for western law.

[The Engineer]

I totally agree that western law is based on morality. That's why it is total crap. By basing the law, universal and blind, on "public morality," you immediately create antagonism between those who support the morals and those who dod not. Think of Rome or Greece: As a communist, i'd guess you are definitely against slavery, but the Roman or Greek "public morality" had no problem with it at all. Hell, the slaves outnumbered the free people (wow kinda like today,) but the "public" view was that slavery was acceptable. No matter how nicely you treat your slaves, they're still gonna HATE you, so basing a law or permitting a practice based on how people "feel" is completel wrong.

Remember pierre Trudeau? The state has no place in the nation's bedroom. Absolutely right. When we apply morals to law, what we have is as effective in creating opression and antagonism as capitalism. Maybe even more so. I'm sure most prostitutes resent the criminalization of their jobs more than the general opression of the workers. The point is, unless a law promotes fairness and choice, it is flawed.

Which goes to prove that western morality laws are flawwed as well. Face it, when was the last time you saw justice occur in the courts. Its just another way that the capitalist squeezes the worker. The law only barely works as a method to "resolve" disputes, and that means buying or intimidationg the less wealthy party, regardless of who's right.

How can a socialist, free of guilt, support a system that leads directly to class/group antagonism? Morals, ever subjective and changing, can't have any place in a system that has widespread power over a population. The only thing that HAS a place in such a system is the preservation of rights and freedoms.

[redstar2000]

In fact, it should be a crime to cheat on your married spouse.

"Hello, this is Jones at the Department of Public Morality...I'd like to place an order."
...

"Yes, I want to order 10,000 new prisons for immediate delivery."

...

"I know it's a lot, but do you have any idea how many people cheat on their spouse?"

...

"Don't worry about the funding--we have priority."

...

"Get back to me when you know how soon the first one will be ready. And hurry!"

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

I understand what you are saying 'The Engineer', but I think the morals that are the basis for our laws are forever changing as the law does. These morals are a reflection of changing attitudes and changing culture in our societies.

You realise this:

Morals, ever subjective and changing, can't have any place in a system that has widespread power over a population.

But I do not understand your views.

[BuyOurEverything]

I understand what you are saying 'The Engineer', but I think the morals that are the basis for our laws are forever changing as the law does. These morals are a reflection of changing attitudes and changing culture in our societies.

But you're assuming that everyone in a society has more or less the same morals and they change at more or less the same pace.

[The Engineer]

Regardless of how they change, you are still asserting that the morals belong there in the first place. You say that they reflect the changing attitudes and culture, but this is why they fail. Are people who do not share your morals not of your culture? Certainly not, they play a large role in defining your culture.

Because morals differ from person to person, there can not be any one accurate representation of a "culture's morals." If one were to try to describe a culture that consisted of 51% Nazis and 49% Jews, then one might conclude that because the Jewish moral view was in minority, that the Nazis could ignore the rights of almost half the country. Now, if this finding is made into law, the rights of people are being violated. Nazis have no right to kill Jews, even if the Nazis think they do. I highly doubt anyone would stand to have their rights taken away if 51% percent of the populations didn't like them. There's no way a person would think it's the "noble" thing to do, for the greater good, if the greater good is clearly WRONG!

A law that has its basis in morality cannot be fair or equal to all people because the moral it is based on has varying levels of importance to everyone. Obviously, no two people are exactly alike, so the only way to garuantee justice is to base a law on the rigts of humanity, that stand for everyone regardless of how they "feel."

Because a person engages in an activity that you find disrespectful, it does not interfere with your rights in any way. Performing a trade of goods for services, such as sex for money, does not detract from your life in any way but what you choose to allow it to. You have chosen to be disgusted by prostitution, for whatever reason, but because it does not interfere with you at all, there's is no justification for it. I might as well be serverly disturbed by Telephone repairman, even though i do no own a phone, or have had one try to kill me or anything like that.

Simply put, morals are not solid nor credible enough to form the basis for a government's policy. The law cannot be based on the heterogeneous feelings of a population and still ensure the fair and equal application of justice for everyone.

[kylie]

Sorry, I should have said the issue. You said that because prostitution is less important than fighting counter-revolutionaries, it should be funded. I said that, by this logic, we shouldn't build houses because food is more important.
I assume you meant to say i said it shouldn't be funded. No, that doesn't mean i support 100% funding for the most important thing, and nothing for everything else. People need food, people need housing, so resources should be spent on these, in the appropriate amounts. But for prostitution no one needs it, and only a very small amount of people want it, so the relative amount of resources that it should be given - this ignoring the fact that it contradicts Marxist ideology - would be negligable. It's similar to drugs, there would probably be some in socialism who would want them, but there is much more important things for the economy to focus on, and so its unlikely there would ever be resources free to produce them.

But my point is that prostitution isn't inherantly a sexist institution, sexism just makes it so. Just as a lot of movies are sexist, this doesn't mean that movies are inherantly sexist
I think it is. Men go to these places, use women as objects, and thus have their views of women changed, i don't see how it is possible to remove the sexist element of prostitution from it. As for movies, i don't think that comparision is fair, its possible to have movies that don't encourage sexism, and in fact help to oppose it. Because it's not a core part of that industry - women being used by men. On the other hand this is the case with prostitution.

If there wasn't a demand for them, they wouldn't be there. Maybe they started being one because it was more accepted but if they weren't getting any buisness, they would have quit shortly after.
The same explanation for the supply could explain why there is a relatively high demand for them too, people know, i've forgotten where it was, Chicago? People know that that is an area where there is a higher amount of male prostitutes than is usual, and so go there to make use of this.
But if as Chairman Mao said, it is actually homosexual male prostitutes, then it simply can be explained in that like i said, males thinking is affected and influenced more by sex than women.

How archaic. You accuse prostitution of being sexist yet you stick to the sexist ideology that women don't really enjoy sex.
This isn't an ideology, it's a proven fact. And i don't think i ever said that women don't enjoy sex. I said men in general are more affected by sex in their everyday thinking than women.
I've no idea how you managed to interpret 'that men are affected more by sexual thoughts than women'
as 'that men enjoy having sex more than women, who infact don't enjoy it at all'.


You can't blame them or ridicule them...if only they have another choice, I am sure they won't be doing this.

In the case of Cuba from what i've read and heard the reason for these women becoming prostitutes is in the hope that a wealthy western tourist will take them back with them. Cuba is able to provide well enough for them, the reason for them becoming prostitutes is out of greed and being tricked into thinking that the US etc can provide better for them.

If the women feel the need to be prostitutes, they need the job.

Because someone thinks they need something, they really do need it, you seem to be saying. I don't really know what to say about this, it's just such an, odd, view.

Well, I believe it is fundamentally wrong and that using a prostitute is a crime that harms societ and therefore I am not willing to let people do what they want in regards to having sex
Exactly, it harms society in whole, and so the view that it can be left to the individual to decide is wrong.

What if food did have emotional implications? should it be treated differently? Obviously not.
Yes, if it had emotional implications, that caused experiences of it to affect us deeply, it should be treated differently. But thats a fairly ridiculous analogy, as shown by your reaction to it. It would cause the entire value of food in society to change, while you seem to be viewing it from its old position.

Simply because a person gets emotional about something doesn't make it right or wrong.
The point isn't that because prostitution involves sex which is an important social relationship that it should not be allowed. It is that because this therefore causes the persons view of women in general to change, and how they treat them, that it should be opposed.

On the subject of 'morals', i disagree with them being used entirely, in the same way that using terms like 'good' and 'evil' should be. They are ambiguous, with religious origins, and don't help Marxism in any way, in my opinion.

[Saint-Just]

Regardless of how they change, you are still asserting that the morals belong there in the first place.

I believe that morals exist and that the argument that they do not is false. Morals are a human construct based on relative judgements, similar to human judgements on many things such as value, right or wrong etc. I don't really understand the argument that morality does not exist. Moreover I would suggest that it is a credible idea and particularly important in society.


You have chosen to be disgusted by prostitution, for whatever reason, but because it does not interfere with you at all, there's is no justification for it.

Everything in society affects me. With everyone else I am part of the sum of people that make up society. We all have a relationship with the society we are in and everything that happens in society affects us since we are all part of this same relationship.

[redstar2000]

Men go to these places, use women as objects, and thus have their views of women changed...

Isn't it, in fact, the other way around? Men are raised in a patriarchal society to regard women as objects to be used...and using prostitutes is just one of the ways to do that.

If there was no such thing as prostitution, would not sexist men use women in other ways?

Don't they do that now?


...males thinking is affected and influenced more by sex than women.

Although you repeat this several times and even insist that it's "a fact", I remain highly skeptical.

Social "research" might indeed report that men say they "think about sex" more than women do.

Both men and women could be telling the truth in such surveys. They could also be lying.

And there is no way to find out.

Many men are well aware of the fact that "men are supposed to be studly", always ready and eager for sex and willing to copulate at the sight of a female ankle or some other body part. How many men are going to say "actually, sex is really not all that interesting to me", even if that is how they really feel? It would be "unmanly" and downright embarrassing.

Women, of course, face the "Catch-22" dilemma. If they claim to be very interested in sex, they are "sluts"! If they claim to be uninterested, they are "frigid" or even "ball-busters"! It would be very foolish for any woman to give an honest account of her feelings to anyone that she did not completely trust...no matter what her feelings might be.

These caveats apply to all forms of social research that depend on "self-reporting". Unless there's some way to independently verify the reports, the "evidence" remains feeble and unreliable.

Personally, I don't have the time or patience to concoct "socially acceptable" lies. When poll-takers call me on the phone, I hang up on them.


In the case of Cuba from what I've read and heard the reason for these women becoming prostitutes is in the hope that a wealthy western tourist will take them back with them. Cuba is able to provide well enough for them; the reason for them becoming prostitutes is out of greed and being tricked into thinking that the US, etc., can provide better for them.

Bad girls! Greedy sluts! Put them in a Labor Camp!!

Really, this is too much!

Since you are not female and do not live in Cuba, I do not see how you can make statements like this. Long-range telepathy?

If you've simply read such things, how is it that you repeat them unquestioningly?

What would motivate someone to write something like that, even if it were not true or true for a very tiny minority of Cuban women? Someone trying to make Cuba look bad, or Cuban women look bad, or both?


Because someone thinks they need something, they really do need it, you seem to be saying. I don't really know what to say about this, it's just such an, odd, view.

Not as odd as the view that suggests that because someone thinks they need something, they really don't need it.


Well, I believe it is fundamentally wrong and that using a prostitute is a crime that harms society and therefore I am not willing to let people do what they want in regards to having sex.

Exactly, it harms society in whole, and so the view that it can be left to the individual to decide is wrong.

"Believe" is the operative word here.

People can "believe" any nonsense they wish...but when they wish to impose their belief on society, then it becomes a political question.

You wish to create a "morals police" to persecute hookers and johns? Fine.

Should they respond to your efforts with carefully directed violent resistance, that is only to be expected.

Guess who I'll support!


I don't really understand the argument that morality does not exist. Moreover I would suggest that it is a credible idea and particularly important in society.

I think that when sensible people say that "morality does not exist", they are using verbal shorthand for a more complete statement: there is no verifiable support for any kind of objective or universal standard of conduct that is independent of particular social arrangements in particular societies.

Anything that you might consider "immoral" has, in fact, actually been "moral" at one time or another, in one place or another, etc.

Humans are very inventive, and the spectrum of morality/immorality is incredibly diverse.

But it is knowledge of this diversity that destroys its "credibility". Everyone knows or will learn that "morality" is really custom...and can be changed in any way people want.

Thus, if you want a particular custom created or destroyed or changed in some fashion, an appeal to "morality" is irrelevant. You must justify your proposal with argument and evidence.


Everything in society affects me. With everyone else I am part of the sum of people that make up society. We all have a relationship with the society we are in and everything that happens in society affects us since we are all part of this same relationship.

Quite true. When hookers, junkies, the homeless, and other despised members of society are relentlessly persecuted for "immorality", it is also an attack on me...even though I am not a hooker, a john, or a junkie.

As long as there is a single person in prison for breaking an unjust law, I am not free.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas