andrewducker | Corner Cases Example

Surely that could count as abusing a person's human rights? Sex can hurt a LOT, for starters. And what about someone who's been raped or otherwise abused?

I think if I was a German citizen faced with that choice I'd be trying to move to a different country.

Picking strawberries on your knees for 10 hours a day hurts, too.

Forced sex has an immense psychologically damaging effect on the majority of people - that effect is long lasting and has a broad reaching effect. Picking strawberries on your knees hurts but has an immensely smaller effect.

Let's aim to stop people having to hurt their knees at some point in the future, but target the things which have a far far greater effect now.

It's disingenous to say that having sex with a customer in a brothel -- where you can yell for help if something goes wrong -- in a situation where you are basically in control is the same as being raped in an alley (by using the term "forced sex", which is typically applied to rape, you suggest these are essentially the same).

If something goes wrong!?!? The point is that the women do not want to take part in sex acts like this at all - if such a situation were to potentially occur then something has already gone wrong.

I used the term forced sex because that is basically what it is. Yeah there is a difference between someone taking a job as a prostitute because otherwise they would not have money to buy food and so starve (for example), and a woman being raped. I didn't say there wasn't but the sex is still forced, and both circumstances are very abhorrent and should be prevented.

Out of interest why are you arguing such alternative positions on this issue? Do you think that women should have to become prostitutes if that is the only job available? Do you care about the mental anguish this would cause them?

I don't think that becoming a prostitute necessarily causes more mental anguish than becoming a waitress, custodian, or factory worker, and the "sex is bad" arguments people have been advancing in this thread haven't convinced me otherwise.

It may not for you but it would for the majority of people. I am one of those people.

Are you saying that the majority of people do not believe that it would cause more mental anguish, or that they are just incorrect and they would find that it does not cause more mental anguish if they tried it?

I'm saying that most people would not suffer more mental anguish from being a prostitute than from working in any number of other occupations, despite what they might believe to the contrary. Obviously, there isn't a lot of hard evidence to support this, but there isn't a lot of hard evidence to support the contrary proposition, either.

I think there is an awfully large amount of evidence of the pain and suffering caused by people in the sexual trafficking industry for example. That you can't see this is quite frankly staggeringly mind boggling.

I find it pretty mind-boggling that you can't see the difference between sex workers in a country where prostitution is illegal, and those working in a place where the industry is legal and regulated. Why do you think prostitution was legalized to begin with? To hurt women?

And there's not a lot of hard evidence to support the idea that tax-payers suffer much from having to pay more taxes if they're unlucky enough to get on a higher wage - it's all just whinging about nothing as far as I can see.

Why don't they just get a life?

Thanks, I'd been wanting to see another example of what a "non sequitur" is! That was really helpful!

Well, you're the one whinging about where your hard-earned dollars go. The obvious choice for you is to quit your job so you won't have to pay income-tax and stop buying things so you don't have to pay sales-tax and then you'll be where you want to be.

So, you don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to, it's entirely your own choice. It's not as though you're being forced to, is it?

That's not a very good argument, since it could be used to justify any tax expenditure.

(no subject)

stillcarl.livejournal.com - 2005-02-01 06:52 (UTC) - Expand

I'd say it's social conditioning that "personal space" is to be controlled and is incredibly private and sensitive and must be pure, whereas your mind space, self-confidence, feelings of worth as a human being, are all free to be shat down the toilet. A teacher who pats you on the ass will get in a lot more trouble than a teacher who tells you to be quiet until you have something sensible to say. Which is likely to be a more genuinely damaging case, social concerns aside?

I have more nightmares about my ex-boss wreaking havoc on my life than about people who've taken control of my decisions, body, etc., away from me, or anything else along those lines. I have more personal fear of people making my life miserable through clever use of slander, libel and conspiracy than I have fear of rape or murder or ...

I want to live in a country where I can stay on the dole forever because I'm a Xenophobe.

You keep referring to "sex is bad arguments", but I think this shows your naievity. I haven't seen anyone here arguing that sex is bad, but rather that forced or non-consensual sex is bad. By saying we are arguing "sex is bad" you are setting up a straw man. I think sex is a good thing, but that forced sex is bad.

Limiting unemployment benefits to those who cannot work, rather than those who find the available jobs to be offensive, is not "forced sex". Withholding unemployment checks to those who don't wish to be sex workers is not "forced sex". No one is entitled to an unemployment check. It's a privilege extended to those who have made every effort to find work and failed, because with limited resources there are better uses for money than supporting people who don't like the jobs they might be able to do.

Um, excuse me for butting into the conversation, but telling a woman that she must take a job where she will have sex with random strangers is forced sex.

I'm just going to repeat what I said above, since it appears you didn't read it:

"Limiting unemployment benefits to those who cannot work, rather than those who find the available jobs to be offensive, is not "forced sex". Withholding unemployment checks to those who don't wish to be sex workers is not "forced sex". No one is entitled to an unemployment check. It's a privilege extended to those who have made every effort to find work and failed, because with limited resources there are better uses for money than supporting people who don't like the jobs they might be able to do."

No, I read it. I disagree. I know women who have chosen to work in the sex industry, both in countries where it is legal & where it is illegal. In both cases, I'm told that it's only a good move for those who are not coerced in any way. Withholding an unemployment check because a woman refuses to have sex with random strangers is coercion.

Kirsten, you're young and living in a city with a thriving sex industry. Go work in one of the local brothels for a week or so and THEN come back and argue this perspective.

I'm not saying this to be a smartass. I believe you are sincere (as opposed to just arguing to amuse yourself) but to anyone who knows you and what your life is like, your argument comes across as being incredibly insensitive and hypocritical. If you are going to make the argument that prostitution is no worse than data entry or picking strawberries, you have to be able to back it up.

Of course you won't get the same experience from "slumming it" as the women you're presuming to pass judgement upon - there is something horrific about entering the sex trade under coercion that you will fortunately miss out on - but even "slumming it" can be an enlightening experience. At the very least you won't be able to remain as ignorant as you are now.

If I were to do that, I'd be working in a country where prostitution is illegal. The whole context of the discussion is one where prostitution is legal.

And this is relevant because ...?

(no subject)

catamorphism.livejournal.com - 2005-02-01 00:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

tahari.livejournal.com - 2005-02-01 01:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

rainstorm.livejournal.com - 2005-02-01 08:34 (UTC) - Expand

I am female and I don't find the concept of sex for pay (or else starve) necessarily abhorrent any more than I find the concept of working in any number of possibly vaugely unpleasant or menial jobs abhorrent.

I've sold timeshares, done tele-sales, worked in fish factories, and on production lines for cleaning chemicals (including PCBs, Yum, bet that did me good!). I've worked for a paranoid, control-freak, psychological bully who beat up his girlfriend (also an employee). That was all pretty nasty. I haven't worked in the sex industry, but in a legalised setting I'd try that before any of the above!

Yes, other people may have different opinions. Some people can work on a till or production line or laying bricks or being an accountant their whole life and not feel hard done by, where I certainly would be insanely miserable.

People vary - you seem to be making pretty sweeping statements that don't ( to me) seem to be taking this into account.

I would fight to protect the right of women to work in the sex industry if they want to do so, I'm no tsaying that the sex industry is universally bad - I just think that the majority of women do not want to work in that industry and that they shouldn't be forced or coerced into doing so.