How much dignity is perserved in a drunken Spring Break one-night stand?
.
And that’d be the fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Complete with a google vomit equivalent of just citing an entire book.
You also evidently don’t understand what the word “ignorance” means. Lo and behold, not agreeing with your politics is not “ignorance”. The term “wage slavery” is insultingly stupid bullshit no matter who uses it. Yes, even if it’s a Harvard prof claiming that we’re in a state of “slavery” because the second law of thermodynamics is oppressing him. Until we see the Great Singularity (approximately Tomorrow, In Heaven), survival requires work.
Your own words. That it’s “undignified” for women to be “forced” to engage in modes of “wage slavery”, among which is prostitution, and we should prevent them from working as prostitutes for their own good.
So far you’re dramatically misstated my words, cutting out entire clauses to twist the meaning, and now you’re denying your own statements. Not, perhaps, the best course of action. Well, for you. For me, it’s an endless series of softballs.
I especially like the whole bit about how if the universe doesn’t provide you with food, shelter and the services of other people, then you’re enslaved.
Goalposts.
Wage labour was compared to slavery by slaves, their emancipators and the slave holders. Not knowing that, as you have repeatedly demonstrated, is ignorance of history. Your appeals to authority (responsible adults) and emotion (disgustingly insensitive) just make your hypocrisy succulent. You seem to ignore even the title of the chapter, that wage labour is compared to free labour. Are you really that ignorant as to not know the historical conditions resulting in the endemic form of wage labour? Such a revelation would go some distance in explaining how political discourse in the US is framed.
Again:
Cite.
You are just naming random fallacies at this point, or repeating what I say, I suppose. You obviously have no idea what Shifting the Goalposts means. Hint: it doesn’t mean consistently holding the same position and pointing out that no matter who holds the opposing view, they’re still wrong. As for your disingenuous response for me to cite your own words, again? Nope. People can look at the thread and see you routinely distorting facts, quotes and logical principles. If they really want to, they can hit control-F and see that you’re denying your own words.
And yet again, you have no idea what the word “ignorance” means, and you’re bizarrely inventing yet another bit of fantasy whereby if I disagree with your silly political verbiage, I must be unaware of its history. Not, of course, that it would matter what its history is as “wage slavery” is still ignorant twaddle from an intellectual climate in a state of massive arrested development. Moreover, your attempt at mindreading don’t even begin to make sense, as if disagreeing with your politics indicated ignorance and vomiting tired anarchist/sociologist nonsense was somehow knowledgeable. It’s clear you’re just tossing bullshit at the wall in the hopes that some of it, any of it, will stick. Speaking of which, you have no idea what Appeal to Authority means. Pointing out that responsible adults understand that they need to work for their bread is not an Appeal to Authority fallacy, claiming that it is, is incoherently nonsensical.
And yet again you evince that you are playing more than fast and loose with the facts. You substitute “wage labor” for “wage slavery” and expect nobody to notice.
And, beaten on the actual facts you’re now trying to hijack the discussion on prostitution with asinine anarchist/socialist nonsense that, even if it was accepted as true (which it shouldn’t be) would still have no rational bearing on the fact that autonomous adults are free to enter into contracts as they see fit, and your paternalistic ‘for their own good’ nonsense has no logical justification for prohibiting the free exercise of contract rights among workers and clients.It’s a very good indicator that you’ve got nothing, at all, that in a discussion of the legalization of prostitution in 2012, you’re citing political ideology from the 1850’s. If you had any valid reason for preventing the free exercise of labor rights among consenting adults, or at least any reason better than ‘it’s for their own good, and I know best’, you’d have provided it.
Something tells me, it aint forthcoming.
I found much to disagree with in this post:
Prostitution, pimping and white slavery are different crimes. Making prostitution criminal hurts the other fights since it makes the victims (the prostitutes) less willing to testify.
And the supply (but less so the demand) drops when prostitution is illegal.
And the good news that police suppress trafficking in the U.S. comes as a welcome surprise to the teenage girls in Houston who endured this tragedy:
As for “number of women will to do the work is well below the number demanded by the market”, perhaps your world travels do not include Pattaya Beach where hundreds of the women selling their services in the face of competition are often lucky to get two $40 “dates” per week.
Ok, on consideration, there’s no point for my being so hostile. I misinterpreted what you said in order to form my argument earlier and I apologise.
You didn’t say it’d be immoral to outlaw wage labour, that was poor parsing on my part. You critiqued the notion that prostitution is morally equivalent to rape by comparing it to other forms of wage labour, which you implicitly posited as being necessary for a functioning society. The issue is that starting with my particular set of premises, people should not be forced into those occupations because of their economic circumstances and could subsist without resorting to those occupations given the abolition of property (which is a very different take than “someone else should work so I don’t have to”). In fact, one of the corollaries of the previous position is that people ought to be willing to do work they’d find undignified if it is necessary for the prolongation of society regardless of their economic condition. I cede that such a notion is unpopular and very unlikely to happen. In the interim, I believe that legalising and regulating prostitution is better for all involved, though I reject the implicit premise of the OP that the continuum is from criminal to legal. I think beyond the “legal” position lies the “unnecessary” one.
In the US, there are numerous limits on the contracts adult can enter. For instance, they are not permitted to work for below the minimum wage or for longer than certain periods without a break.
Your equation seems not to factor in that people like to have sex. Think of it like a sport: We have professional football players. Despite that, people still like to throw the ol’ pigskin around because it’s fun.
Apology accepted, thanks for that.
As for the rest, I really don’t see any continued need to debate anarchist/communist/whateverist positions. It’s clear you’ve got a paradigm that most of society doesn’t share, and there’s really no common ground to be had nor any common terms to be used.
There’s also the fact that it’s doubtful that the social stigma will totally fade, and I can’t see women rushing to be branded as whores all that quickly. Besides, dating/marriage already involves the exchange of significant amounts of currency, whether monetary, emotional, etc…
I agree, and I really can’t see women, or men for that matter, swearing off scratching that itch sans lucre.
It seems like you’re mainly dueling with FinnAgain, but I’d like to chime in on the points of contention you raise. I see a false dilemma in the reasoning I’ve quoted above. A person isn’t forced into prostitution for survival, they are forced into employment for survival. It’s not sexwork or die, it’s just work or die.
Commercial fishing, telemarketing, logging, garbage collection, meter maid, miner, fast food worker, telemarketing, personal assistant to a movie industry psychopath. There are all manner of dangerous, demeaning, and demoralizing jobs we shrug our shoulders and say, “It’s not for me, but if somebody wants to put themselves in that position, I’m not going to stop them.” And even though you or I may not choose to do it for any number of reasons, people do choose of their own free will to do sexytime for money rather than one of those crazy jobs above.
There are two kinds of sexworkers: victims and entrepreneurs. We should all be ferociously against the former; but we should also have the faculty to be able to distinguish the latter from the former. There’s a very prolific blogger those interested in the subject should consider reading: The Honest Courtesan.
Well yes, but “necessary unemployment” coupled with other economic realities means that more women in such a system will have to have sex with men they’d otherwise not want to than in a hypothetical anarcho-syndicalist society (say). I have no doubt that societies where prostitutes are not vilified or arrested are superior to ones where they are. Likewise Johning. Still, that doesn’t represent the pinnacle of what society can accomplish in regard to prostitution in my opinion.
The early defences of capital by Ricardo and Smith depended on highly mobile labour, while there are currently more restrictions on labour than capital. There are other issues with rational choice theory, namely the existence of an industry which seeks to limit the capacity of individuals to make a rational choice (though it’s not really germane to prostitution).
Sounds almost like agorism, heh.
Gamer,
You say “Discussing informed choice when their rent, food or medical bills are contingent on their having sex with another individual is not really plausible.” and say that their consent is not valid. You also say “I have no doubt that societies where prostitutes are not vilified or arrested are superior to ones where they are. Likewise Johning.”
So, on the one hand you say that their consent to prostitution and porn is not valid. On the other you say that societies where prostitutes and John are not villified and arrested are superior to those where they are. Would you mind actually answering the question of the OP which is whether or not prostitution should be legal or would that get in the way of your Marxist axe grinding?
I already said I reject the continuum provided based on the premises of the OP, yet I’d prefer a society where prostitution were legal.
I really don’t understand this attitude. As far as I can tell, you are both agreed on every important point: that prostitution should be legal and regulated, that like other forms of labor not highly-valued by society there are unique challenges for participants, and that it will take something akin to a total reorganization of social norms for prostitution to lose its stigma.
The idea people of differing “paradigms” having “no common terms” has been disproven by this very conversation.
Then what the dickens was the point of the “no valid consent” bit?
sigh Attention, all foreign Dopers: For some reason, there is a globally widespread belief that prostitution is illegal in the United States. This is pure UL, and I wish the mischievous likes of Jim B. would stop propagating it like this, it ain’t funny any more. In fact, prostitution is so central to our culture that small brothels are prominently attached to most retail business establishments, as well as public and governmental facilities. Just look for the door marked “Women”! (Or, the door marked “Men,” according to your preference.)
No, we most certainly did not. Beyond the idea that consent is impossible due to ‘wage slavery’ (or what have you), I do not hold that being ‘forced to’ work for your bread is a negative, or that having prostitution as one more option of a job/career you could engage in is somehow a negative under our current system.
Yes.
But the exact opposite.
Why such a serious charge like rape? Why not make it like if someone sells me a movie ticket, decides they don’t want me to view it, and I barge in anyways? Why not make it a simple civil contract dispute, or at worst a battery?
You aren’t putting sex on a pedestal like those puritans are you?
Because having sex with someone once consent is withdraw is rape, and any couplings in the context of legalized prostitution must recognize that it is still a consensual transaction and not a mandatory one.
No, but thanks for playing.