Don’t be absurd. If we don’t let them breed where are we going to get our cannon fodder and servants from?
Where does the visual attractiveness equate with better sex? I’m not talking a double bag partner here. I recall one girlfriend who tipped the scales at a 9.5 (1 - 10 scale with 10 being a “stunner”) but whose sexual quality wouldn’t rate a 2 or 3. On the other hand another girlfriend I would rank about a 6 in physical appearance had a sexual quality of a 12 or 13 (on a 1 - 10 scale).
“Quality” in one area does not always coincide with “quality” in another area in relationships.
Clearly this is why we need sex education!
http://wallstfolly.typepad.com/wallstfolly/2006/08/dennis_kozlowsk.html I bet you were thinking about this, the rich and their trophy wives. When Kozlowsky got convicted his wife hit him for a divorce.
Subsidized prostitution would not only redistribute to the sexually neediest, but also reduce inequality across the board by having a guaranteed minimum income, like welfare and food stamps provide.
The great part is it’s not necessary for the government to define who is “sexually needy” - the market can take care of that by itself. Tom Cruise will not benefit from this policy but plain Joes and Janes will.
I just don’t see what the point of the exercise is. First of all, plain Joe and Jane will eventually find each other. Very few people live their whole lives without finding any sexual partners. Second, what worldly good is achieved by having equal number of sexual partners for everyone? I can’t see that it makes one bit of difference that I’ve slept with less than five women in my life whereas a movie star has slept with dozens.
Well, then, this program isn’t for you. Neither, I presume, are food stamps. This program is directed for the most unfortunate in society, not the median voter.
Sex isn’t necessary for life. Many of us, including me, would very much like to have more of it, but in the end it doesn’t really matter. We could almost go as far as say that it’s a luxury. Whereas access to health care, decent food and lodging is a necessity.
That’s false. Therefore the rest of your post is irrelevant.
Progressives, if we can round them all up and talk about them, which is impossible, and completely opposite to rounding up other groups like racists or conservatives, which is completely legitimate and feasible, are not concerned about the end result of being wealthy.
Progressives are concerned with social processes that are unfair and biased towards a small percentage of the population, e.g. the wealthy, that exploit and abuse others for their benefit.
Blink.
Let’s get rid of the concept of “monogamy.”
Blink.
Let’s acknowledge that those males with the most assets will “win” the most women.
Blink.
Let’s imagine there is no limit on the acquisition of females for males who can afford them.
Blink.
Let us imagine that mothers and fathers push their daughters toward males with the most assets.
Blink.
And let us imagine that THAT criterion is what ALL women (and their parents and extended families) wish for and support and facilitate.
Hmmm.
Imagine.
And THIS is how monogamy came to be.
NOT because of women, and their stifling, nagging, demanding ‘way’ of being. But because normal, average guys would be the ‘loser’ way to go for women…
And the wealthy males would have “first pick” of however many women they wanted.
So MALES have had a “gentleman’s agreement” about the distribution of females, and decided that “Monogamy” is their only hope of equality in sexual, parental partners.
C’mon.
Is THIS the ONLY egalitarian franchise on the face of the earth of the Powerful have agreed upon?
It’s amazing.
Speak for yourself!
As Hypnagogic Jerk just said: You need food to live. Nobody needs sex to live.
A large part of the trouble with this is that any attempt to enforce a system that is “fairer” to men, in the relevant respects, is almost inevitably going to be less fair to women (and vice-versa). For instance, attractive or sexually expert women would have to be coerced into partnering with unattractive, inexpert men.
Money and other goods can be redistributed without hurting their interests because money and most goods have no interests of their own. Women (and men) do have interests of their own.
Also, of course, both men and women generally want a lot more, just in emotional terms, out of a sexual relationship than the sex: love, respect, companionship, etc. I do not see how you could redistribute those “fairly”. If you just want the physical sensations of sex, you might as well masturbate. For most people, sex with prostitutes (even really expert ones) is never going to be very satisfying because it does not meet any of those emotional needs. Even a one night stand is way better than hooker sex: at least it is an affirmation of one’s masculinity (or femininity): you’ve proved to yourself that you are to some degree sexually attractive. Sex with a prostitute proves no such thing.
Dearest njtt…
And there is the crux of the problem: One wants sexual fireworks, plus children; Plus a stolid, comfortable home life; Plus children; Plus commitment; Plus raising children for twenty-plus years; plus seeing those children through college and those children’s dreams… plus their marriages and grandchildren…
Plus NOT seeing your children’s marriages erupt in fireworks…and your grandchildren become bereft…
There is ALWAYS something shinier…something newer…something more literate…something more fiery…something more educated…something … GREATER (whatever that means) than you have…
ALL people dream of that.
Every Spouse. Every Child. Every Citizen.
Egalitarianism…
I think Christ was the first one to say in the history of Mankind that…"There is no Jew nor Greek (no geographic boundary) there is no male nor female ( there is no gender power that matters) there is no Slave nor Master…
We Are All One.
I am in full agreement with Sage Rat. A monument will shortly be erected to commemorate this historic occasion.
There’s an article in this week’s New Yorker in this week’s New Yorker that mentions the sex trade in Amsterdam. It says:
If that’s how things play out in wealthy, progressive countries like the Netherlands, you can probably guess what happens in third-world countries like Cambodia.
Prostitution is a demeaning thing by definition. Humans should choose sexual partners voluntarily based on love. Trading sex for money is beneath the dignity of any human being and everyone knows it. That’s why there have always been very few women (or men) who would do it if they had better options. At its best, the sex industry exploits poor women. At its worst, it uses kidnapping, human trafficking, rape, torture, and murder.
Yes, there is a legitimate philosophical difference. Money is a medium of exchange that helps people exchange good and services in the public square, and thus addressing large inequalities in money is a legitimate public concern. Sex is a private act done between two people. Hence viewing sexual decision making as a “market” or discussing “sexual inequality” is insulting and degrading.
Most prostitutes do have to be coerced to provide sex for a price; see my previous post for details. Or if reading my previous post is too much trouble, just ask yourself these two questions:
-
Would you choose to let any man offering a sufficient amount of money to ram his penis into your body?
-
If your answer to the previous question is “no”, then what makes you think anyone else would ever answer yes?
Do you have any reason that men who hire prostitutes do so because they’re “low status” or “loserly”? To judge by the anecdotal evidence of cases such as Eliot Spitzer, it seems that the exact opposite is true. Men at the top of the social ladder get inflated egos, thus leading them to think that they deserve more sex and can ignore their vows of monogamy, and thus they hire prostitutes.
This is the heart of the issue.
The logic of legalizing and regulating prostitution goes something like this: prostitution is a problem that isn’t going away. The current laws are unjust. So let’s regulate it and then at least the women will be better off, STDs will go down, and maybe the government can get in on the action.
That’s what I used to think, anyway. But the more I read about the effects in liberal western democracies that have tried it makes me doubt its efficacy and morality. Maybe the regulation isn’t being done correctly in some cases. I’ve certainly read some weird practices like men being allowed to beat up women in the legal brothels, clients insisting on not wearing condoms and getting away with it, and women being forced to be checked for STDs while their clients aren’t.
My impression is that regulated prostitution in these countries doesn’t help women at all, or not as much as you might think. It actually widens the scope of the sex trade industry. Enormous amounts of prostitutes stay illegal and on the street. It makes the lives of pimps and abusers easier. It benefits men, not women.
Pity that men and women must be so dimorphic in the sexual sphere. Damn you evolution and your intra-species competitive sexual strategies which lead to slut shaming, violence against women, and a huge horniness differential. I guess it could be worse though. We could be like seals or something.
Now, you see, you had to say this.
I would have bought it if you said she went up to an 11. But 13?
I get it that you were trying to be provocative, it is GD, but this is a straw man that doesn’t work I’m afraid.
IMHO the aim of liberalism is for equality in as many facets of existence as is feasible, or at least as many as can be affected by government. Social status counts; a classless society could even be thought of as liberalism’s extreme, ie communism, couldn’t it? (for these purposes I mean real communism, not what USSR and Cuba and certainly not what China’s been trying)
Yes. The quickest way to check it is to verify that at least half of all prostitutes in Amsterdam are illegal aliens (mostly ex-USSR).
It’s hard to find trustworthy data on the subject. I’ll link to this, which isn’t particularly strong as a cite goes, but I have been intending to go back through all of my old posts and find the cites I have used in the past, update it with newer, better information and write a proper report that I can just link to in the future. Apologies for choosing to be lazy at the moment. Some Googling of your own, though, should confirm.
ETA: Actually Wikipedia talks about it: Prostitution in the Netherlands - Wikipedia