No one is saying they are! All anyone is telling you is that if you, as said (a) don’t think that a person who breaks the law and shows no remorse/regret about it should be allowed to teach in school, then (b) you don’t think that MLK, Jr. or Rosa Parks should be allowed to teach in school, because (c) MLK and Rosa Parks broke the law and showed no remorse or regret.
See - no analogy to the current situation. Therefore, drawing in the current situation, if you feel that Rosa Parks and MLK should (death permitting) be permitted to be teachers, and you feel the lady in this situation shouldn’t, then it cannot consistently be because she breaks the law and shows no remorse. It must be for another reason. No analogy.
Does that make any sense to you, TruCelt, or am I still talking past you?
I wonder if other teachers who have had sex outside of a legal binding heterosexual marriage are allowed to teach at that school? Upon consideration, I think I would rather have an ex-prostitute teaching my hypothetical children than say the ex-sorority party girl who did all of Kappa Kappa Drunken Slob for free.
OK, thank you! This is a perfect example. Here is a man who has the character to stand and say “This I will not do again, and here’s why I recommend you shouldn’t.”
I’d even be fine if he said “I do, however, think we should work to make it legal, and here’s why.” Then I’d be the first in line to support his right to believe that and work toward it as a citizen.
But, if he stood before the world and said “I hope I’ll never do this again, but there’s really nothing wrong with it because it shouldn’t have been illegal; and we should indulge all those who do, while we fight to make it legal.” I’d have a problem.
And I still don’t think that because it was OK when Rosa Parks broke one law I am somehow forced to concede that it’s OK for someone else to break a completely different one and argue that others should be indulged in breaking it *while they fight. *I wish to be clear that I have no problem at all with them fighting it. That is their right as American Citizens.
The problem is that you have proposed a rule: a person who breaks the law and shows no remorse/regret about it should not be allowed to teach in school.
But that’s obviously not the rule you mean to propose, because you readily acknowledge we shouldn’t apply it to civil rights protesters.
Who better to discuss the policy than someone who is directly familiar with it? I’d much rather hear from people who have real knowledge of a subject than people who speculate.
[quote=“TruCelt, post:105, topic:555352”]
And why should a woman (I don’t even know what a “party girl” is, so I’m ignoring it) who wants to make a few extra bucks be subjected to humiliation, scorn, and jail?
Can you clearly explain why?
Thank you.
You don’t speak for me, thanks.
sven rocks it again.
[quote=“marshmallow, post:8, topic:555352”]
I think it depends entirely on the nature of the activity. In the case of a completely victimless “crime” like prostitution, no way is it a good reason.
ding ding ding!! We have a winner!
Yep.
Which is just proof of how deep the stupid goes.
More proof of how deep the stupid goes.
I really think we need to stop pandering to and legitimizing ignorance & stupidity.
Not a valid comparison (although my libertarian father would agree with you).
Speeding has the very real potential of leading to harm for completely innocent third parties.
Prostitution does, too, (wives, etc.) but that’s not the prostitute’s fault. What she (or he) is doing is completely harmless.
Another lousy analogy, and not accurate either.
First, drug abuse can kill you, and that would be true even if it were entirely legal. Prostitution is only dangerous because it is illegal. If it were legal, it would be as safe…really, safer, than random promiscuity.
Second, there is a difference between advocating for women (and men) to become prostitutes, and advocating for the legalization of prostitution so that those who engage in it are safer and healthier, along with society as a whole. (As well as making it easier and simpler to stop trafficking.) Same thing with drugs… big difference between advocating for the legalization of drugs and advocating that people take them.
And please don’t trot out the tired and worthless argument that tolerating a thing means you are actively promoting it, that is a giant pile of steaming crap when applied to condoms vs. abstinence, drgs, prostitution, etc. It’s about being a sane, enlightened society that recognizes the wide range of human activity and the waste and destruction that follows from trying to control and stop activities that have no victim and that people very much desire to engage in. Regulate, monitor, tax… there is a thousand times more harm done to everyone when vice is illegal than when it is legal. That we do not apply the painful lesson of Prohibition across the board boggles my mind.
And while I really can’t take the time to go there in depth at this moment, I’d just like to say, as a woman, that almost all sex for almost all of history was prostitution. Prostitutes are just smart and strong enough to take control of the exchange. But sex-for-stuff is the fundamental heart of all sexual relationships. It’s only been in recent decades, with the advent of real birth control and women choosing careers and making their own money that sexual relationships have lost some of that.
I know it’s distasteful. But it’s a fact. So it’s really annoying to listen to people freak out about it. What self-deluding crap.
My Great-great Grandmother risked returning to the South, despite her escaped slave status in order to reunite with the man who became her husband. She wasn’t having sex for “stuff.” I think that’s one of the most distasteful things I’ve ever read. So all women, throughout history, have never had a true bond with their partners? Never been equal under the law, true. But within their own households and relationships? I disagree heartily!
Everyone needs to eat and to have a roof over their head. Throughout history, and throughout virtually all cultures, women have had two, sometimes three choices to make sure they ate and had a roof:
Wife (Husband feeds and clothes and provides a roof for her and the children she will bear as a result of what HE gets in return: sex. Whether they like or love each other is not the question.
Prostitute. (Instead of one man providing what she needs, many men provide what she needs, and she gets to decide how to dress, eat, live, etc. If she’s lucky, of course, and not being controlled by a pimp…)
Nun (The church stands in for the husband/johns)
Very few women lived lives that went very far outside these roles until recently. Which is just how men liked it.
And women only started being able to decide on their OWN husbands fairly recently, which is really disgusting and hypocritical… a father can basically sell his daughter to one man of his choosing and that’s “honorable”, but if she chooses to sell herself to many different men of her own choosing, that’s shameful.
Bullshit. What it really is is a daughter taking control of her own life, which is not ok with daddy. The distinctions between “good girls” and whores are completely manufactured for the purposes of men, to control women.
I don’t have a low opinion of women at all… and it’s interesting that you come to that conclusion from what I’ve said.
I have a very low opinion of the way women have been treated as the chattel of men - but that reflects on the men, not the women. They had little choice, and many have little choice now.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for women who choose their own path consciously, free of pressure from society. I have enormous respect for women who make choices that society frowns on and make no apology for it.
You essentially referred to all women as whores. I can’t imagine how you expect me to come to some other conclusion.
Your myopic view of gender roles should probably be left in the 1970s where they belong. Gender studies have progressed by leaps and bounds beyond such a simplistic interpretation of the past, which, essentially, boils down to “man bad.”
Most prostitutes didn’t work for the Everleigh sisters. The number of prostitutes who “freely” choose their path with no pressure from society was pretty darn low. Most women because prostitutes because they had few other options. Again, let’s not romanticize historical prostitution.
You assume (incongruently, since you said yourself I have a rosy view of prostitution) that my thinking of women as prostitutes is the same as having a low opinion of them. It is a very big and very wrong assumption.
Most people do most jobs because it’s what’s available to them to do for the best money. There’s nothing wrong with that.
The disconnect in our conversation is that you are assuming that we (and everyone else) agree that prostitution is inherently bad and terrible. We don’t.
I said:
“None of us here like it, but people are going to sell their sexual services for money…”
Stoid replied:
“You don’t speak for me, thanks.”
To answer that:
-Sorry.
I should have said, none of the previous commenters in this particular thread seem to approve of prostitution.
I don’t think it’s necessarily good for the tricks or the johns on a psychological basis, that’s all…but I could be persuaded otherwise. And mental health doesn’t have absolutes, really.
Maybe if it were a less dangerous and stigmatized activity, it wouldn’t be so crazy-making to the hookers, no? It may only be as unhealthful as it is in context.
I know exactly how you feel about prostitution, Stoid. You even have a semi-famous mother-in-law that was a prostitute (was she the former LAPD officer?). I suppose you’re right so I take back my statement.
I think we’re coming at this from different angles. When I say you’re painting a rosy picture of prostitution in the past it’s got nothing to do with whether I find it morally right or wrong. You almost paint a picture of heroic prostitution with women taking charge of the situation to make money. Sadly the number of women in the past who practiced this heroic form of prostitution were few and far between. Most women who turned to prostitution did so out of desperation and had no other option and it was a tough difficult life even by the standards of the day.
And if we didn’t hypocritically, nonsensically, irrationally and pointlessly treat prostitution as something sad, pathetic and shameful, we’d see a lot less shame and sadness.
As it is, there’s a whole lot less than you think there is.
And I don’t know about “heroic”, but when it’s freely chosen (vs. coercion, force or desperation borne of something like drug addiction) it’s very empowering.
Maybe it was unclear that I think “firing” her is too much and the rule is my sarcastic disappointment and disgust at the real obscenity which is pretending that school teachers are all saints. The ones I know are all saints, of course, but thinking that our little ones are going to be free from interacting with sinners, former sinners and hypocrites in their daily lives is only kidding ourselves.
You’re the one who stated that all sex was essentially a form of prostitution throughout most of history. So you pick a day.
I have to admit that you got me there. If we changed our attitudes about a subject we’d have different feelings about that subject.
I have no idea what this refers to.
Such empowered prostitutes have been the exception in U.S. history rather than the rule. However my definition of prostitution is much narrower than yours. I imagine if I essentially saw all women as prostitutes I might adhere to your romantic view of their lives as well.
Anyway, it looks like we’ve strayed a bit far from the original topic. Apologies to everyone in the thread.
Can you please be a little more careful with the quote tags? I didn’t make a comment about her being a party girl, and I’d rather not be associated with it.