Prostitution

aare

Synd,

You really are great on theory you just need to get in touch with the practical, because for all you have said you have yet to explain why destitution would be more "empowering" for the "lowest social strata" than prostitution (which, in real terms is the choice most prostitutes have had to make)?

Also, there is the uncomfortable fact that at least as many prostitutes come from middle class backgrounds as from the "lowest social strata".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

synd wrote: »

You've missed the point ie - stratification based on basic cultural valuation remains intact.

Perhaps so in other areas. But where you're talking about something like crime or prostitution which relies on the choices/decisions of the individual, the generalisation or stratification is too vague to be useful. Maybe if you are talking about a subject in the very widest of terms, would you be using these methods. But we're talking about a singular area which requires us to look in detail.

People who occupy the lowest social strata disproportionately exhibit signs of social dis-empowerment - manifested in crime, drug abuse ect. Their subordinated position within the economic system pre-disposes them to crime brought about by cultural alienation and material deprivation. Improving conditions in small manageable ways is a short term goal that alleviates immediate problems without targeting the basic cause of the problems in question.

Which doesn't negate the point that it is people like you that classify lower social stigma's and attribute certain pre-determined lives for them. determined by people who have to create categories or segments in society.
People in these situations don't think like you do. Hell, I don't think like you, and I'm probably on a more social level to you.

Show me where randomness exists in society ?

Do I really have to? You're going way off topic with this. Perhaps stick to prostitution?

Every social group has divisions within itself - the point is that an army is a social group, like a class.

And keep dividing until you reach the individual.

Again - why don't you consider it appropriate to slap woman for gratification ?

Again, I don't see any reason to answer you. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

She doesn't determine the proportion of value she accumulates for providing the service because her labor is a commodity in the possession of a capitalist. When a wage laborer produces a good or service they receive a portion in wage and the rest is taken as surplus value/profit -

This socially created wealth is then invested in capital which is used as the basis for further expropriation.

That doesn't make a bit of sense to me. Her labor is a commodity that she chooses to make us of. She could chose not to work, and receive social welfare. She has a service that she is capable of making money at. She sells that service, and makes a profit from it. With the exception of what she pays in expenses, the profit is her own to do what she wills.

No, its a useless question given that it cant be answered - state communism is an oxymoron

Another useless point. Why do you bother? I'm serious. It doesn't progress the subject of this thread any further.

You have answered nothing - because (i gather) you understand the implications of giving any answer. Again - Why are you opposed to a consensual market transaction that involves torture for food ?

Ok. I'll answer. If it is consensual, then I have no problem with it. If the receiver of the torture believes that the food is worth the pain received, I'm not going to deny them. If, however, it is done without the consent of the receiver (which your original question was about), then I would be against it.

The core of this argument is that society entails various degrees of exploitation - those who occupy the lowest social position are subject to the highest degree of economic class exploitation.

But you believe that everyone is being exploited in modern society..

Everything has a political and economic background - using expanded terminology allows for more comprehensive communication. You should increase your vocabulary.

Why should I? You continue to miss the point. YOU are the only poster who decides to write like this in this thread. Everyone else writes in a similar manner to mine. You can easily post your opinions using the same vocabulary as everyone else. And the expanded terminology you use doesn't really allow for comprehensive communication between most people. It may be useful with someone with the same level of interest in economics or politics, but not with me.

Unless you start posting like a normal person, I won't bother to reply to you anymore. There's no point in my doing so. Since you don't actually argue about prostitution, and instead everything comes down to some political or economic theory.

Would any of the Mods like to comment? Maybe I'm being too awkward about this, but I don't think the manner of his terminology useful. If you think I'm way off base, I'll apologize.

Tim Robbins

Sorry arriving at the debate late. Surely it's all to do with free will. If prostitution is done by both adults in their free will what's wrong with it?

Also, if the women is forced into it because of poverty, surely prostitution is the effect not the cause. Would it not be better to go after the cause rather than the effect?

synd

[FONT=&quot]

Perhaps so in other areas. But where you're talking about something like crime or prostitution which relies on the choices/decisions of the individual, the generalisation or stratification is too vague to be useful. Maybe if you are talking about a subject in the very widest of terms, would you be using these methods. But we're talking about a singular area which requires us to look in detail.

Choices are largely ''determined'' by indentured structural arrangements, the economic mode of organization.

Which doesn't negate the point that it is people like you that classify lower social stigma's and attribute certain pre-determined lives for them. determined by people who have to create categories or segments in society. People in these situations don't think like you do. Hell, I don't think like you, and I'm probably on a more social level to you.

I don’t ''create'' social categories explaining institutionalized stratification - they already exist, I just acknowledge them.

Do I really have to? You're going way off topic with this. Perhaps stick to prostitution?

Id rather not limit the conversation to a superficial liberal chat about choices within a confined structure. I refuse to pre-suppose the necessity of the structure.

Again, I don't see any reason to answer you. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

OK Il ask again - why don’t you derive gratification from slapping woman ?

That doesn't make a bit of sense to me. Her labor is a commodity that she chooses to make us of. She could chose not to work, and receive social welfare. She has a service that she is capable of making money at. She sells that service, and makes a profit from it. With the exception of what she pays in expenses, the profit is her own to do what she wills.

She chooses the least exploitative arrangement - the option to manage her own labor capacities and avail of equality in self determination is not afforded to her. Due to her property/wealth relation she is forced to subordinate herself to the will of an employer who will then use her as a tool in the process of profit accumulation - thereafter exploiting her by expropriating the value she creates.

Social welfare is not an option for most of the worlds populace - they must subordinate themselves before employers and sacrifice their rights of self management.

Another useless point. Why do you bother? I'm serious. It doesn't progress the subject of this thread any further.

It educates you

Ok. I'll answer. If it is consensual, then I have no problem with it. If the receiver of the torture believes that the food is worth the pain received, I'm not going to deny them. If, however, it is done without the consent of the receiver (which your original question was about), then I would be against it.

Force is not required to engage in exploitation - indentured social relations based upon concentrated capital facilitate and encourage exploitation. Those without property must subordinate themselves before those who control it in order to avail access to the means of subsistence.

Allow me to expose the heart of market liberal ideology - lets see just how far youl go in your justification of the market. Do you consider the torture of starving children in exchange for food an acceptable action ?

Capitalism both requires and actively facilitates degrees of economic dependence in order to foster class domination.

But you believe that everyone is being exploited in modern society.

Word

Why should I? You continue to miss the point. YOU are the only poster who decides to write like this in this thread. Everyone else writes in a similar manner to mine. You can easily post your opinions using the same vocabulary as everyone else. And the expanded terminology you use doesn't really allow for comprehensive communication between most people. It may be useful with someone with the same level of interest in economics or politics, but not with me.

Learn how to read

Unless you start posting like a normal person, I won't bother to reply to you anymore. There's no point in my doing so. Since you don't actually argue about prostitution, and instead everything comes down to some political or economic theory.

Most social situations are reducible to political economy. Your inability to deal with the core issues reflects the one dimensional nature of liberal thought.

synd

Your brand of economic determinism obviously doesn't allow for the fact that individuals commit crimes because they choose to do so.

It completely allows for it - it proceeds however to explain (how) indavidual choice is largely determined by socio economic condition. Infantile liberalism must necessarily overlook the wider dimensions of human action in order to protect the system it is founded upon from the obvious implications.

That's just obscurantist Marxism. It says absolutely nothing about the reality of transactions between a prostitute and her clients.

Its full bodied Marxian economics, if you cant deal with it go play hide and seek - or read milton friedmon or whatever it is you silly liberals do with yourselves.

Tell that to the unfortunate inhabitants of Cuba.

argumentum ad misericordiam - Iv already pointed out that state communism is an oxymoron - What does the condition of Cuba have to do with the factuality of the statement ?

Personnally Id rather live in Cuba than Hati, ethiopia ect - or any other ''third world'' nation that runs on the ever so successful market economy LOL

Whatever. I'm done with you.

AARRRGH

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Sorry arriving at the debate late. Surely it's all to do with free will. If prostitution is done by both adults in their free will what's wrong with it?

Also, if the women is forced into it because of poverty, surely prostitution is the effect not the cause. Would it not be better to go after the cause rather than the effect?

Yeah, but people think sex is kinda dirty, and think women aren't capable choosing prostitution as a career, so they'd rather come up with all sorts of excuses for the prostitutes behaviour.

Btw, a lot of prostitutes don't have money problems. For example, I interviewed one about 12 months ago and she had a stash of about 100k.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

Spoken like a true Brezhnev-era apparatchnik. But do you really believe that a human being is some kind of socioeconomic automaton?

Yes - yes I do

Does Marxist argument now rely on pompous clichés and sloppy syntax? Oh, how the mighty have fallen....

The Marxist argument relies on comprehensive socio economic analysis - the pompous clichés are my own, I like to add insult to injury

Oh, I can deal with it. It amuses me to see people clinging so desperately to the discredited residues of Marxism.

It amuses me to see jumped up little econ grads clueless enough to believe Marxian theory consists of nothing more than that **** spouted by Joe Higgins.

You adhere to libertarianism (oh no :eek: my Marxian sophistry is sure to be exposed now !)- Il take it you have a fetish for Austrian economics in particular ?

Have fun in Cuba!

Try El-Salvador

Crumble Froo

I've met quite a number of prostitutes during my time. Prostitution is legal where I live, by the way.

But most that I've met, have been aiming for something bigger, saving up for that car, or whatever the OP is on about.

Others have just had all the worst hands dealt to them during life, and this is their opportunity to find the light within it all.

Others, have been drug addicts, and just desperate for whatever will allow them get their next fix.

Outlawing something that will happen regardless of laws, is nonsensical. It just puts the workers out there at more risk.

aare

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yeah, but people think sex is kinda dirty, and think women aren't capable choosing prostitution as a career, so they'd rather come up with all sorts of excuses for the prostitutes behaviour.

Btw, a lot of prostitutes don't have money problems. For example, I interviewed one about 12 months ago and she had a stash of about 100k.

Actually AARRRGH,

It's nothing to do with sex being "dirty" at all...it's more to do with the fact that sex, without desire, is actually extremelly unpleasant, much in the same way that cleaning a septic tank is unpleasant.

It takes a lot to push almost anyone into committing to that degree of unpleasantness as a career in the first place, but, once in, the earnings can be relatively high, and, if you have any sense at all, seeing as you are going to have to endure it anyway, whatever, you may as well make the best of it and get as much as you can out of it.

Remember also, that a prostitute with 100k, only gets to keep, and increase, the 100k as long as she stays in prostitution...if she gets out she is back to square one, whatever square one was for her in the first place, enhanced by the stigma of her time as a hooker.

Others make a lot of money, and then blow it all on making it bearable, whether with drink, drugs, gambling, shopping or (their perception of) a pretty little boytoy.

Unfortunately, Ireland is such a tiny country, that if you once tell that truth to the press, it tends to have an adverse effect on marketing throughout the whole industry for, at least, the next couple of weeks...

Some men (fewer with every generation, thankfully) do live in a fantasy world where all women (particularly hookers) are "gagging for it really"...most men are, very simply, just NOT ignorant pigs, and feel uncomfortable paying a woman for sex just after a reminder that for her, it is actually very unpleasant.

...and, as, for the women, prostitution IS only about money, most of them, presented with any kind of interviewer, will use the free advertising and play the "happy hooker" to the hilt.

AARRRGH

aare wrote: »

Actually AARRRGH,

It's nothing to do with sex being "dirty" at all...it's more to do with the fact that sex, without desire, is actually extremelly unpleasant, much in the same way that cleaning a septic tank is unpleasant.

It is extremely unpleasant for you.

You cannot speak for prostitutes.

You are making the same mistake all extremist feminists make - the arrogant assumption that you can speak for all women.

aare wrote: »

Remember also, that a prostitute with 100k, only gets to keep, and increase, the 100k as long as she stays in prostitution...if she gets out she is back to square one, whatever square one was for her in the first place, enhanced by the stigma of her time as a hooker.

You could apply that logic to anything, e.g. the mechanic who leaves his job never to be a mechanic again will also be back at square one.

aare wrote: »

Others make a lot of money, and then blow it all on making it bearable, whether with drink, drugs, gambling, shopping or (their perception of) a pretty little boytoy.

Ridiculous.

aare wrote: »

Some men (fewer with every generation, thankfully) do live in a fantasy world where all women (particularly hookers) are "gagging for it really"...most men are, very simply, just NOT ignorant pigs, and feel uncomfortable paying a woman for sex just after a reminder that for her, it is actually very unpleasant.

I don't know any men who think women or prostitutes are gagging for it.

And you are brushing over the rather large fact that prostitutes CHOOSE to have sex.

I fully appreciate you could never be a prostitute, and I understand you believe prostitutes think the same way as you, but the reality is they don't, and you are projecting your own values onto people you don't know.

aare wrote: »

...and, as, for the women, prostitution IS only about money, most of them, presented with any kind of interviewer, will use the free advertising and play the "happy hooker" to the hilt.

I not only have interviewed prostitutes, I am friends with prostitutes. I have spent a lot of time over the past 8 doing normal friendship things with prostitutes. They are not lying to me, and I have no reason to lie about prostitution.

Like every other person in this world, no one prostitute is the exact same as another. I know one girl who loves doing it (the money, the attention, the sex), I know another girl who enjoys the attention and sex and often sees clients for free, and I know another girl who hates it but loves how much money it gives her.

It is dishonest and lazy to try to paint every prostitute as some desperate or damaged woman who hates her life and job.

AARRRGH

Crumble Froo wrote: »

Prostitution is legal where I live, by the way.

Prostitution is legal in Ireland too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aare

AARRRGH wrote: »

It is extremely unpleasant for you.

You cannot speak for prostitutes.

Actually I can, and frequently have...so there you go...

(BTW, sex, without desire, is unpleasant in the generic way cleaning out septic tanks is unpleasant, quite apart from any personal way)

AARRRGH wrote: »

You are making the same mistake all extremist feminists make - the arrogant assumption that you can speak for all women.

Actually you are making so many arrogant assumptions yourself in that statement alone...:D:D:D...ah, sure...you may know how hypocritical you are being, but there is no way in the WORLD you could even guess how ridiculous...so I won't be nasty and rub the nose.

AARRRGH wrote: »

aare wrote:

Remember also, that a prostitute with 100k, only gets to keep, and increase, the 100k as long as she stays in prostitution...if she gets out she is back to square one, whatever square one was for her in the first place, enhanced by the stigma of her time as a hooker.

You could apply that logic to anything, e.g. the mechanic who leaves his job never to be a mechanic again will also be back at square one.

I think you may find that nothing LIKE the same social and vocational stigma attaches to mechanics as to prostitutes (although if you have had a recent emergency repair you might THINK that it should ), and if you don't believe me, try putting "10 years, pavement hostess, Fitzwilliam Square" on a CV and see if gets you a job in MacDonalds.

AARRRGH wrote: »

AARE wrote:

Others make a lot of money, and then blow it all on making it bearable, whether with drink, drugs, gambling, shopping or (their perception of) a pretty little boytoy.

Ridiculous.

I know, I have tried to point that out too...but do they listen?
:rolleyes:

AARRRGH wrote: »

I don't know any men who think women or prostitutes are gagging for it.

And you are brushing over the rather large fact that prostitutes CHOOSE to have sex.

I fully appreciate you could never be a prostitute, and I understand you believe prostitutes think the same way as you, but the reality is they don't, and you are projecting your own values onto people you don't know.

Oh, I see, I am glad you explained that, or I would never have known...

AARRRGH wrote: »

I not only have interviewed prostitutes, I am friends with prostitutes. I have spent a lot of time over the past 8 doing normal friendship things with prostitutes.

That must be why you haven't had time to get round to meeting the guys who try to kid themselves that women and prostitutes are "gagging for it" yet?

Of course, I never met a hooker in my life did I? I know, because YOU SAY SO...

AARRRGH wrote: »

They are not lying to me, and I have no reason to lie about prostitution.

You not know whether they are lying to you or not...

AARRRGH wrote: »

Like every other person in this world, no one prostitute is the exact same as another. I know one girl who loves doing it (the money, the attention, the sex), I know another girl who enjoys the attention and sex and often sees clients for free, and I know another girl who hates it but loves how much money it gives her.

Yep, I have known dozens of hookers who talk all kinds of different cr*p to keep their morale up enough to go on...you have to, because if you didn't you couldn't handle it...

...and most of them knew a fair few young fellas who thought they knew it all and didn't like to disillusion them.

AARRRGH wrote: »

It is dishonest and lazy to try to paint every prostitute as some desperate or damaged woman who hates her life and job.

Only when you don't happen to know, for sure, that it's the only truth there is...

AARRRGH

Believe whatever you want. You are wrong.

Luckily society is moving forward and it is only a matter of time before prostitutes have proper rights and are seen as normal human beings.

aare

AARRRGH wrote: »

Believe whatever you want. You are wrong.

Ah Bless!

AARRRGH wrote: »

Luckily society is moving forward and it is only a matter of time before prostitutes have proper rights and are seen as normal human beings.

Not that I ever gave years of my life, at my own expense, to lobbying for anything like that, or anything...but do you really think making a case that they enjoy it, and if they don't, they should, is in any way central to that?
:rolleyes:

AARRRGH

aare wrote: »

do you really think making a case that they enjoy it, and if they don't, they should, is in any way central to that?
:rolleyes:

No one is trying to argue that they all enjoy it or should enjoy it.

My argument is that everyone is different, so what one person considers "extremely unpleasant", another person might consider the opposite.

Certainly a lot of people, including prostitutes, are able to have meaningless sex, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

I accept you could never be a prostitute, and I accept you would consider it to be an extremely unpleasant experience, but just because you feel that way does not mean all, or any, prostitutes feel that way.

I think it is utter arrogance to think your own moral code applies and should apply to others. As I stated earlier, extremist feminists (e.g. Catherine Dvorkian, Andrea McKinnon) do this all the time and it is very damaging for womens rights.

I am a feminist btw. I believe women are capable of making up their own mind about what they like and dislike, and how they live their life.

Btw - and this is a bit off topic - but there was an excellent article in the Observer this weekend about trafficking statistics being grossly exaggerated. It turns out women who move to another country to work as prostitutes are being included in the figures. Obviously, this is ridiculous.

aare

AARRRGH wrote: »

No one is trying to argue that they all enjoy it or should enjoy it.

My argument is that everyone is different, so what one person considers "extremely unpleasant", another person might consider the opposite.

Certainly a lot of people, including prostitutes, are able to have meaningless sex, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

I accept you could never be a prostitute, and I accept you would consider it to be an extremely unpleasant experience, but just because you feel that way does not mean all, or any, prostitutes feel that way.

That's nice, thank you for all those startling, hitherto unsuspected, revelations about my thoughts, lifestyle and belief system, I will bear your "insights" in mind. :rolleyes:

AARRRGH wrote: »

I think it is utter arrogance to think your own moral code applies and should apply to others. As I stated earlier, extremist feminists (e.g. Catherine Dvorkian, Andrea McKinnon) do this all the time and it is very damaging for womens rights.

Do you know the difference between "a moral judgement" and "a value judgement"?

Wrong = moral judgement

Unpleasant = value judgement

If prostitution was so lacking in "unpleasant" to do, why so many suicides, over the centuries, in the Yoshiwara, in a culture where prostitutes commanded far more respect than married women?

AARRRGH wrote: »

I am a feminist btw. I believe women are capable of making up their own mind about what they like and dislike, and how they live their life.

That's nice, my question is, why am I exempt from that so?

AARRRGH wrote: »

Btw - and this is a bit off topic - but there was an excellent article in the Observer this weekend about trafficking statistics being grossly exaggerated. It turns out women who move to another country to work as prostitutes are being included in the figures. Obviously, this is ridiculous.

What else is new? They have been "dramatising" those figures since '95 as an excuse to get ongoing funding for a couple of Strasbourg (or close) based NGOs that exist (as far as I can tell) largely to ensure that their employees have parity of earnings with prostitutes, and achieve very little else...

I guess that's politics for you...and it only took the Observer 14 years to pick up on it.

Now, what were you saying about me not knowing anything compared to you?

AARRRGH

Aare, I think you need to go back and read some of your posts. For example -

aare wrote:

[Prostitutes] make a lot of money, and then blow it all on making it bearable, whether with drink, drugs, gambling, shopping or (their perception of) a pretty little boytoy.

This sounds like the opinion of someone with a rather low opinion of prostitutes. Normally people with low opinion of prostitutes are making some kind of moral judgement.

I also think prostitution is a fairly nasty job (certainly not something I would want to do), but, unlike you, I am aware that is just my opinion and does not apply to every prostitute. That is the difference between you and me. I am open to the concept that some prostitutes hate their job, some are indifferent, and some like it. You are not open to that concept and want everyone to believe prostitutes think like you.

Can you see the difference? You are trying to force your opinion onto prostitutes, whereas I am open to there being all sorts of opinions.

What's interesting about the Observer piece is the fact that newspapers are reporting this sort of stuff at all. Typically newspapers don't risk saying anything 'positive' about prostitution. So it shows that society is somewhat getting more open minded about the reality of prostitution.

Btw, posting some facts and name dropping doesn't change the fact you are wrong. I know you are hoping it will make people think you are on the ball, but your basic opinion of prostitution is totally off kilter. If you disagree, I will repeat an example of the rubbish you recently posted -

aare wrote:

[Prostitutes] make a lot of money, and then blow it all on making it bearable, whether with drink, drugs, gambling, shopping or (their perception of) a pretty little boytoy.

You sound like some sort of Granny talking to her local priest.

aare

AARRRGH wrote: »

Aare, I think you need to go back and read some of your posts. For example -

AARE wrote:

Originally Posted by aare
[Prostitutes] make a lot of money, and then blow it all on making it bearable, whether with drink, drugs, gambling, shopping or (their perception of) a pretty little boytoy.

This sounds like the opinion of someone with a rather low opinion of prostitutes.

Well see, that's where you are wrong, it's just the observation of a person with eyes to see...

Never ceases to amazes me that, relatively intelligent woman do this...until you looks deeper, and realise that as long as you have to have sex for a living, you cannot even afford to love, or be loved, in any real, healthy way...because, however polyamorous you may be, it goes against the grain to schtupp 6 strangers every day while you love and are loved...and that, in itself, is a very lonely, desolate place to be...quite apart from how unpleasant the sex is.

So many women get into a cycle of spending the money as fast as they can on taking their mind off the pain, because it is very hard to face another shift if you have money and the bank and don't actually need to.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Normally people with low opinion of prostitutes are making some kind of moral judgement.

Really? How interesting? Though I think people who try to tell other people what their opinions are in the first place probably find it quite hard to read that accurately? Wouldn't you say?

AARRRGH wrote: »

I also think prostitution is a fairly nasty job (certainly not something I would want to do), but, unlike you, I am aware that is just my opinion and does not apply to every prostitute. That is the difference between you and me. I am open to the concept that some prostitutes hate their job, some are indifferent, and some like it. You are not open to that concept and want everyone to believe prostitutes think like you.

No, I just think it's probably more helpful if people are inclined to believe the reality I have observed than the theory you would like to believe.

Why DO you think hookers find it more tolerable than you do? Do you think they are born with a special "whore gene" that makes them immune to the distaste you would feel?

The hardest stigma of all to get past is the one where people decide hookers just so many "bould girls" having fun and raking in cash...

In truth, they are just people...

AARRRGH wrote: »

Can you see the difference? You are trying to force your opinion onto prostitutes, whereas I am open to there being all sorts of opinions.

Actually, you are trying to superimpose youir own opinion, not just over prostitutes, but also, incredibly, over me...so, as I would NEVER do that, there is a difference.

AARRRGH wrote: »

What's interesting about the Observer piece is the fact that newspapers are reporting this sort of stuff at all. Typically newspapers don't risk saying anything 'positive' about prostitution. So it shows that society is somewhat getting more open minded about the reality of prostitution.

Don't know where you get that idea from?

AARRRGH wrote: »

Btw, posting some facts and name dropping doesn't change the fact you are wrong. I know you are hoping it will make people think you are on the ball, but your basic opinion of prostitution is totally off kilter. If you disagree, I will repeat an example of the rubbish you recently posted -

Ah, but I think that the fact that you honestly, genuinely, haven't got a clue what you are talking about, probably means you also wouldn't have a clue whether I was right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle.

AARRRGH wrote: »

You sound like some sort of Granny talking to her local priest.

I have no idea, believe it or not I don't think I have ever spoken to a parish priest???

Or was that supposed to be some kind of cheap shot to trump all???

Hard to know...:D

You really don't know anything do you, and care less...you just want a rumble...:D

AARRRGH

aare wrote: »

So many women get into a cycle of spending the money as fast as they can on taking their mind off the pain, because it is very hard to face another shift if you have money and the bank and don't actually need to.

You could apply what you are saying to nearly any job.

Loads of people hate their jobs and do things like drink regularly to numb the pain a bit.

What you are saying is not exclusive to prostitutes, and it is absurd to suggest every prostitute has that sort of destructive behavior.

I would agree there are easier jobs in the world, and I would agree prostitution is not a good career choice for the average person, but there are plenty of women working as prostitutes who don't blow all their money on "drink, drugs, gambling, shopping or (their perception of) a pretty little boytoy."

AARRRGH wrote:

Normally people with low opinion of prostitutes are making some kind of moral judgement.

aare wrote: »

Really? How interesting? Though I think people who try to tell other people what their opinions are in the first place probably find it quite hard to read that accurately? Wouldn't you say?

I don't understand what you are trying to say there.

aare wrote: »

No, I just think it's probably more helpful if people are inclined to believe the reality I have observed than the theory you would like to believe.

Why DO you think hookers find it more tolerable than you do? Do you think they are born with a special "whore gene" that makes them immune to the distaste you would feel?

The hardest stigma of all to get past is the one where people decide hookers just so many "bould girls" having fun and raking in cash...

In truth, they are just people...

I think you are misunderstanding my posts. I have repeatedly said everyone is different - some people are uptight about sex, some people are 'normal', and some people are able to randomly have casual sex.

I have also said these differences will also apply to prostitutes, although I would think, in general, the women who make the step to become prostitutes probably aren't at the extreme end of the "uptight" scale.

That's not unreasonable.

I have never said prostitutes are bold girls. I have said they are women who have chosen to have sex for money.

I honestly think you have issues with prostitution and are just using my posts as a way of venting. You have totally misunderstood what my opinion is.

aare wrote: »

Actually, you are trying to superimpose youir own opinion, not just over prostitutes, but also, incredibly, over me...so, as I would NEVER do that, there is a difference.

I'm saying we should have a higher opinion of prostitutes - they are not all desperate women, tricked into having sex for money, lying there in mental agony as some stranger has sex with them.

Yes, there probably are some women like that, but they are still choosing to work as prostitutes. If people want to make bad decisions, that's none of our business. No one is forcing the woman with 100k in the bank to work as a prostitute. (I know there are the very odd cases of forced prostitution, but lets assume I'm not talking about one of those cases.)

aare wrote: »

Don't know where you get that idea from?

Ah come on, I wonder are you even reading my posts.

Surely you can see if newspapers are starting to post relatively honest/accurate pieces about prostitution, then that is a sign society are becoming more mature and open about the reality of prostitution?

Are you just trying to disagree for the sake of it?

aare wrote: »

Ah, but I think that the fact that you honestly, genuinely, haven't got a clue what you are talking about, probably means you also wouldn't have a clue whether I was right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle.

Listen, you've admitted yourself your knowledge of this subject is from the early 90's. Things have moved on a lot since then. For example, most prostitution now is done online via "escorts" rather than girls working the streets.

I am still in contact with girls who currently work as prostitutes, and meet them regularly, so I am not some clueless crazy on boards.ie.

aare

AARRRGH wrote: »

I would agree there are easier jobs in the world, and I would agree prostitution is not a good career choice for the average person, but there are plenty of women working as prostitutes who don't blow all their money on "drink, drugs, gambling, shopping or (their perception of) a pretty little boytoy."

I said that myself earlier, as you well know,

aare wrote:

Remember also, that a prostitute with 100k, only gets to keep, and increase, the 100k as long as she stays in prostitution...if she gets out she is back to square one, whatever square one was for her in the first place, enhanced by the stigma of her time as a hooker.

Others make a lot of money, and then blow it all on making it bearable, whether with drink, drugs, gambling, shopping or (their perception of) a pretty little boytoy.

Apart from which I honestly think you are just arguing to try and score semantic points for the sake of it and that's not my scene.

AARRRGH

I think you need to re-read what I wrote and re-read what you wrote. We are not saying the same thing.

In fact, I think you should re-read all my posts as you obviously are only skimming them having already decided what I might be saying.

Otherwise this discussion is pointless.

synd

Actually it relies on a highly tendentious set of assumptions about history, class, and exploitation. There's nothing "comprehensive" about Marxist analysis, given that it conveniently ignores anything that does not support its own premises.

The core of his social analysis is far superior to Austrian claptrap - hows that methological indavidualism working out for you ?

That amuses me, too. If they really want to be horrified, they should read Althusser, Gramsci, Lukacs, et al.

It amazing how a quick google/wiki search can give the illusion of knowlladge isnt it ?

Try Harvey - Limits to capital

"Fetish" is a Marxist term, yes? In that case, I don't have a "fetish" for Austrian economics, although I believe the Austrians have given us an eminently more sensible body of thought than have the Marxists. F. A. Hayek proved to be a much more prescient seer than did Marx himself.

Yes - but not really used in the marxian context above. Marx was the first to identify the mirage obscuring value production and accumulation. Heyek did what exactly ?

Road to serfdom - what an exellent book, seriously :rolleyes:

aare

AARRRGH wrote: »

this discussion is pointless.

You can say THAT again!
:rolleyes:

AARRRGH

aare wrote: »

You can say THAT again!
:rolleyes:

I hope that :rolleyes: is aimed at yourself.

Seriously, go back and read my posts, and then read your replies. A lot of your replies make no sense. As stated already, I think you have made up your mind about what I'm saying before you read my posts, so you just skim through them.

I can't continue debating with you if your posts make no sense or you continue to misquote me.

aare

AARRRGH wrote: »

I can't continue debating with you if your posts make no sense or you continue to misquote me.

So I guess we can attribute the fact that you are determined to keep this going WHATEVER to the (demonstrable) fact that I have never once "misquoted" you and that my posts make great deal of sense...

That works for me.

rantyface

The times today had an article claiming over a hundred women forced into prostitution were working in Ireland. Anyone who uses them knowing that is potentially committing rape, and has no moral qualms with rape.

It should be legalised. I don't know how many brothels would remain, because it seems that most of the prostitutes working here would not get work permits for real jobs, and people who can get decent jobs normally wouldn't be prostitutes. Also, the women who were trafficked could safely admit to it and get out of it.