Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026
Prostitution
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
More or less accepted doesn't change the fact that basic cultural valuation system remains the same. Theft for instance is treated differently in various societies however theft itself is generally seen as undesirable.
But in your example of theft while disapproved and illegal, has its own breakdown & divisions of severity, and the punishments given out reflect the seriousness of the crime, dependent on the country in question.
Just as different countries have different viewpoints about the severity of prostitution and the negative effects it has on its own culture. If any.A system that pre-disposes a large group of people to theft (culturally undesirable) is inherently exploitative.
You've already pointed out that in your eyes every common day system is exploitative. Why should we consider this as being any different?Yes people place themselves in what are culturally regarded undesirable positions due to economic necessity - invariably it is those of lower socio economic standing who must occupy such positions therefore re-enforcing class domination.
yes, and? You're not proving anything different to what I've been saying. In many cases it falls down to what they themselves see that they should be doing based on cultural expectations... Their backgrounds suggest the manner of employment that they might consider suitable for them.
But the problem is the people who insist that they should stay within these limitations. That they can't have something better. Someone like you. That suggests that they cannot be anything more than what went before.When one person is coerced into doing something they and their given society regard culturally/socially degrading in order to survive.
And? So the one needs the other? So if the person involved does not feel that they are being coerced then... what?BTW - Don't bother trying to divorce individual valuation from social valuation the prior is predicated upon the later. A woman might consider sex for money degrading however this is not an atomized opinion - its a cultural construction.
A cultural construction... hmm... err... yes... Actually, nope. The point of modern society is individualism. People seek to be different from the traditional norms, while remaining within society. Admittedly, many of these differences have been promoted so much so, that people in seeking to be different, become the same within a sub-culture. The last forty years has shown the movement away from "social constructions".
You love your generalisations. The simple fact is that people seek to think for themselves, and for the most part, what was culturally disapproved thirty years ago, is no longer disapproved, and in some cases embraced. Thats life. Change. Consider the changes in different societies regarding Gay marriage, Childrens rights, Equality, drugs, etc. Things change.Categorization is a tool that facilitates social understanding - those who deny class categories often do so in order to obscure the nature of social hierarchy.
Categorization is a tool to limit perception into the real world. Categorization is for people who want to think in abstract economic and social terms. Abstract. Keep the people away from you and deal with sterile general terminology.Why exactly do you refuse to slap her ? the more appropriate question which I doubt youl answer given the implications.
haha... why would i refuse to answer.. ? I don't get any kicks from slapping girls during sex. Oh My.., is that strange? :rolleyes:Yes, shes a wage laborer - a tool of capitalist exploitation.
rofl.. you crack me up.
Am i really supposed to take that answer seriously?True, however democratization could undermine this process.
I doubt it.Plenty of historical examples - Anarchist Catalonia, Argentinian factory movement, Chipias under the EZLN ect.
On a country level? /sigh...If you want to engage in idiosyncratic re-definition and call participatory democracy slavery then feel free. Electoral decision making may seem like slavery compared to monarchy from the subjective position of a monarch - however the monarchs opinion doesn't really concern me.
One mans elephant is another mans tiger - thats nice, except the elephant is still a ****ing elephant !
I'm not particularly bothered the opinions of those at the top. I'm more concerned about how your opinions would seek to change and shape the world in such an image that you suggest. Which would in turn affect my own world. I don't particularly want to live in the world that you talk about.People of a despotic disposition tend to focus on relativism quite a bit - ie - (monarchy and slavery could mean freedom to some)
Smacks of apologetic service to tyranny
I much prefer reality. Thanks.(For a second time) - Id appreciate an answer considering this question reveals the point your attempting to obscure.
Attempting to obscure? lol. I answered your original question.
I don't feel any need to explain my position on human rights to you...
And I'm curious why you took so long to reply to this thread if I was so intent on obscuring.... :rolleyes:
You see, I still think you're unwilling or unable to actually talk about prostitution. You throw in formal and political terms, which is just another way of filling space. Just like in interviews, many politicians cannot answer straight questions. They need to throw in flowery phrases to cover their lack of knowledge. I can't see much difference. It was the same a few weeks back, when you responded before, and the same now.0 -
-
-
Just as different countries have different viewpoints about the severity of prostitution and the negative effects it has on its own culture. If any.
The degree to which something is considered undesirable differs - the point was that the European cultural valuation system remain the same at the base.You've already pointed out that in your eyes every common day system is exploitative. Why should we consider this as being any different?
We shouldn'tyes, and? You're not proving anything different to what I've been saying. In many cases it falls down to what they themselves see that they should be doing based on cultural expectations... Their backgrounds suggest the manner of employment that they might consider suitable for them.
Im reiterating that any given social system which facilitates class subordination is oppressive.But the problem is the people who insist that they should stay within these limitations. That they can't have something better. Someone like you. That suggests that they cannot be anything more than what went before.
Change is only possible through re-organization based around democratization (participatory).And? So the one needs the other? So if the person involved does not feel that they are being coerced then... what?
People who occupy the lowest social strata do feel coerced - in that occupying low social position generally entails feelings of subordination, disempowerment act. Furthermore they are sedated by the self serving liberal myth that social re-organization is impossible.A cultural construction... hmm... err... yes... Actually, nope. The point of modern society is individualism. People seek to be different from the traditional norms, while remaining within society. Admittedly, many of these differences have been promoted so much so, that people in seeking to be different, become the same within a sub-culture. The last forty years has shown the movement away from "social constructions".
Methological individualism is nonsense - people are not atomized agents. Every opinion, action or thought is entirely predicated upon pre-existing (communal) standards. The existence of sub cultures is testament to this - subcultures define themselves in relation to prevalent social patterns.
Funny enough methological individualism is itself a (social construction ). That upper class ideology strongly undermines notions of class solidarity is a contradiction in action- the irony is lost on some.You love your generalizations. The simple fact is that people seek to think for themselves, and for the most part, what was culturally disapproved thirty years ago, is no longer disapproved, and in some cases embraced. That’s life. Change. Consider the changes in different societies regarding Gay marriage, Children’s rights, Equality, drugs, etc. Things change.
Yes large scale social movements - class struggle further evidence of social cohesion.Categorization is a tool to limit perception into the real world. Categorization is for people who want to think in abstract economic and social terms. Abstract. Keep the people away from you and deal with sterile general terminology.
Individualism allows no understanding at all. Denial of sociological language amounts to idiocy - ie an army is an amalgamation of individuals who share a common condition have common goals ect.haha... why would i refuse to answer.. ? I don't get any kicks from slapping girls during sex. Oh My.., is that strange? :rolleyes:
You conveniently ignored the question (again).
WHY do you not get your kicks from slapping woman ?rofl.. you crack me up. :DAm i really supposed to take that answer seriously?
Well shes not receiving the full value of her labor for one - the surplus value of her service is expropriated by force of the fact she owned no capital. Simple economics that you should be able to grasp given your love of (reality).I doubt it.
doubt awayOn a country level? /sigh...
Given that the movements referred too generally seek to dismantle the nation state the question is irrelevant - in that due to their rejection of government they can never attain national power - (it goes against there principals).I'm not particularly bothered the opinions of those at the top. I'm more concerned about how your opinions would seek to change and shape the world in such an image that you suggest. Which would in turn affect my own world. I don't particularly want to live in the world that you talk about.
Democratization of workplace capital and the disintegration of government is the proposal.I much prefer reality. Thanks.
Today’s dream is tomorrows realityI don't feel any need to explain my position on human rights to you...
Il take it that your aware of the implications of answering then. I smell infantile liberalism
Again - why not, surely concentual market transitions should be allowed ?And I'm curious why you took so long to reply to this thread if I was so intent on obscuring.... :rolleyes:
I don’t sit at the computer all day - I have things to do.You see, I still think you're unwilling or unable to actually talk about prostitution. You throw in formal and political terms, which is just another way of filling space. Just like in interviews, many politicians cannot answer straight questions. They need to throw in flowery phrases to cover their lack of knowledge. I can't see much difference. It was the same a few weeks back, when you responded before, and the same now.
Your oversimplifying the topic in true liberal style - then again Im aware of the ideological necessity given the implications of reducing it to its economic base,
The core of this argument is socio economic class exploitation0 -
The degree to which something is considered undesirable differs - the point was that the European cultural valuation system remain the same at the base.
At its base. But nothing exists in the real world as a base character. You're not talking about reality.Im reiterating that any given social system which facilitates class subordination is oppressive.
Wooptie-do. And the point of re-iterating such a stance is?Change is only possible through re-organization based around democratization (participatory).
Thats Very narrow minded. Change happens through the desire for change. From any manner of sources.People who occupy the lowest social strata do feel coerced - in that occupying low social position generally entails feelings of subordination, disempowerment act. Furthermore they are sedated by the self serving liberal myth that social re-organization is impossible.
Nah.. people who are in the lowest strata care about putting food on the table, and paying their rent. It is people like yourself who is not on the lowest social position that care so much about subordination or disempowerment. People who are at those lowest scales care about improving their lives in small manageable ways that are least likely to back-fire on them.Methological individualism is nonsense - people are not atomized agents. Every opinion, action or thought is entirely predicated upon pre-existing (communal) standards. The existence of sub cultures is testament to this - subcultures define themselves in relation to prevalent social patterns.
Funny enough methological individualism is itself a (social construction ). That upper class ideology strongly undermines notions of class solidarity is a contradiction in action- the irony is lost on some.
Sounds rubbish, tbh. What you describe is an absolute and absolutes only exist in sterile environments. And the world we live in is not a sterile environment. Randomness exists, and change occurs from the least likely of sources.Individualism allows no understanding at all. Denial of sociological language amounts to idiocy - ie an army is an amalgamation of individuals who share a common condition have common goals ect.
Show me an army that is that focused....? Every organisation in world creates divisions within itself. We are not ants born from a hive.You conveniently ignored the question (again).
WHY do you not get your kicks from slapping woman ?
Nope. Ignored? Nope. I just don't see any reason why I should answer you..Well shes not receiving the full value of her labor for one - the surplus value of her service is expropriated by force of the fact she owned no capital. Simple economics that you should be able to grasp given your love of (reality).
She provides a service which is a massage. She advertises, and I purchase the service at the rate of value which she promotes. She then provides the service, and I go home after paying her for the service.
How is she not receiving her full value, when she determines the value of the service, and gets paid for the service?Given that the movements referred too generally seek to dismantle the nation state the question is irrelevant - in that due to their rejection of government they can never attain national power - (it goes against there principals).
Then its a useless answer. The point is that you can't show me such a system that is successfully working on a country level.Today’s dream is tomorrows reality
Somehow I think you might be waiting a long time for your reality to come into force.Il take it that your aware of the implications of answering then. I smell infantile liberalism
Again - why not, surely concentual market transitions should be allowed ?
I answered your original question. Simple.Your oversimplifying the topic in true liberal style - then again Im aware of the ideological necessity given the implications of reducing it to its economic base,
The core of this argument is socio economic class exploitation
Oversimplifying?. Have you actually read the other replies to this thread? You are the only one that has written in the format that you do. Throwing in generalized words which obviously have political, and economic backgrounds to them. TBH, reading your posts are a pain in the ass, simply because they're so hard to understand. I didn't swallow an economic dictionary when i was young.
The core of this argument is that you view prostitutes as being exploited, and dominated in society. Yes? Am I right? Or should I have thrown in Socio economic terms as well..?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
At its base. But nothing exists in the real world as a base character. You're not talking about reality.
You've missed the point ie - stratification based on basic cultural valuation remains intact.Nah.. people who are in the lowest strata care about putting food on the table, and paying their rent. It is people like yourself who is not on the lowest social position that care so much about subordination or disempowerment. People who are at those lowest scales care about improving their lives in small manageable ways that are least likely to back-fire on them.
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.Sounds rubbish, tbh. What you describe is an absolute and absolutes only exist in sterile environments. And the world we live in is not a sterile environment. Randomness exists, and change occurs from the least likely of sources.
Show me where randomness exists in society ?Show me an army that is that focused....? Every organization in world creates divisions within itself. We are not ants born from a hive.
Every social group has divisions within itself - the point is that an army is a social group, like a class.Nope. Ignored? Nope. I just don't see any reason why I should answer you..
Again - why don't you consider it appropriate to slap woman for gratification ?How is she not receiving her full value, when she determines the value of the service, and gets paid for the service?
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.Then its a useless answer. The point is that you can't show me such a system that is successfully working on a country level.
No, its a useless question given that it cant be answered - state communism is an oxymoronI answered your original question. Simple.
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 ?Oversimplifying?. Have you actually read the other replies to this thread? You are the only one that has written in the format that you do. Throwing in generalized words which obviously have political, and economic backgrounds to them. TBH, reading your posts are a pain in the ass, simply because they're so hard to understand. I didn't swallow an economic dictionary when i was young.
Everything has a political and economic background - using expanded terminology allows for more comprehensive communication. You should increase your vocabulary.The core of this argument is that you view prostitutes as being exploited, and dominated in society. Yes? Am I right? Or should I have thrown in Socio economic terms as well..?
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.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement