LostInTheCosmos:

If you go back a few posts, I actually agree with you here. There is nothing wrong with manual labor is what I propose. What is wrong is when your boss or company makes you feel used. Even the most arduous jobs can be made meaningful and your skills (no matter how small) are valued. It becomes wrong when management treats labor merely as a commodity.

A manual labor job isn't inherently treating a human person as a commodity (it depends on how labor is treated by the management - and I agree that it CAN be), I contrast that with prostitution where the human person IS the commodity.

no, the sex is the commodity, just like my hauling bricks is. its the WORK being performed that is the commodity not the person doing it. a hooker isnt selling me her body shes selling me an orgasim. i COULD get an orgasim and never lay a hand on her you know.

Actually, we don't disagree here. We can agree murder is wrong, but the level of culpability is variable depending on the situation and circumstances. That is where Western Civilization implemented the "hate the sin" / "love the sinner" and put it into its judicial law system.

your reaching for a point that doesnt exist if you ask me. western law isnt based on SIN in any form. it just happens that a few things that are against the law are also SINS in most major religions.

This is where I need to point out that being too "culturally sensitive" is an exercise in absurdity. Some cultures have child brides - like Fundamentalist Mormons, Hindus and Muslims. Some cultures practice rape of women, girls and boys - like Aboriginal Australians.

The issue I have is if we tend to go for "lowest common denominator" out of cultural respect, I believe it is an exercise in absurdity. I think you and I came to that agreement on the Overpopulation Thread.

but the thing that we are aruging about here is what right we have to impose our culture on others. i mean if a hooker comes to you and askes for your help you have every right to say to her if you want my help than you must stop selling sex for money, but if shes asking you for nothing or otherwise not effecting you in any serious (denighing you some basic right for example) way than you have no right to impose your will on her.

Maybe as a citizen, this is true. The problem is when you are a ruler who has to impose laws, help people get a long, limit crime, etc. At that point it is your moral obligation to impose some law and order upon the populace.

I think you and I would agree with St. Thomas Aquinas's approach that the law is to tolerate some evils in order not to produce greater ones. It is wrong to steal, but we do not jail a child for stealing cookies for instance. Rigorous laws can do more damage than good in many cases. And that is why this is a welcome debate on the issue of Prostitution, and as many brought to light it's inherent hypocrisy with Pornography being "legal".

I also believe that abortion is intrinsically evil. But I recognize that we cannot wholesale illegalize abortion at the current state of our culture. That would be irresponsible and introduce grave injustices greater than if abortion remained legal. There is many cultural changes that must occur prior to illegalizing abortion.

neither you nor i are leaders, and i contend that any law that seeks to put someone in jail should NOT be based on a moral opinion. give me a reason that you would lock up hookers that DOESNT include any referance to morality of any kind and then we can talk. and im telling you right now you cant, if a person chooses to sell sex for money there is no crime there without referance to a moral code. now there are cases where say a hooker with AIDS knowingly has sex with someone and infects them, that id call a crime but there isnt a moral issue there, shes harming him by designe. and even in THIS case id only call it a crime because she didnt warn him of the danger, if she told him before they had sex and he did it anyway *shrug* too bad. its not societys job to keep stupid people from doing stupid things. and its CERTIANLY not something you should make laws about or lock anyone up over.

I wholly agree. Again my point above is what do you do as a rule, a law maker, or as a policeman?

For myself, I talk to a lot of people about the mistakes I made in my relationships. Encourage others to not settle for second best, but to really strive for something that will truly make them joyous and happy because they deserve better.

Some of the people I dearly loved have done practically everything under the sun you can think of (and maybe some you shudder to believe are possible.) And always, I see the common theme that they don't think they deserve more or better or think much of themselves.

Like I said in my previous post. They CHOOSE what makes them happy with what they are allotted. No one can deny them that. And no God I believe in would condemn them to hell for that either. (That is why I'm Catholic and not a fundamentalist Christian.) And it is my responsibility as my brother's keeper to love them and show them something better.

OUTSTANDING, i can agree with you 100% here, NOW if we can just get you to stop wanting too lock up hookers because they CHOOSE to be hookers we can put this thing to bed. (pun intended)

I wholly disagree. If we wait till we are perfect before we help another, we will never arrive. I say that we struggle TOGETHER. We journey TOGETHER. We make mistakes TOGETHER. It is my place to talk about that lofty mountain top, the view, the goal we are to attain, not as a judgment but inspiration of the people we can become - and we journey TOGETHER.

You can call me on my flaws, and as a friend I invite you to help remove the log in my eye. I'm not free of sin, but I will not cease calling a sin a sin.

What I fear is too many people hide and accept mediocrity under the premise of "Judge not" as if it was some endorsement from God to stop thinking, stop trying, and stop helping others why may not know better.

That's the best I can do as a regular person, as a human being.

But if I were a person in governance, in charge of the well being of the society, the peace of the public and the general welfare? Then I *must* judge, I *must* incarcerate what I think is dangerous to society. To fail to do so is negligence to my duties which is entrusted to me to protect the innocent.

i can see and agree with most of what you say. trouble is that we have to again come back to you wanting too lock up hookers because of your moral views on the subject. hookers dont hurt society they simply do something you find moraly wrong. and in a society where we ARENT all in agreement and we DONT all journey together you cant simply impose your will on others.

you and me we are alot alike. i dont have any issue with you and most of your points on morality i can totaly agree with. where we part is what to DO about our moral views. you want to impose them on others, i say newp the best way to show them your 'right' is to live well. you cant beat them with a stick you have to give them an example they WANT to follow.

no one has ever been converted to any belief by any sword. your not going to stop prostitution by making it against the law. thats just holding a knife to a person and saying do it because i said so. if you want to stop prostitution than deal with the prostitutes one on one. SHOW them they can have a better life by having one of your own. make them WANT to change on their own because they see by looking at YOUR life that they CAN change. that there IS something better. but you dont want to do that, you want the government to make the police pull the sword on them and lock em up. you would rather ignore the problem and put the 'problem' in jail than CURE the problem.

now i can agree that some problems you cant do anything BUT lock up. but you will never get me to agree that what a concenting adult person does or doesnt do in their bedroom is one of them.

Wyatt:
no, the sex is the commodity, just like my hauling bricks is. its the WORK being performed that is the commodity not the person doing it. a hooker isnt selling me her body shes selling me an orgasim. i COULD get an orgasim and never lay a hand on her you know.

If you're referencing something along the lines of pornography or voyeurism, I'd contend that is also immoral and could argue that porn should be illegal.

your reaching for a point that doesnt exist if you ask me. western law isnt based on SIN in any form. it just happens that a few things that are against the law are also SINS in most major religions.

I'm talking about how Western Law (influenced by Christianity) is the first law system to make a distinction between the person doing the crime and the crime itself. It seeks to understand motivation and circumstance against the weight of the crime. Not diretly because of sin itself.

but the thing that we are aruging about here is what right we have to impose our culture on others. i mean if a hooker comes to you and askes for your help you have every right to say to her if you want my help than you must stop selling sex for money, but if shes asking you for nothing or otherwise not effecting you in any serious (denighing you some basic right for example) way than you have no right to impose your will on her.

So should we get involved when underage Fundamentalist Mormon girls are propagandized to believe that they can't go to Heaven unless they marry a much older man? Or when your Australian Aboriginee neighbor rapes young children as a cultural past time?

There are some cultures that should be fought against. I hope you agree with me that pedophile cultures and cultures of women exploitation such as what I described deserve to be imposed upon.

Let me dive upon something non-related... And possibly draw an analogy.

Do you believe we should enforce laws against drunk driving?

LostInTheCosmos:

Let me dive upon something non-related... And possibly draw an analogy.

Do you believe we should enforce laws against drunk driving?

Do you believe we have the right to enforce our views on other cultures? The much condemned Arabians would have eliminated drink and the Aboriginees have never taken to driving much.

Whilst we can preach tolerance of all life to others, shouldn't we first look at ourselves?

The law in the UK is currently a bit peculiar...
More than 2 girls working in the same establishment at a time is illegal.
A male pimp is illegal, but a madame or an agency taking a cut is not.

Also, does the onus being shifted to the John to ascertain the willingness of the working girl to operate in the job not smack a little of the absence of mens rea? Which is something that is usually necessary for a crime to be committed? Just a thought.

Not like the current govt. pays attention to anything like fact or advice- just look at their bullshit stance on weed. They set up a load of researchers and consultation with the police, and despite the recommendations of both doctors (who said there was no conclusive proof of potential mental health risks) and the police (who have bigger things to deal with) are deciding to reclassify it back up to class B. Got to look tough on crime, even if their policies don't achieve much.

Fucktards.

Legalise for better regulation, taxation of a grey economy and allowing the girls to choose their own futures, maybe even invest in a pension or something else which will last longer than their looks.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Do you believe we have the right to enforce our views on other cultures? The much condemned Arabians would have eliminated drink and the Aboriginees have never taken to driving much.

Whilst we can preach tolerance of all life to others, shouldn't we first look at ourselves?

Yes, I believe that we should enfore our views on other cultures. We have done so against polygamy in the past. We did so against human sacrifice cultures and cannibalism. We do so now against pedophiles. We do so against wife burning when the husband dies. We also do so against rape cultures like the Aboriginees. Don't tell me you think all cultures are equal.

Tolerance can be practiced to absurdity - and one can constantly navel gaze while we wonder if we should prosecute child rapists who "don't know any better."

Case in point:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/10/australia.barbaramcmahon
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/aur-d21.shtml

LostInTheCosmos:

Yes, I believe that we should enfore our views on other cultures.

Whoa...Because obviously we have ALL the answers...

And a totally unbiased media...

Onwards to victory against those damn dirty savages, what?

LostInTheCosmos:

Yes, I believe that we should enfore our views on other cultures.

Uh.. didn't we learn the lesson about doing this during that whole colonialist/imperialistic period? You know the one that is still causing trouble today?

Most credible pornography studios have their performers tested weekly for STDs. I wonder though, what would you call a tax on Prostitution?

Sex is overrated and I can't understand why anyone would pay for it.

That said, a loophole occurs to me...

Sperm banks.

That's right. Surely, they could get hold of all the deposits they need by employing "nurses" who were good with their hands.

Then unmarried, lesbian, or fertility-challenged women could then pay for the necessary withdrawal, effectively paying the "nurses" wages.

Everybody wins and it is for a good cause.

Helnurath:
Most credible pornography studios have their performers tested weekly for STDs. I wonder though, what would you call a tax on Prostitution?

A Pole Tax?

Helnurath:
Most credible pornography studios have their performers tested weekly for STDs. I wonder though, what would you call a tax on Prostitution?

The Love Tax?

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Helnurath:
Most credible pornography studios have their performers tested weekly for STDs. I wonder though, what would you call a tax on Prostitution?

The Love Tax?

I have it! (Just got back from the donut shop!) The Jellystick tax!

MrBirdy:
It kinda is legal here... in holland(the netherlands) that is, though it's more that the government just closes an eye :o. But then again, they want to cut it back due to the involvement of criminality and illegal prostitutes. As they want to remove all coffe shops within 250 m of schools!!!!!!!!!!!! :(

It is legal here in The Netherlands. the prostitutes even pay taxes. The only reason they closed down al the windows and brothels is because the buildings are worth a lot of money and this way the city earns a lot of money from renting out the buildings.

It didn't help with crime becuase it moeved the prostitutes to harder to control areas and into illegal prostitution.
I live in Amsterdam and since the closing of half the windows in the red light district the bar 2 houses from mine has become a illigal brothel. That is the effect of the actions the city of Amsterdam is taking.

And on an afterthought the are destroying one of Amsterdam biggest tourist atractions.

(I apologize for my grammar i am not English)

Danglybits:
If porn is legal, then prostitution should be legal. Why is it okay to accept money for sex if there's a camera running, but if not then everyone involved goes to jail?

Hence why I wonder why guys just don't higher a prostitute, and bring there camera with, get a 'permit' to shoot a movie/porn and be done with any legalities? :P

Prohibition never works.
Regulation is a lot better.
Morality should not be imparted by the government and made into a law. Morality, and learning about what is good or bad is a job that every parent should be expected to carry out, AT HOME.

The "think of the children" dilemma is just a selling point politicians use for votes and further criminalize a big chunk of the populace that do not agree with the "moral crowd". Stopping an adult place from being built, is not going to make it go away, it will just go somewhere else. But building brothels near schools is not the issue.

What i do in my bedroom is my business alone, not the governments, nor anyone else for that matter.

But then again, what is moral? what is ethic? it's all relative, and in the grand scheme of things i do not have an answer, but i do like to share what i know...

Being respectful about the rights of others is "Peace".

All societies through the entire of human history have had prostitution in some form or another, so I would count it as a necessary evil.

The_root_of_all_evil:

LostInTheCosmos:

Yes, I believe that we should enfore our views on other cultures.

Whoa...Because obviously we have ALL the answers...

And a totally unbiased media...

Onwards to victory against those damn dirty savages, what?

Two words:

Hell yes.

As a culture, Western Civilization has much to be proud of. And I honestly believe that education systems love to impose "white guilt" for civilizing those "brown savages."

You can't possibly tell me that human sacrifice, pedophilia, gang rape, and other cultural norms are actually good things? Or does "white guilt" tie your hands so badly that you aren't even willing to put a judgment on such practices?

And here I thought Catholic guilt was bad.

LostInTheCosmos:

You can't possibly tell me that human sacrifice, pedophilia, gang rape, and other cultural norms are actually good things? Or does "white guilt" tie your hands so badly that you aren't even willing to put a judgment on such practices?

At some point, almost all of those things were practiced or accepted by Western Civilization.

Armitage Shanks:

LostInTheCosmos:

You can't possibly tell me that human sacrifice, pedophilia, gang rape, and other cultural norms are actually good things? Or does "white guilt" tie your hands so badly that you aren't even willing to put a judgment on such practices?

At some point, almost all of those things were practiced or accepted by Western Civilization.

And we shall again if no one is willing to stand up against it.

The government should be taking a more active role in cracking down on trafficking.

Ive heard stuff about prostitution (the trafficked), don't think its particularly nice, as lots of the time the government has no idea some of these prostitutes exist.

LostInTheCosmos:
If you're referencing something along the lines of pornography or voyeurism, I'd contend that is also immoral and could argue that porn should be illegal.

im not im talking about the basic transaction involved in prostitution, a hooker isnt selling you her body shes selling you an orgasm.

I'm talking about how Western Law (influenced by Christianity) is the first law system to make a distinction between the person doing the crime and the crime itself. It seeks to understand motivation and circumstance against the weight of the crime. Not diretly because of sin itself.

id have to dissagreee with the 'western law' bit being the first, id say that Jewish law was if not the first than one of the first. id also contend that many smaller cultures in pre history couldnt have anything but a system of laws that tryed to establish the motivation and circumstance against the weight of the crime. when tribal cheiftans (insert any other title for a absolute rule) rule a legal system MOST judgments are based on individuals and circumstances in establishing how the 'law' was to be applyed.

i will say though that American law was certianly based on the 10 commandments. but dont make too much of that. its based on the 10 commandments much like a car is based on its tires. that is to say that the 10 commandments are a place to start and are a part of the whole but arent the entire thing.

So should we get involved when underage Fundamentalist Mormon girls are propagandized to believe that they can't go to Heaven unless they marry a much older man? Or when your Australian Aboriginee neighbor rapes young children as a cultural past time?

There are some cultures that should be fought against. I hope you agree with me that pedophile cultures and cultures of women exploitation such as what I described deserve to be imposed upon.

Let me dive upon something non-related... And possibly draw an analogy.

Do you believe we should enforce laws against drunk driving?

underage mormon girls are just that , underaged. if they had reached their majority and could concent than its none of my business really. when they are children than we have a duty to keep them from harm. a duty that i might add should be approached with extream care that the 'harm' we are protecting them from is a REAL danger to them and not just a cultural thing that we are uncomfortable with but doesnt do any actual harm.

the australian thing..... i dont live in australia. a cop out? possably but true none the less. when the woman being abused come to my nation for help than id certianly say we have a case for intervention. if they dont than WE dont. it all hinges on the point for me about wether or not we have a right to impose ourselves into a situation where we are uninvited and unwelcomed.

the drunk driving thing, yeah we have a duty to prevent it. simply because your right to drive drunk doesnt take precident over my right to not die in an accident you cause.

now i totaly and 100% agree with you that some cultures are terrible and we DO have a right to judge them. right and wrong dont change with geography. some things are right and some are wrong. basic things like murder and rape for example are wrong no matter their location or culture. again though the question hinges for me on what point do we get to become invovled and impose our will on other cultures. America isnt a police force, we DONT have all the right answers for the majority of questions. and our culture isnt the only right way of doing things. i would say that there are basic human rights that we should seek to uphold around the world but if we do that than we must do it totaly and we must do it everyplace all the time without exception. if we are going to attack some nation in africa because of Human rights abuses than we should also be landing troops in CHINA for the same thing. otherwise we arent protecting anyone we are simply being bullys. what would YOU think if a cop arrested a little old lady for jay walking but ignored the biker gang robing a bank at the same time?

we are wandering a little far afield here though. we are talking about selling sex for money between two concenting adults. and while i enjoy long winded chatter about things like this we must not lose focus totaly. concenting adults should be able to do what ever the hell they like in their own bedrooms including selling an orgasm for cash.

I don't think it is possible for someone else to see you an orgasm. You can give that to yourself. That's why I think that saying that a prostitute is "selling you an orgasm" is a cop-out. She is selling you her body so that you can achieve an orgasm not alone.

id have to dissagreee with the 'western law' bit being the first, id say that Jewish law was if not the first than one of the first. id also contend that many smaller cultures in pre history couldnt have anything but a system of laws that tryed to establish the motivation and circumstance against the weight of the crime. when tribal cheiftans (insert any other title for a absolute rule) rule a legal system MOST judgments are based on individuals and circumstances in establishing how the 'law' was to be applyed.

I'd say that Jewish law did not do this. The whole episode with Jesus and the Prostitute with "He who is without sin..." is demonstration of this fact. If you want me to be specific, it is the Christian-influenced law that started making these distinctions.

underage mormon girls are just that , underaged.

The definition of "underage" is culturally defined. If you go to different countries their definition is much lower and some countries have none at all. Some countries state a certain age in the books, but socially don't prosecute underage sex. In either case, our definition of the word "underage" isn't viable.

Until recently, it prostitution 14 year old girls was legal north of the US border in our friendly neighbor Canada. It wasn't until recently that they upped the legal age to 16, but Canada has tons of problems with underage sex trafficking because Prostitution is legal.

the australian thing..... i dont live in australia. a cop out?

The issues I stated in Australia is Australians trying to deal with their own neighbors - the aboriginals in their own country. Many judges stay silent, don't even prosecute, or give slap on the wrist sentences even in cases of murder because it is a cultural practice.

what would YOU think if a cop arrested a little old lady for jay walking but ignored the biker gang robing a bank at the same time?

As I said before there are certain things that are wrong but cannot be enforced because it would cause greater evils. And in the case you stated, this is a grave violation of duties, corruption or a mistake. I would agree with you that a police force may spend too much time jailing Prostitutes and not enough time on their pimps, but this may part of the problem of gathering enough evidence of a crime and a flaw in our law system.

we are wandering a little far afield here though. we are talking about selling sex for money between two concenting adults.

The reason for the digression is because you asked, "Do we have a right to impose on other cultures?" And you answered "Yes." It's just that your threshold of imposition is smaller than mine, but we both agree that some imposition is needed. We disagree on how much or how little we impose our values on others, which is a much smaller debate. Because if you said "we should not impose our values no matter what" you can see the absurdity of that line of argument. I think we are much closer to each other's thinking on that matter.

concenting adults should be able to do what ever the hell they like in their own bedrooms including selling an orgasm for cash.

So you're fine with a husband punching his wife, so long as she thinks she deserves it?

LostInTheCosmos:
I don't think it is possible for someone else to see you an orgasm. You can give that to yourself. That's why I think that saying that a prostitute is "selling you an orgasm" is a cop-out. She is selling you her body so that you can achieve an orgasm not alone.

and what do you DO with her body? thats right you use it too reach an orgasim. ive nver heard of someone going to a hooker and just saying "hey, loan me your leg for a while i need something to prop up this stack of books"

I'd say that Jewish law did not do this. The whole episode with Jesus and the Prostitute with "He who is without sin..." is demonstration of this fact. If you want me to be specific, it is the Christian-influenced law that started making these distinctions.

Christian law IS Jewish law. Jesus himself said so.

The definition of "underage" is culturally defined. If you go to different countries their definition is much lower and some countries have none at all. Some countries state a certain age in the books, but socially don't prosecute underage sex. In either case, our definition of the word "underage" isn't viable.

Until recently, it prostitution 14 year old girls was legal north of the US border in our friendly neighbor Canada. It wasn't until recently that they upped the legal age to 16, but Canada has tons of problems with underage sex trafficking because Prostitution is legal.

all nations have problems with it especialy the ones where selling sex for money is NOT legal, why not? if your going to jail anyhow if you get cought why not go to jail for a hot young 16 or even 15 or 14 year old instead of some old worn out 20 year old (being sarcastic but my point is a very valid one)?. your point is taken about what defines underage though. in America in most states its 17 a few its 16 and some it was 14 so id say it depends on the states laws governing the age of concent wether or not someone should 'step in'. and dont even get me started on the problems with an 'age of concent' for anything. especialy drinking.

The issues I stated in Australia is Australians trying to deal with their own neighbors - the aboriginals in their own country. Many judges stay silent, don't even prosecute, or give slap on the wrist sentences even in cases of murder because it is a cultural practice.

well now are these aboriginals neighbors or a part of the nation? cause of they are neighbors than the judges SHOULDNT be sticking their noses in to a soverign nation. much like our own American indian tribes.

As I said before there are certain things that are wrong but cannot be enforced because it would cause greater evils. And in the case you stated, this is a grave violation of duties, corruption or a mistake. I would agree with you that a police force may spend too much time jailing Prostitutes and not enough time on their pimps, but this may part of the problem of gathering enough evidence of a crime and a flaw in our law system.

no im talking bigger picture. if we are gunna attack some nation in africa for human rights abuses (the little old lady jay walking) than we should be laying into china (the biker gangs robbing banks) and the Old Russia for the same thing. hell given our treatment of prisoners in Gitmo we should by good rights be attacking OURSELVES. nothing pisses me off worse than hypocracy especialy when people do it and try and justify sticking their nose into a situation where they have no business being in the first place.

The reason for the digression is because you asked, "Do we have a right to impose on other cultures?" And you answered "Yes." It's just that your threshold of imposition is smaller than mine, but we both agree that some imposition is needed. We disagree on how much or how little we impose our values on others, which is a much smaller debate. Because if you said "we should not impose our values no matter what" you can see the absurdity of that line of argument. I think we are much closer to each other's thinking on that matter.

right my cutoff is wether or not someone invovled in the4 situation askes me/my nation for help. if they dont than let em be. yours is 'im my brothers keeper' a noble goal sometimes but far more often its used as an excuse to impose YOUR morals on someone else "for their own good"

So you're fine with a husband punching his wife, so long as she thinks she deserves it?

your friggen right i am, if she chooses to stay in that situation than she diserves her fait. and im speaking from first hand experiance with my very own sister.

Wyatt:
and what do you DO with her body? thats right you use it too reach an orgasim. ive nver heard of someone going to a hooker and just saying "hey, loan me your leg for a while i need something to prop up this stack of books"

Exactly. The person becomes a means to an end. She is not the ends itself. That is why it is wrong.

When work treats you merely as a means to an end - that you are merely a gear in the machine, that is wrong as well and you are right in relating the two. This applies to any work, menial, manual, or any kind. When you are treated merely as a cog in the machine, that is wrong.

It is an extra difference in that your sexuality is what is being used in Prostitution. Your sexuality has powers beyond just merely lifting stones or holding up books.

Christian law IS Jewish law. Jesus himself said so.

Christian law is the fulfillment of the Jewish law. But it is not vice versa. The Jewish law made no distinction between the sin and the sinner. Thus it was permissible to stone a prostitute, an adulteress to death. Jesus showed the spirit of the law and the reason why God condemns sin - for the sake of the sinner.

your point is taken about what defines underage though.

Thanks. :)

well now are these aboriginals neighbors or a part of the nation? cause of they are neighbors than the judges SHOULDNT be sticking their noses in to a soverign nation. much like our own American indian tribes.

I do not believe they are a sovereign nation. But I will stand to be corrected. In either case, rape trials end up in the Australian court system and are dismissed or light on sentencing due to "cultural differences." I just ran into a ton of these articles in past debates to prove that not all cultures are equal.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,21275620-25132,00.html

no im talking bigger picture. if we are gunna attack some nation in africa for human rights abuses (the little old lady jay walking) than we should be laying into china (the biker gangs robbing banks) and the Old Russia for the same thing. hell given our treatment of prisoners in Gitmo we should by good rights be attacking OURSELVES. nothing pisses me off worse than hypocracy especialy when people do it and try and justify sticking their nose into a situation where they have no business being in the first place.

I agree with you there brother. And in some ways, you could argue that we are "sleeping" with the biker gangs because so much of our commerce and trade comes from China - despite its egregious human rights violations that we choose to ignore.

So you're fine with a husband punching his wife, so long as she thinks she deserves it?

your friggen right i am, if she chooses to stay in that situation than she diserves her fait. and im speaking from first hand experiance with my very own sister.

As her brother, did you intervene in any way? Like... Talk to her to get herself out of that situation? Or did you say nothing at all?

I will assume that you at least talked to her to get out of that situation. Wouldn't that be considered "judgmental" and "moralistic"?

Now what if she was beaten right in front of you - would you step in then?

If I am causing offense by asking, I apologize. I'm only trying to understand how you dealt with that situation and try to parallel it with your line of argumentation against me.

prostitution IS legal in New Zealand.

LostInTheCosmos:

Exactly. The person becomes a means to an end. She is not the ends itself. That is why it is wrong.

When work treats you merely as a means to an end - that you are merely a gear in the machine, that is wrong as well and you are right in relating the two. This applies to any work, menial, manual, or any kind. When you are treated merely as a cog in the machine, that is wrong.

It is an extra difference in that your sexuality is what is being used in Prostitution. Your sexuality has powers beyond just merely lifting stones or holding up books.

maybe its just a guy thing but i really dont see that being used for sex is any worse than being used to lift stones. its not even a matter of degree for me, its all usage. would you rather eat a plate of dog shit or cat shit? either way your eating shit. the reason i think YOU have trouble with the sex aspect is that you have typical Christian views on sex. its bad, poison, not to be done unless your married and then only to breed. i on the other hand see the value in being married before sex (though i dont practice that myself so i wont preach) but i dont see any real harm in two people who ARENT married having concentual sex.

i guess we just have to agree to differ and let this aspect go at that.

I do not believe they are a sovereign nation. But I will stand to be corrected. In either case, rape trials end up in the Australian court system and are dismissed or light on sentencing due to "cultural differences." I just ran into a ton of these articles in past debates to prove that not all cultures are equal.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,21275620-25132,00.html

i find this kinda interesting really. i was just watching a PBS show ( i think it was) the other night that was dealing with a lack of law enforcment on American indian tribal lands. there is alot of overlap between what laws are enforced by the tribes themselves and what ones are taken by the Federal government. seems its about the same thing , i recall them saying that something like 490 somthing serious crimes were sent to the federal DA in 06 and he only persued something like 18 of them and even those 18 got a minimum sentince due to all the confusion of just who is responcable for enforcing what laws.makes you feel kinda bad for the victims one the one hand but on the other how much shit do you have to put up with before you move 10 miles down a road and come under the full protection of the American legal system? its not like someone is holding a gun too the victims heads forcing them to live in a lawless shit hole like that reservation has become.

I agree with you there brother. And in some ways, you could argue that we are "sleeping" with the biker gangs because so much of our commerce and trade comes from China - despite its egregious human rights violations that we choose to ignore.

im kinda using this as an example of how human nature will allways override any laws or governments for that matter. internationel relations are never about the rule of law and are allways ALLWAYS about doing whats best for ones nation and screw everyone else if it comes down too it. i say if it works for nations why not individual people? i mean what moral authority does a government have to say i cant have sex for money but at the same time deal with china (and other nations like them) as equils and ignore moral issues? either we live by our morals all the time or none of the time from my point of view. dont preach to me about having sex for money when your willing too deal with a nation that kills its own citizens for what id call the most trivial of reasons.

As her brother, did you intervene in any way? Like... Talk to her to get herself out of that situation? Or did you say nothing at all?

I will assume that you at least talked to her to get out of that situation. Wouldn't that be considered "judgmental" and "moralistic"?

Now what if she was beaten right in front of you - would you step in then?

If I am causing offense by asking, I apologize. I'm only trying to understand how you dealt with that situation and try to parallel it with your line of argumentation against me.

yeah sure i talked with her. shes my sister, that alone gives me a large measure of responcability twords her well being right there. i talked with her, she decided he 'didnt mean it' and 'wasnt really a bad guy' and she 'kinda asked for it' i asked her if she wanted my help, she said no. i ignored her the first time and had a "talk" with him involving some harsh words and a few other things. it didnt help now shes still with him and pissed at me. not only is she dealing with an abusive man but shes also made the choice to cut off my support. not totaly, we still speak, but not about that.

would i watch him beat her in front of me? hell no. i wouldnt watch YOU beat your wife in front of me, or anyone else for that matter. but prostitution isnt a beating (well unless you pay her extra *wink*) the point being its HER choice. if she askes me ill deal with him, if he does anything to her in frong of me id deal with him, but untill either of those things happen its up to her how to live her life. its a choice as much as id like to that i CANT make for her.

i will add here though that ive seen that the older i get the harder it really is for me to see clearly what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' , i mean some things are allways right and some allways wrong but its those cases that arent clear cut that im tending to err on the side of minding my own business. more than once when i was younger i jumped into a situation with both feet convinced that i knew what was best for every one only to end up making things worse in the long run.

It really depends. But basically, I say yes, provided everything is well-kept and handled professionally and carefully (hence, I voted "sometimes"). No more of this disease-invested streetwalker stuff where you never live past 25. No more of these poor foreign girls being taken from their countries and forced in to prostitution, either. Honestly, before we made prostitution legal, we'd have to stop all of that stuff.

And they'd have to pay taxes, too, dammit. =P

LostInTheCosmos:

So you're fine with a husband punching his wife, so long as she thinks she deserves it?

Absolutely.

Gone are the days of men ruling the world and women being poor little critters who need protection even from themselves. If a woman gets hit now she rights. If she chooses to waive them that is not the business of you or I.

Similarly, if a woman decides she wants to have sex with a man, that is not my business. If that man wants to give that woman some money afterwards, who the hell am I to say that he can't do that?

I can't even believe this debate is taking place, nobody has the right to tell two consenting adults how to behave as long as they are not hurting anyone else.

Wyatt:
the reason i think YOU have trouble with the sex aspect is that you have typical Christian views on sex. its bad, poison, not to be done unless your married and then only to breed.

You make too big an assumption. Given that many Christians believe that sex is something to be shunned, I do not.

Sex is the most beautiful thing one can experience. It is where a man and a woman can express such love, devotion, trust, and openness to one another that in that unity, it can become something truly real and truly eternal, that nine months later you may need to give that love a name.

The origin of our all our lives was made in the fire of that unifying act. It was meant always to be something special, something sacred - and thus in the public interest and social order that is meant to be protected.

I will say though, that though Christians tote about the "sanctity of marriage" as the reasons why we should not allow things such as prostitution, pornography or gay marriages, I will say that it is Christians who were the first to break the sanctity of marriage - over and over again - especially in the last century.

The discussion of this might need a new thread, so I will leave it at that and pursue a deeper explanation of what I believe is the deepest violation of the sanctity of marriage BY CHRISTIANS.

I will sum up the following points and bow out of this conversation.

1) There is true hypocrisy in allowing pornography but disallowing prostitution.
2) Not everything that is consented is healthy, good or even in the public interest (drug abuse, alcohol abuse, suicide)
3) Not every culture and cultural practices are good and many cannot be tolerated without severe public disorder or creating double standards

either we live by our morals all the time or none of the time from my point of view. dont preach to me about having sex for money when your willing too deal with a nation that kills its own citizens for what id call the most trivial of reasons.

I think that you just made the argument for me a few posts ago about what we SHOULD do and what we need to do given the imperfect circumstances. Ideally, our government should always act upon its principles, but when it fails to do so, I don't believe it gives us the right to become anarchists at the first moral failing.

yeah sure i talked with her. shes my sister, that alone gives me a large measure of responcability twords her well being right there. i talked with her, she decided he 'didnt mean it' and 'wasnt really a bad guy' and she 'kinda asked for it' i asked her if she wanted my help, she said no. i ignored her the first time and had a "talk" with him involving some harsh words and a few other things. it didnt help now shes still with him and pissed at me. not only is she dealing with an abusive man but shes also made the choice to cut off my support. not totaly, we still speak, but not about that.

would i watch him beat her in front of me? hell no. i wouldnt watch YOU beat your wife in front of me, or anyone else for that matter. but prostitution isnt a beating (well unless you pay her extra *wink*) the point being its HER choice. if she askes me ill deal with him, if he does anything to her in frong of me id deal with him, but untill either of those things happen its up to her how to live her life. its a choice as much as id like to that i CANT make for her.

Here we agree. Yet you must also recognize that stepping in when a man abuses your in front of you, is a "moral imposition" especially when she stated that she did not need your help. Personally, I'm glad you said you'd intervene and impose your morals should she do that in front of you.

i will add here though that ive seen that the older i get the harder it really is for me to see clearly what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' , i mean some things are allways right and some allways wrong but its those cases that arent clear cut that im tending to err on the side of minding my own business. more than once when i was younger i jumped into a situation with both feet convinced that i knew what was best for every one only to end up making things worse in the long run.

Funny thing was that when I was younger and in college, I was made to believe what you believe now. That I should mind my own business, not to judge, and not to impose my morality on anything. Not only did I get screwed, but I also saw that a lot of other people get screwed because I didn't intervene.

In the end, I resolved that I would rather be thought of as a jerk and treated with ingratitude than to risk being a coward.

In the videos I posted a while ago about a father who encouraged her daughter to pursue her dream of seeking fame and riches at the Bunny Ranch, her daughter later came to regret it and would have rather her father told her "no" to her stupid idea than to encourage her to go ahead.

I've lost friends for many years because I've told them what they are about to pursue an "open relationship" is a stupid decision and called judgmental and ostracized for my trouble. Ten years later, after their divorce, we can now start to be friends again - and told that I was respected for my courage in voicing my opinion.

rossatdi:
I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:

1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)

2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.

this

Susan Arendt:

Geekmaster:
I don't think it's healthy for anyone to see their body as a product since it might just screw badly with your self esteem in the long run so...... No.

While I understand what you're saying, prostitution is not the only profession in which one's body is a product. Models, pro athletes...they're making a living based on their bodies, too.

The blow to one's self esteem comes from treated as though you are doing something wrong, that your choices somehow make you less than other people. Theoretically, if prostitution was a legalized and accepted form of employment, then being a whore would be just another job, and no more a blow to one's self esteem than being an accountant or a banker.

I agree with you entirely, in retrospect prostitution was most likely one first things early man (or women) did.

Susan Arendt:
Regulate it, give the girls (or boys) health benefits, have ample security and require condoms for all customers, then tax the hell out of it. Then it's not only safe for everyone, it's a good source of income for the community. People are always going to pay for sex, that's just a fact of life. Seems far wiser to me to accept that fact and try to make it as safe and profitable as possible.

So were going to end up with a hookers union? Should there be a standard rate enough to cover the high tax but still insure the the prostitute gets a reliable income? Are we going to the have a secretary of prostitution? Will "hooker" start appearing and high school aptitude test? Will we be able to get degrees? If so to what level?

There are many questions we must ask our self.

LostInTheCosmos:

You make too big an assumption. Given that many Christians believe that sex is something to be shunned, I do not.

Sex is the most beautiful thing one can experience. It is where a man and a woman can express such love, devotion, trust, and openness to one another that in that unity, it can become something truly real and truly eternal, that nine months later you may need to give that love a name.

The origin of our all our lives was made in the fire of that unifying act. It was meant always to be something special, something sacred - and thus in the public interest and social order that is meant to be protected.

I will say though, that though Christians tote about the "sanctity of marriage" as the reasons why we should not allow things such as prostitution, pornography or gay marriages, I will say that it is Christians who were the first to break the sanctity of marriage - over and over again - especially in the last century.

The discussion of this might need a new thread, so I will leave it at that and pursue a deeper explanation of what I believe is the deepest violation of the sanctity of marriage BY CHRISTIANS.

I will sum up the following points and bow out of this conversation.

1) There is true hypocrisy in allowing pornography but disallowing prostitution.
2) Not everything that is consented is healthy, good or even in the public interest (drug abuse, alcohol abuse, suicide)
3) Not every culture and cultural practices are good and many cannot be tolerated without severe public disorder or creating double standards

my assumption was no worse than your assumption that all whores are diseas riddle drug addicts that live in the bad parts of town and are doomed to a life of hopeless dispair. im sure there are loads and loads of hookers that are quite happy with their life and wouldnt change a thing about it. people in all walks of life in all kinds of situations run the gammut of bottom to top.

you have made some rather large assumptions that prostitution is allways a bad thing, all the time, everyplace,in every circumstance, forever and ever amen.

i was hopeing youd pick up on this point so i could show you that its OUR assumptions that get us into trouble when we make laws based on morality.

I think that you just made the argument for me a few posts ago about what we SHOULD do and what we need to do given the imperfect circumstances. Ideally, our government should always act upon its principles, but when it fails to do so, I don't believe it gives us the right to become anarchists at the first moral failing.

*sticks a pin in the hyperbole balloon*

no one is saying that we should become a lawless band of Road warriors spinning giant wheels of justice in some desert thunderdome just because we dont all share a common morality.

the simple fact is its very hard to swollow any government trying to pass laws based ONLY on moral principals that take away a persons freedom of choice to engague in an act that is harmelss to society as a whole and at the same time ignore much WORSE acts and indeed often condone them from those outside their authority.

Here we agree. Yet you must also recognize that stepping in when a man abuses your in front of you, is a "moral imposition" especially when she stated that she did not need your help. Personally, I'm glad you said you'd intervene and impose your morals should she do that in front of you.

ahh but the thing is, if im THERE than im a part of the situation. im not setting in an office 2,000 miles away not knowing anyone involved and being totaly ignorant of even the smallest detail of the situation and sticking my two cents in.

if im there than I have a right to act because im taking part in the situation.

Funny thing was that when I was younger and in college, I was made to believe what you believe now. That I should mind my own business, not to judge, and not to impose my morality on anything. Not only did I get screwed, but I also saw that a lot of other people get screwed because I didn't intervene.

In the end, I resolved that I would rather be thought of as a jerk and treated with ingratitude than to risk being a coward.

In the videos I posted a while ago about a father who encouraged her daughter to pursue her dream of seeking fame and riches at the Bunny Ranch, her daughter later came to regret it and would have rather her father told her "no" to her stupid idea than to encourage her to go ahead.

I've lost friends for many years because I've told them what they are about to pursue an "open relationship" is a stupid decision and called judgmental and ostracized for my trouble. Ten years later, after their divorce, we can now start to be friends again - and told that I was respected for my courage in voicing my opinion.

ahh so you think that being right is the most importiant thing? all your actions are fully justified because you turned out to be right in the end?

hmmm, let me try and expand this some for you, my views that is. it turnes out that IM right about this though you wont agree and prolly wont see it till you have had some more experiance with life.

sometimes being right isnt nearly enough. you ever hear the old Saw about the Army guy that said "sir we had to destroy the village in order to save it" that guy was RIGHT. the only way to save that village (from falling into enemy hands) was too destroy it. the moral of this story is often missed becuse the TRUE moral of the story isnt about general stupidity of people, the TRUE moral is to be mindful of what your goals are.

using your example of talking too your friends about not having 'open marraiges' what was your goal? ill venture to guess that it was to save them from emotionel pain when they finaly relized that it wasnt such a good idea after all, so your method of accomplishing this was to inflict emotionel pain on them of another kind, by making them dislike you NOW instead of each other later? sort of inoculating them from a bigger hurt later by infliction them with your judgmental arrogence now?

good plan except for one thing. you cant KNOW that an open marriage wont work and they wouldnt be happier living that way than living how you would want them too, you may have in fact done more harm to them than good, you may have forced them to get a divorce because of shear bordom in the bed room, while allowing them to explore the limits of an open marraige may have in fact made them come to relize they WANTED a 'normal' marriage after all and would have spent the rest of their life together happy and content with one another in the bedroom because they have had an experiance of just what the grass was like on the other side and found out that its not as green as they thought.
instead you try and shield them from what you see will be pain and misery by causing them a smaller hurt NOW by your attitude and actions as well as your judgments and make no allowance that you could be wrong. and that even if your goals were noble and good your results werent. you MAY have inflicted them with a much WORSE outcome than they would have otherwise have had.

i understand your feelings, you seem to be a kind person and dont like to see others in pain, your also smart and can 'see around corners' and predict actions and Consequences clearer than most. and your life experiance has show you that in predicting these Consequences your RIGHT in the majority of cases. but you dont look at the results of your being right. you dont think beyond the fact of your rightness to the reality that being right isnt an excuse for domination.

think about your mother and how she loved you, its been said with some justification that a mothers love is the strongest love possable. but if a mother lvoes their child TOO much, if they seek to protect them from everything, they create a crippled being incapable of dealing with lifes hard knocks. sometimes it better to let the baby burn their fingers on the hot stove to teach the lession that stoves arent too be touched, that mother COULD be called a monster because she didnt 'protect' her baby and let him get burned, but i say that mother just saved that baby from DEATH later by letting him learn a painful lession now under her guidance.

i say to you that you would be much better served by letting your friends learn the lessions of the pitfall (or possable rewards) of an open marriage, too let them make their OWN mistakes and learn the lessions they need to learn and simply to be there AFTER the train wreck to help pick them up and dust them off and move on with their life rather than seeking to protect them from themselves and makeing them turn against YOU. its much eaiser to simply claim in an arrogent fassion that you were RIGHT as you stand in the wreckage of a former friendship, cloaking your own misery in a cloth of 'rightness' as a shield against your sorrow of loosing a friend.

not only did they ignore your advice and proceed to have an open marriage that turned out horribly but you have compounded the problem by adding a faild friendship to it as well. so now instead of being able to count on your support and friendship after their mistakes come home to roost they ahve lost their relationship with both each other and YOU also. your 'helping' in fact made things much MUCH worse than it needed to be. and if you truly cared about those people you wouldnt do anything to cut them off from you, you would let them live their lives and simply be there to offer your support if they should need it. notice i said your support, not your judgment. even if your RIGHT on one small point you can still be wrong in the big picture.

its never easy to stand by and watch those you love and care about be hurt if you can do something about it. but you need to ask yourself what your goal is and what the results of YOUR actions could bring too the table. your never cut off from any situation, your never truly an impartial observer, once you stick your oar into a given situation you yourself become part of that situation. its the Heisenberg principal as it applys to real life human relationships. the very fact that you offer advice changed the possable outcome and you cant know if it will be fore the better or not.

Wyatt:
my assumption was no worse than your assumption that all whores are diseas riddle drug addicts that live in the bad parts of town and are doomed to a life of hopeless dispair. im sure there are loads and loads of hookers that are quite happy with their life and wouldnt change a thing about it. people in all walks of life in all kinds of situations run the gammut of bottom to top.

you have made some rather large assumptions that prostitution is allways a bad thing, all the time, everyplace,in every circumstance, forever and ever amen.

I really don't know where you'e coming up with this assumption that I think of a "stereotype" when it comes to prostitution. You like to put the words "all" or "every" to my statements when you should realize by now that I realize that there are many circumstances where one becomes a prostitute or not.

I've known a few people who have prostituted themselves. They aren't "disease ridden drug addict whores." And I understand the circumstances in which they did do these things. Some of them are people you would never have imagined would have sold themselves for sex.

I don't judge them for it. They judge it themselves. If you just gently hold their face and look beyond their eyes to the soul, they tell you everything. Even in impoverished places like Southeast Asia where a few dollars can buy you any perversity you can imagine, if you take a minute to really talk to the person, you know it.

And when you talk about love that cherishes the person not as a thing to be used, but as a person to be loved, and their bodies as sacred temples of worship and lifelong sacrifice they show you they want it, but don't believe that it is possible, or even that they deserve it after what they've done.

using your example of talking too your friends about not having 'open marraiges' what was your goal? ill venture to guess that it was to save them from emotionel pain when they finaly relized that it wasnt such a good idea after all, so your method of accomplishing this was to inflict emotionel pain on them of another kind, by making them dislike you NOW instead of each other later? sort of inoculating them from a bigger hurt later by infliction them with your judgmental arrogence now?

good plan except for one thing. you cant KNOW that an open marriage wont work and they wouldnt be happier living that way than living how you would want them too, you may have in fact done more harm to them than good, you may have forced them to get a divorce because of shear bordom in the bed room, while allowing them to explore the limits of an open marraige may have in fact made them come to relize they WANTED a 'normal' marriage after all and would have spent the rest of their life together happy and content with one another in the bedroom because they have had an experiance of just what the grass was like on the other side and found out that its not as green as they thought.

I could not have stopped them. I let them have their choice. I just told them what to expect as a result and asked if they are absolutely sure. They stated that they were and that they are happy in their marriage and believe they could handle anything thrown their way. So we parted ways.

They divorced AFTER they had tons of sex with other people. They found that the limits of their open marriage was simply that they couldn't stay together.

The result was not only their divorce, but a cascade of divorces that happened around them from all the swinging they did and making other people believe that they too can make an open marriage work. That somehow a new partner would stave off the boredom that they found in their own marriages.

And one after the other, they all fell apart.

If you believe as I do - morality is not some arbitrary rules we make up but is inherently understood to be part of our nature. Morality is akin to saying, "Don't pour molasses into your car engine. It wasn't designed to work that way!" As so it is with certain things of human nature.

not only did they ignore your advice and proceed to have an open marriage that turned out horribly but you have compounded the problem by adding a faild friendship to it as well. so now instead of being able to count on your support and friendship after their mistakes come home to roost they ahve lost their relationship with both each other and YOU also.

But this is not the end of the story. Now that the divorce(s) have happened, we have begun making amends. They knew I never stopped caring - that I was speaking what I believed to be the truth, judging their actions but not judging them as persons - because they know I love them, have loved them, and always will love them.

I can understand if you believe that I would like to be right for the sake of being so. I assume that you know a few people who are like that and I thank you for your advice. But I never crossed that line. It wasn't about being right, it was about being a true friend - speaking what is in your heart, no matter the cost, speaking out of love, and hoping to be proven wrong.

But ultimately, it has been shown to me time and time again that morals aren't arbitrary, that human nature isn't so malleable than we'd like to believe, that human hearts aren't so callous or fluid as we lie to ourselves that they are.

People want to be loved. They want to have someone love all of them and consume them in passionate fire - to be chase and never catch - to be pursued and never be caught. To have a love that is both here and now and yet also beyond and forever.

No one I have ever talked to has ever not wanted that. It is just painful to see so many give up that such a thing exists, and if it did, how they are so unworthy of it.

Well, even though the act itself is sometimes considered illegal to sell, everything else about sexuality sure isn't, so I say why not?