Latest post of the previous page:
animist wrote:"context is vital". A good phrase no doubt, but it takes no account of real life.
What do you suppose 'context' means?
Latest post of the previous page:
animist wrote:"context is vital". A good phrase no doubt, but it takes no account of real life.
Yeah, it's a complex problem with so many variables - be nice if everyone kept to an ethically moderated attitude. I have met women who complain about "loutish" blokes . . . Then ooh and ah over the next rough and tough looking character who swaggers along. I have met women who seek men whom they can dominate.animist wrote:I think that insofar this is true, it is part of the problem, and that male domination is largely due simply (well not really simply, but ultimately and complexly) to greater physical size and strength. Just imagine otherwise: that human males were actually somewhat smaller and weaker than females, but of similar intelligence and with - I believe inevitably - a higher sex drive consequent simply on the fact of being male. I believe that exchange of sex for money or some other inducement would probably still take place, but that it would lack all the dreadful characteristics which so offend thundril (and rightly so)Dave B wrote:animist wrote:And, in most "gregarious" animal species a tendency towards males having multiple mates - thus needing a strong mating drive, superior energy/strength, mostly larger size etc. It is often said that in basic functions we are not that far from our ancient relations....I would have thought it pretty predictable that the sex which has to penetrate, in some way, the other sex in order to achieve procreation would have the stronger sex drive.
well, I suppose I triggered this by use of the wrong word, ie "condemn", with its connotation of extremism and punishment; and anyway to condemn someone for a particular behaviour should mean only that one condemns that behaviour. But you did use the word "betray" earlier, which is pretty well as judgmental as "condemn". Going back to the three-way discussion some time ago between you, me and Emma W, I came to the conclusion that anyone who denies free will and moral responsibility (which are essentially two sides of the same coin) cannot really act this denial out; when they engage in some material topic, like the present one on prostitution, they use words which involve assignment of moral responsibility. Yes, prostitution does harm many women and girls; the challenge is to make it cease to do sothundril wrote:I have reached a point in life where I hardly ever condemn anyone for anything. Saying some behaviour is harmful to others is not the same as saying a person who indulges in that behaviour is a bad person. I don't have enough belief in free will, (or in my own capacity to judge, FTM) to go around 'condemning' people.
Prostitution harms a lot of girls and women. All I can do is tell you that this is the case. Whether that helps you to avoid the harmful behaviour is not really within my power.
?thundril wrote: I used the word sisters in a particular sense, which I assumed you would recognise and accept. I assumed wrong. I'll withdraw it so as not to upset you unnecessarily
I agree with your first statement, but more do not know than do know; and even if they do, I doubt that they relate to them - why should they? Only if there were a strong causal link between their own behaviour and the less free and fortunate situation of these "sisters" would this matter, and I guess this is the crux of our disagreement - you seem to believe that people's behaviour, in this respect, because it apparently in some way creates a "social context", strongly affects that of a multitude of others. I see this as very questionable, and to use one of your favourite retorts - where is your evidence? As to your question, it is a bit fatuous; there are so many people in the world that each of us knows of the condition of only a tiny fraction of these others, and I don't need special information sources to know thisthundril wrote:I get the impression that some do, and some don't. Where do you derive your information?they know little about the lives of other women outside their own circles, and neither do the men . . . know much about the disgusting behaviour of other men in other places
oh eck, bringing in alienation. Actually consumer culture depends on globalising of taste and behaviour in many ways, surely, and we are all connected much more intensely (eg via the internet) than we were; you are kind of arguing against your own case here, ISTMthundril wrote:Many men and women believe their lives are disconnected from other lives. Modern consumer culture depends on that degree of alienation.even if they do know a bit, there is no real connexion between their lives and these other lives.
actually I think you do demand that they be rigidly separated and if you don't, I am not sure what you do demand. You are right about the suffering which often does result from their juxtaposition, and so my vision is that commercial sex must be made purely consensual, for the benefit of both supplier and consumer; having said this, I don't actually think that prostitution is a "good thing" or a career choice, and anyone who gets involved in the sex industry as it now exists is taking big risksthundril wrote:I have nowhere proposed that they should be 'rigidly separated'. I have merely alluded to the suffering which is involved in their present, and historical, juxtaposition.. . . the nugget of my "vision" is for a more open and benign attitude to sexuality which recognises that the worlds of sexual contact and commerce need not be rigidly separated.
I am not demanding anything at all. At your invitation, I set down why I think a sex-for-money transaction 'between equals' is not really possible in a world whereanimist wrote:actually I think you do demand that they be rigidly separated and if you don't, I am not sure what you do demand.
Glad we actually agree on the main point, then. Perhaps we still have different concepts of the conditions that would be necessary to make such transactions 'purely consensual'. But that's good enough for now. All best. JaxYou are right about the suffering which often does result from their juxtaposition, and so my vision is that commercial sex must be made purely consensual, for the benefit of both supplier and consumer; having said this, I don't actually think that prostitution is a "good thing" or a career choice, and anyone who gets involved in the sex industry as it now exists is taking big risks