Prostitution

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

BODY/mind/soul


i'd say we have.



and sure, there....that IS seual objectification, but again...in and of itself, is not a BAD thing. and i know we are assigning the idea of 'good' and 'bad'....mostly for lack of better terms. if someone can think of more precise language, i am all for it. i see nothing negative per se with sexual objectification at times. obviously, yes, it can be negative.......but again, it is all CONTEXT to determine when such behaviors have positive or negative consequences. fantasy can vry much be a positive. also, this total stranger has zero idea to my thoughts....so it harms no one. all good.

I'm in complete agreement.

angelica

unifiedscene wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. But there is a difference between porn causing these problems and porn attracting people with these problems. You can't say that porn made her a drug-addicted battered girlfriend. Correlation does not imply causation. The question is... and it applies equally to porn and prostitution... does the fact that it attracts damaged people justify banning it? Those people are still damaged and doing damaged things elsewhere. Or in the case of prostitution, they're still doing it, but without any protection whatsoever. The protection in porn isn't good enough, but that's because this country is afraid of sex and would rather not talk about it. In my opinion, better to bring these things into the open. When these damaged women come to these professions, at least we can keep them safer than they would be on the streets at the mercy of a murderous pimp. And if we treat the profession as a legitimate industry rather than some horrible, degrading thing that only society's biggest losers would engage in, we might just convince some of these women that they do have other options rather than feeding their already shattered self-esteem by damning them for their past and for their present profession.

Again, I don't believe anyone here is asking to sweep things under the rug, or send these professions into hiding, with criminalization, etc.

mammasan

angelica wrote:

Unless you're copping to objectification...which by definition leaves out mind/soul....;)

Not if I'm objectifying them for their intelligence as well.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

I'm in complete agreement.

absolutely.
i can engage my body...my mind...my soul...simultaneously, or seperately...i like to live fully.

unifiedscene

scb wrote:

I don't think you're understaning the point. You had it moreso in your second paragraph above, where you say porn & prostitution attract the damaged. It's not that porn causes people to be abused or to have drug proplems; it's that women who are sexually assaulted or addicted to drugs are more likely to turn to porn and especially prostitution. Many do this out of desperation and vulnerability. Exploiting that - whether by her consent or not - is not sexy, in my opinion.

Also, I don't think anyone's suggesting that any of these things be banned.

But by passing judgment on the field and calling it sick, doesn't that further the cycle? These women are damaged, and desperate. They see only one way out, and take it. So we condemn them for that and reinforce their negative self image as a fuck up with no options. Doesn't it make more sense to accept these as legitimate fields and thus make these women feel at least a little empowered and in control about making that decision? Perhaps that could be the stepping stone to them moving beyond porn or prostitution and into other things.

By all means, condemn the people who prey upon such women and exploit them. But do not confuse those people with the thought that the entire industry/field is itself ipso facto exploitative.

_

unifiedscene wrote:

Why is it that when Saturnal says there's nothing wrong with objectification as long as one is conscious of it and examines it critically, you and scb are ready to marry your daughters to him. But when decides2dream and I argue the same point, you quote me to respond that you hope to one day live in a society where no one is able to objectify others? If you agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with objectification (as you have disingenuously tried to say in here), then why is it such a good thing to strive to eradicate it?

First of all, I'm not ready to marry my daughter to him... I don't have any kids... I'm ready to marry myself to him... get it straight!

Secondly, I believe he said that once he examined it critically he came to the conclusion that it's not okay.

angelica

mammasan wrote:

Not if I'm objectifying them for their intelligence as well.

If you are also appreciating someone for their intelligence, you are not objectifying them, by the psychological definition I am familiar with.

decides2dream

scb wrote:

I'm not sure that merely appreciating the physical beauty of someone about whom you know nothing really is technically objectification. That notion seems to have lost the whole "instrument of sexual pleasure" part of the definition of objectification.

objectification, in and of itself, does not encompass ONLY 'instrument of sexual pleasure'...it is merely about objectifying. not looking beyond the surface. sexual objetification, absolutely...but objectification, period, not mutually exclusive.


if i look at a picture, an object on it's own...and appreciate the image of a person on it...knowing nothing of the person, just their outer beauty, i am appreciating their beauty, and yes, objectifying them. i really have no choice there, i cannot get to 'know' them thru their picture. just like i cannot get to know anyone if i am watching a DVD of porn, looking at womenmen in a fashion show....admiring someone quickly on the train, on the street, etc.....even if i have seual thoughts of them.....even if i sexually objecify them......i don't see that as 'bad' at all. if i do it to someone in PERSON, one whom i have contact and interact with.....yes, i see it negatively. so even sexual objectification, i don't see as an evil.

mammasan

angelica wrote:

If you are also appreciating someone for their intelligence, you are not objectifying them, by the psychological definition I am familiar with.

There is always more than one definition to a term.

unifiedscene

angelica wrote:

Again, I don't believe anyone here is asking to sweep things under the rug, or send these professions into hiding, with criminalization, etc.

Perhaps, but we've shifted into a discussion of objectification. By condemning the fields of prostitution and porn, we invalidate the women who choose these professions, for whatever reasons. We say that objectification drives them and that porn and prostitution have no purpose except the objectification of women, thus the women forced into them are dehumanized even by those who wish to help them. You are essentially saying "you cannot be a respected human person and work in porn or be a prostitute." This reinforces their belief that they have no choice and are dehumanized.

Does it not make more sense to say that these are legitimate choices for women to make and that they can choose these fields willingly, thus making a desperate choice empowering at least in some sense?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

jeffbr wrote:

So what specifically is the action you think we can get past in this regard? The feeling of physical attraction? I'm still not understanding your point.

My point was just that the "it's biological, so it's ok" argument doesn't hold up for me. I'm not saying that's it's NOT ok to be physically attracted to someone.

angelica

unifiedscene wrote:

Perhaps, but we've shifted into a discussion of objectification. By condemning the fields of prostitution and porn, we invalidate the women who choose these professions, for whatever reasons. We say that objectification drives them and that porn and prostitution have no purpose except the objectification of women, thus the women forced into them are dehumanized even by those who wish to help them. You are essentially saying "you cannot be a respected human person and work in porn or be a prostitute." This reinforces their belief that they have no choice and are dehumanized.

Does it not make more sense to say that these are legitimate choices for women to make and that they can choose these fields willingly, thus making a desperate choice empowering at least in some sense?

I'm not condemning the fields of prostitution or porn. I support people doing the best they can for themselves. As I say I LOVE ALL of life. All phases of our evolution. I embrace it all. It's all One.

unifiedscene

scb wrote:

First of all, I'm not ready to marry my daughter to him... I don't have any kids... I'm ready to marry myself to him... get it straight!

Secondly, I believe he said that once he examined it critically he came to the conclusion that it's not okay.

That's the crux of the debate... what exactly is "it" that he decided is not ok? No one seems to know what "it" is... ie how much objectification is ok or what kind is acceptable. There are some people here saying there's nothing inherently wrong with it. There are others saying sure it's natural and not inherently bad, but we should still try to eradicate it. I see the latter as a contradiction. And I still fail to see why sexuality is so bad that it is utterly wrong to see an attractive person and think "I would derive great pleasure from sexual coupling with that person" but it is perfectly acceptable as long as you think to yourself at the end "oh yeah, his/her mind is probably great too."

angelica

Saturnal wrote:

My point was just that the "it's biological, so it's ok" argument doesn't hold up for me. I'm not saying that's it's NOT ok to be physically attracted to someone.

and...I also am not saying it's not okay to be physically attracted to someone. I think people have missed the part where I clearly discerned that it's what we do with that attraction that makes all the difference. The attraction itself just exists, and we can't help that. It's what we decide to do about it that separates us from animals (even though we are also still animals) and to what degree.

angelica

mammasan wrote:

There is always more than one definition to a term.

I have always been talking to my one definition that I am familiar with, and that I have clearly defined I think more than once in this thread.

mammasan

angelica wrote:

I have always been talking to my one definition that I am familiar with, and that I have clearly defined I think more than once in this thread.

Well you have to give me a little slack, since you yourself stated that I lack the ability to comprehend the matter.

unifiedscene

angelica wrote:

and...I also am not saying it's not okay to be physically attracted to someone. I think people have missed the part where I clearly discerned that it's what we do with that attraction that makes all the difference. The attraction itself just exists, and we can't help that. It's what we decide to do about it that separates us from animals (even though we are also still animals) and to what degree.

I believe that mammasan and I have been saying this repeatedly throughout this thread. But some here continue to insist that sexual objectification should be eradicated and you yourself indicated that it will be a good thing when objectification no longer occurs anywhere. We have been saying objectification happens inevitably and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't let it influence your actions or treat others with disrespect. We've been saying this for 10 pages now and have been told repeatedly that we're wrong and we don't understand.

angelica

If people seek a body/mind/soul connection, then one must understand that soul exists on a level beyond physicality and time/space. In our imaginal realms of perception. Therefore, to act from a place of holism, and body/mind/soul, one becomes very conscientious about how they act in Spirit. One understands that to in any way degrade someone in Spirit, from the Truth of who they are in Spirit (God/Goddess) one knows they automatically remove themselves from a level of mind/body/soul awareness.

They become aware the potency of the Spiritual and rarefied level of perception, which is why holistic perception and certainly mind/body/spiritual sex is very rare.

This is why it's absolutely inconsistent to have this degree of perception, and relationship to all things, and to objectify someone.

angelica

unifiedscene wrote:

..you yourself indicated that it will be a good thing when objectification no longer occurs anywhere...

I didn't say or imply this.

edit: I did say that when we evolve to a state of holism, then objectification and prostitution will be impossible. No moral judgement...a statement.

I also said that I personally cannot tune out what brings a woman to a dark place to objectify herself to act in porn, and find that sexual. No moral judgment...rather my personal response, prior to judgment.

We have been saying objectification happens inevitably and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't let it influence your actions or treat others with disrespect. We've been saying this for 10 pages now and have been told repeatedly that we're wrong and we don't understand.

If you mean attraction happens inevitably, then yes. Objectification is a different matter.

mammasan

angelica wrote:

I didn't say or imply this.

If you mean attraction happens inevitably, then yes. Objectification is a different matter.

But haven't you and other been saying that physical attraction alone is objectification.