Fine, see it as a choice. But you didn't address my second point in what you quoted: Just because it's a "choice" doesn't mean it's not a problem.
It's their choice and their responsibility. I don't think it's a problem people choose for prostitution. I think a lot of problem related to prostitution could be curbed by making it legal.
Well, patriarchy encompasses more than just objectification. It includes all oppression of women, which addresses your other reasons women choose prostitution.
Drug addiction, single parent with two kids, homelessness, people's own volition... I had no idea those were all caused by patriarchy.
Also see mammasan's post.
You are perfectly exemplifying my point. No one has said "All the world's problems are created by men," and yet that's still what you choose to hear.
Fair enough.
I specifically said no one is accusing johns of wanting to objectify women, and yet you are still being defensive against this imaginary accusation.
I was referring to VictoryGin's post. Apparently I'm not the only one who felt like that's what she meant.
Don't roll your eyes at me. I was quoting one of the "enlightened" men you're so defensive of.
:rolleyes:
Exactly. Maybe if you weren't so focused on arguing with feminists all the time and instead put that energy into fixing the problems that exist in the world, we could make the world a better place. But it's the feminists who are the enemy, not the social structure that oppresses people, right. :rolleyes:
Don't roll your eyes at me
No, we've been over this. Not all feminists are the enemy just the ones that contribute to the problem.
Once again, are you saying that since it's a reality we shouldn't want to change it?
If some women want to sell their bodies, I'm not going to stop them. However, I do think we could strive to give people pushed in such desperate positions, no pun intended, more options or opportunities and that we should protect those who choose to do it.
I agree. And you'll note that: a) There are vastly fewer male prostitutes than female ones, and b) whether the prostitute is male or female, it's still nearly always men who are buying.
I'd like to mention that the UK Home secretary Jacqui Smith was on TV this morning discussing her plans to criminalise the act of prostitution, whereas currently only activities that surround prostitution are illegal (pimping, soliciting etc).
What this means, and what she not only admits to but ADVOCATES, is the criminalisation of not just the customers but the women who sell sex because they are (a) Desperate and think it is their only remaining option, (b) being forced into it (c) emotionally disturbed. She actually said, as if it is some kind of lessening of the ridiculousness of her plans, that instead of jail, a £1000 fine might be a better punishment for prostitutes caught selling sex. What a great idea, give hefty fines to people because they are, as recognised by Smith as her reason for pushing this, morally degrading themselves in order to make money. Presumably she realises that the majority of prostitutes are not well off, high-class call girls and cannot AFFORD to pay a fine, if they could they wouldn't be having sex with strangers for cash. A crack-addicted prostitute would probably be better of getting some jail time rather than a fine. At least then she'd have a roof over her head and no pimp smacking her about if she doesn't open her legs to enough people every day. Or, you know, the government could actually try to help these people by taking steps to make prostitution safer.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
I have no problem when a woman states that our patriarchal society objectifies women because that statement is true. My problem was the statement that women are oppressed in our society which is clearly not the case. Women, in our society, are not oppressed and all you have to do is look at how women are treated in other countries, some Middle Eastern countries come to mind, and you will se what true oppression is. Women in this country have the same rights and freedoms as men and while they are treated differently, which is unacceptable, it does not even come remotely close to being oppression. To me it is insulting to even state that when true oppression, of women, exists in other countries
A. Who said we're only talking about this country?
B. I agree that women some other parts of the world face much greater oppression than women in our society, and that women in our society have made great progress on that front.
C. Just because we've made huge progress and are way better off than some others doesn't mean we're 100% free of oppression.
D. I would argue that objectification - especially when it's institutionalized, internalized, and a cultural norm - is a form of oppression.
I agree with you about the futility of having a discussion with people who only hear what they want to hear from people they have labeled as feminists.
Also, to add to your point about objectificaiton: Perhaps if women were not objectified we wouldn't learn from a young age that our sexuality is our most valuable asset, and therefore resort to selling that when we need money or affirmation.
seriously! it's no wonder problems still exist regarding racism, sexism, whathaveyou. people in power get so defensive and can't have a constructive discussion. "hey, your foot may be cut off but at least it's not your leg so stop whining."
that's a great additional point, absolutely.
and to answer your original question i don't know how when it's like this. i liked raindog and kenny olav's responses. although the morality aspect is a huge conversation. anyway, when our society is structured as is, it's hard for me to rationalize prostitution, but i do see the value in regulation regarding health.
now i really must get to work.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
No, I don't believe prostitution will ever cease 100%. And, yes, I agree that it should be legalized, for the sole purpose of regulating the industry in a way that will protect the sex workers. (Note: Although I think selling sex should be legalized/regulated, I'm not sure I think buying sex should be legal. What do you think about that one?)
i don't know what to think about that one?
if selling it is legal, i think buying it should be legal...they kinda go hand in had, no?
i *get* overall what you and VG are saying in this thread, and overall, i agree.....but only to a certain extent. b/c while i believe objectification and discrimination et al still exist, play a role, etc.....i too believe prostitiution will always exist. i also disagree that girls/women today are 'taught' that their sexuality is their most powerful asset. i am no young woman, and *i* was not taught that, at all. sure, i know the *power* of my sexuality, but i know way was brought up to think, nor do i think if it, as my greatest power. i was tuaght that my mind is my greatest asset and tool, the strength of all my *power*....and while all the ills of society still exist, and absolutely girls/women are taught many mixed messages, objectification is still a huge big thing....i don't think it is nearly what it once was.
i do believe in certain cultures within our society and within lower socio-economic groups that objectification and/or a more highly patriarchal pov exists and perpetuates.....and yes, education is key to eradicating such. however, even with that....i too believe prostitution, of both men and women, will always exist. it is just too *easy* for many to NOT exist. you hear of the college girl stripping to put herself thru law school, so why not call girls? possible. selling your body on your terms, for your own benefit/betterment......even if it's to put food on the table for your children. no, it would not be my choice......but it can be another woman's. also, there are young men who sell themselves as well. sure, most do so b/c they have little to no other options....but yes, we will never get rid of 'little to no options' for all, sadly....even with far better social programs, etc.
bottomline there will always be those who make the choice to sell themselves, and there always will be buyers.
uhhhhhhh, when you grow a vagina come talk to me about sexism and objectification?
I have already stated that sexism and objectification exists. What does not exist, in our society, is oppression. Again just because I have a penis doesn't mean that my comments have any less validity than yours. If you got off your militant feminist high horse for even a second you would see how absurd your claims of oppression are.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
And since this thread is about the legality of prostitution, perhaps you could offer your thoughts on that and start another thread if you want to talk more generally about sexual politics.
I, scb, the starter of this thread, hereby approve the talk about sexual politics.
I have already stated that sexism and objectification exists. What does not exist, in our society, is oppression. Again just because I have a penis doesn't mean that my comments have any less validity than yours. If you got off your militant feminist high horse for even a second you would see how absurd your claims of oppression are.
"technically" it IS oppression, b/c why else would a woman doing the same work not be paid the same wage? you want to argue the degree of oppression, absolutely...something else.....but it IS oppression, in and of itself. just sayin'.
I have already stated that sexism and objectification exists. What does not exist, in our society, is oppression. Again just because I have a penis doesn't mean that my comments have any less validity than yours. If you got off your militant feminist high horse for even a second you would see how absurd your claims of oppression are.
that was a sarcastic response to your comment to me. i was mirroring your comment. you're the one who said i couldn't talk about it until i was mutilated. jesus christ.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
"true oppression" makes me think you're either oppressed or not. it's only real if it's severe. but there are levels and different forms of oppression (like internalized). basically, oppression is broader structural features of society controlling, constraining, or coercing women in terms of male power (when you're talking about oppression in this sense, otherwise you could talk about racial oppression, but it is all about who has the power and control). are women heavily oppressed in areas of southwest asia? absolutely. but women (and people of color, and others) are oppressed here too. just like our culture is different, the levels of oppression are different. but when one group has power over another and the other group is constrained, there is oppression.
I disagree. To me, oppression indicates intent. Neo-nazis oppress minorities because they feel they are inferior and they consciously intend to destroy them. Dictators consciously and actively oppress people. There are undoubtedly some people that feel that way against women, but such people will always exist.
The real problem is not intentional, it is latent, and far more difficult to address. This is the average male who truly believe women should have the same opportunities as men, but does not see how smacking his cute secretary on the ass prevents that. But that is not an intent to hold women down, it is ignorance that has the effect of holding women down.
Telling these people they are oppressors is pointless. For one, they're not. They don't hate women or want to keep them down, they just need an education on how their actions hurt women. For another, it makes them actively resist anything you say because you are calling them the same name they would tend to reserve for people like Hitler or the KKK and it makes them angry. You are not helping the situation when you throw around the word oppression because it doesn't apply to what's going on. We're not talking about an active conspiracy to demean people. We're talking about subtle prejudices and stereotypes that people cling to without even consciously realizing it.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
I said there will always be a market for it for reasons other than objectification of women.
What I want to know, Collin, is - regarless of anyone's intention or lackthereof to objectify women, regardless of the reasons prostitution exists - do you believe the act of prostitution objectifies the person having sex for money?
What I want to know, Collin, is - regarless of anyone's intention or lackthereof to objectify women, regardless of the reasons prostitution exists - do you believe the act of prostitution objectifies the person having sex for money?
Does the prostitute (man or woman) objectify the "John"?
What I want to know, Collin, is - regarless of anyone's intention or lackthereof to objectify women, regardless of the reasons prostitution exists - do you believe the act of prostitution objectifies the person having sex for money?
Here is the definition of oppression from the Merriem-Webster dictionary:
OPPRESSION – unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power.
Now, maybe it's just me, but I have yet to see the unjust or CRUEL exercise of authority or power over women in our society. Is their inequality, definitely. Is there unjust, definitely. Is there cruel, no. Women have every opportunity and rights that men have in this country. You want to go to college, no problem. You want to start your own business, no problem. You want to be a doctor, lawyer, scientist, engineer, etc.., no problem. You want to vote, own property, no problem. Inequality does exist, but the use of the word oppression is disingenuous. Women in our society are not oppressed and trying to split hairs by doling percentages of oppression is just ridiculous.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
What I want to know, Collin, is - regarless of anyone's intention or lackthereof to objectify women, regardless of the reasons prostitution exists - do you believe the act of prostitution objectifies the person having sex for money?
I'm going to answer this anyway.
Yes.
So what?
When you own a business and you pay your worker based on the number of cars parts they make in a day, you're doing the same thing. ANY society based on money objectifies people by putting a dollar figure on their value to the buyer. I see nothing inherently wrong with this, unless it is so ingrained to the point of psychopathy (serial killers... all humans are just to be used). But most people acknowledge each other's humanity but still say "look, I need your help/services and I'm willing to pay this for it" and I don't think that is inherently wrong.
Sexism at it's finest. Men can't have an opinion about sexism.
Also, men get objectified too.
again. mammasan stated i can talk about oppression when i'm mutilated. because it seems to him that mutilation is a qualifier of oppression. so i made a sarcastic response that mirrored his---he can talk about sexism and objectification when he grows a vagina, since those with vaginas are the ones not in power. both ridiculous statements, aren't they?
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
What I want to know, Collin, is - regarless of anyone's intention or lackthereof to objectify women, regardless of the reasons prostitution exists - do you believe the act of prostitution objectifies the person having sex for money?
i know this question is not directed at me at all....but i just want to ask, or say........
has anyone ever had a one-night stand? purey with the intent of getting laid and then moving on? with or without money...there is indeed a degree of objectification there, a desire for sex for the sake of sex....and one certainly can believe that is morally *wrong* as is their choice....but there are many others, myself included...who are a-ok with that.
looking at films, magazines, models, etc.....objectification exists, probably will always exist. i don't necessarily see it as entirely *wrong* or *bad* either. of COURSE i do not think ANY one or thing should be viewed soley as an 'object'....but we as a species, as are many species, are sort of 'wired' to look at the surfae of things, appreciate the surface of things...be attracted/repelled, etc....from a biological standpoint and sure......just purely aesthetics. it is not all 'bad' per se.
and sure, i am all for sex for sex's sake if that is what one desires AND is mutually agreed upon.
I really wish you'd stop saying that. Although I obviously can't state with absolute certainty that no prostitute exists in the world who loves her job, it's a piss-poor and trivializing defense of a profession which generally serves to exploit women who are facing tragic life circumstances.
again. mammasan stated i can talk about oppression when i'm mutilated. because it seems to him that mutilation is a qualifier of oppression. so i made a sarcastic response that mirrored his---he can talk about sexism and objectification when he grows a vagina, since those with vaginas are the ones not in power. both ridiculous statements, aren't they?
Yes both statement are ridiculous. I used mine to point out what true oppression was. What women in this country face is inequality not oppression.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
again. mammasan stated i can talk about oppression when i'm mutilated. because it seems to him that mutilation is a qualifier of oppression. so i made a sarcastic response that mirrored his---he can talk about sexism and objectification when he grows a vagina, since those with vaginas are the ones not in power. both ridiculous statements, aren't they?
I posted before I read your response. Do you at least see what he's saying?
i know this question is not directed at me at all....but i just want to ask, or say........
has anyone ever had a one-night stand? purey with the intent of getting laid and then moving on? with or without money...there is indeed a degree of objectification there, a desire for sex for the sake of sex....and one certainly can believe that is morally *wrong* as is their choice....but there are many others, myself included...who are a-ok with that.
looking at films, magazines, models, etc.....objectification exists, probably will always exist. i don't necessarily see it as entirely *wrong* or *bad* either. of COURSE i do not think ANY one or thing should be viewed soley as an 'object'....but we as a species, as are many species, are sort of 'wired' to look at the surfae of things, appreciate the surface of things...be attracted/repelled, etc....from a biological standpoint and sure......just purely aesthetics. it is not all 'bad' per se.
and sure, i am all for sex for sex's sake if that is what one desires AND is mutually agreed upon.
I've been trying to say this but never seem to get it right. This is exactly what I mean. Is it wrong for a woman to go into a bar and have a one night stand with no intent of ever speaking to the guy again, just because she wants sex? When it is a guy doing it and he simply hands her money instead of plying her with drinks and sweet talk for a few hours, why does it suddenly become wrong?
Here is the definition of oppression from the Merriem-Webster dictionary:
OPPRESSION – unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power.
Now, maybe it's just me, but I have yet to see the unjust or CRUEL exercise of authority or power over women in our society. Is their inequality, definitely. Is there unjust, definitely. Is there cruel, no. Women have every opportunity and rights that men have in this country. You want to go to college, no problem. You want to start your own business, no problem. You want to be a doctor, lawyer, scientist, engineer, etc.., no problem. You want to vote, own property, no problem. Inequality does exist, but the use of the word oppression is disingenuous. Women in our society are not oppressed and trying to split hairs by doling percentages of oppression is just ridiculous.
you do not see the 'unjust' in a woman doing the same job for less pay? it IS unjust, thus part of opression. as i said earlier, you want to argue the degree of opression, fine...another point entirely, but to deny it is just, well, unjust.
inequality = unjust.
if YOU want to consider it ridiculous to use the term opression, certainly is your perogative. however, it doesn;t actually make it right either.
i personally use the term inequality, but this is one area where i will not disagree with the right of others to use the term opression if they so desire, b/c it does fit.
Here is the definition of oppression from the Merriem-Webster dictionary:
OPPRESSION – unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power.
Now, maybe it's just me, but I have yet to see the unjust or CRUEL exercise of authority or power over women in our society. Is their inequality, definitely. Is there unjust, definitely. Is there cruel, no. Women have every opportunity and rights that men have in this country. You want to go to college, no problem. You want to start your own business, no problem. You want to be a doctor, lawyer, scientist, engineer, etc.., no problem. You want to vote, own property, no problem. Inequality does exist, but the use of the word oppression is disingenuous. Women in our society are not oppressed and trying to split hairs by doling percentages of oppression is just ridiculous.
so inequality is not unjust? you do use a definition that says unjust OR cruel. there are many definitions out there, too . . .
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
i see this a kin to abortion ... you may not approve of the process but the reality is that it is not up for you to decide what another person does with her body ...
yes - there are issues of forced prostitution which i think could be addressed slightly by making it legal and regulating the industry ...
you do not see the 'unjust' in a woman doing the same job for less pay? it IS unjust, thus part of opression. as i said earlier, you want to argue the degree of opression, fine...another point entirely, but to deny it is just, well, unjust.
inequality = unjust.
if YOU want to consider it ridiculous to use the term opression, certainly is your perogative. however, it doesn;t actually make it right either.
i personally use the term inequality, but this is one area where i will not disagree with the right of others to use the term opression if they so desire, b/c it does fit.
And that is your opinion. To me the use of the word oppression is disingenuous. It is a mockery of what true oppression women in other countries face. To hear a women in this country, who can go to college, have a career, vote, own property, have the same freedoms and liberties as there male counterparts use that term is ridiculous. They have no idea what it is like to live in a truly oppressive society. Hence my overboard comment to Allison (VG) about female genital mutilation, etc...
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I really wish you'd stop saying that. Although I obviously can't state with absolute certainty that no prostitute exists in the world who loves her job, it's a piss-poor and trivializing defense of a profession which generally serves to exploit women who are facing tragic life circumstances.
That's hard to deal with facts.
I saw a documentary about prostitutes both male and female, who live in countries where it's legal, who like or even love their job. Some were proud of their job.
It's not a defense of the profession which exploits women who are facing such circumstances. It's a defense of the notion that prostitution will exist even without the objectification of women.
Comments
Why?
It's their choice and their responsibility. I don't think it's a problem people choose for prostitution. I think a lot of problem related to prostitution could be curbed by making it legal.
Drug addiction, single parent with two kids, homelessness, people's own volition... I had no idea those were all caused by patriarchy.
Also see mammasan's post.
Fair enough.
I was referring to VictoryGin's post. Apparently I'm not the only one who felt like that's what she meant.
:rolleyes:
Don't roll your eyes at me
No, we've been over this. Not all feminists are the enemy just the ones that contribute to the problem.
If some women want to sell their bodies, I'm not going to stop them. However, I do think we could strive to give people pushed in such desperate positions, no pun intended, more options or opportunities and that we should protect those who choose to do it.
a) true, but so?
b) true, but so?
naděje umírá poslední
What this means, and what she not only admits to but ADVOCATES, is the criminalisation of not just the customers but the women who sell sex because they are (a) Desperate and think it is their only remaining option, (b) being forced into it (c) emotionally disturbed. She actually said, as if it is some kind of lessening of the ridiculousness of her plans, that instead of jail, a £1000 fine might be a better punishment for prostitutes caught selling sex. What a great idea, give hefty fines to people because they are, as recognised by Smith as her reason for pushing this, morally degrading themselves in order to make money. Presumably she realises that the majority of prostitutes are not well off, high-class call girls and cannot AFFORD to pay a fine, if they could they wouldn't be having sex with strangers for cash. A crack-addicted prostitute would probably be better of getting some jail time rather than a fine. At least then she'd have a roof over her head and no pimp smacking her about if she doesn't open her legs to enough people every day. Or, you know, the government could actually try to help these people by taking steps to make prostitution safer.
A. Who said we're only talking about this country?
B. I agree that women some other parts of the world face much greater oppression than women in our society, and that women in our society have made great progress on that front.
C. Just because we've made huge progress and are way better off than some others doesn't mean we're 100% free of oppression.
D. I would argue that objectification - especially when it's institutionalized, internalized, and a cultural norm - is a form of oppression.
seriously! it's no wonder problems still exist regarding racism, sexism, whathaveyou. people in power get so defensive and can't have a constructive discussion. "hey, your foot may be cut off but at least it's not your leg so stop whining."
that's a great additional point, absolutely.
and to answer your original question
now i really must get to work.
cross the river to the eastside
i don't know what to think about that one?
if selling it is legal, i think buying it should be legal...they kinda go hand in had, no?
i *get* overall what you and VG are saying in this thread, and overall, i agree.....but only to a certain extent. b/c while i believe objectification and discrimination et al still exist, play a role, etc.....i too believe prostitiution will always exist. i also disagree that girls/women today are 'taught' that their sexuality is their most powerful asset. i am no young woman, and *i* was not taught that, at all. sure, i know the *power* of my sexuality, but i know way was brought up to think, nor do i think if it, as my greatest power. i was tuaght that my mind is my greatest asset and tool, the strength of all my *power*....and while all the ills of society still exist, and absolutely girls/women are taught many mixed messages, objectification is still a huge big thing....i don't think it is nearly what it once was.
i do believe in certain cultures within our society and within lower socio-economic groups that objectification and/or a more highly patriarchal pov exists and perpetuates.....and yes, education is key to eradicating such. however, even with that....i too believe prostitution, of both men and women, will always exist. it is just too *easy* for many to NOT exist. you hear of the college girl stripping to put herself thru law school, so why not call girls? possible. selling your body on your terms, for your own benefit/betterment......even if it's to put food on the table for your children. no, it would not be my choice......but it can be another woman's. also, there are young men who sell themselves as well. sure, most do so b/c they have little to no other options....but yes, we will never get rid of 'little to no options' for all, sadly....even with far better social programs, etc.
bottomline there will always be those who make the choice to sell themselves, and there always will be buyers.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I have already stated that sexism and objectification exists. What does not exist, in our society, is oppression. Again just because I have a penis doesn't mean that my comments have any less validity than yours. If you got off your militant feminist high horse for even a second you would see how absurd your claims of oppression are.
I, scb, the starter of this thread, hereby approve the talk about sexual politics.
Sexism at it's finest. Men can't have an opinion about sexism.
Also, men get objectified too.
naděje umírá poslední
"technically" it IS oppression, b/c why else would a woman doing the same work not be paid the same wage? you want to argue the degree of oppression, absolutely...something else.....but it IS oppression, in and of itself. just sayin'.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
that was a sarcastic response to your comment to me. i was mirroring your comment. you're the one who said i couldn't talk about it until i was mutilated. jesus christ.
cross the river to the eastside
I disagree. To me, oppression indicates intent. Neo-nazis oppress minorities because they feel they are inferior and they consciously intend to destroy them. Dictators consciously and actively oppress people. There are undoubtedly some people that feel that way against women, but such people will always exist.
The real problem is not intentional, it is latent, and far more difficult to address. This is the average male who truly believe women should have the same opportunities as men, but does not see how smacking his cute secretary on the ass prevents that. But that is not an intent to hold women down, it is ignorance that has the effect of holding women down.
Telling these people they are oppressors is pointless. For one, they're not. They don't hate women or want to keep them down, they just need an education on how their actions hurt women. For another, it makes them actively resist anything you say because you are calling them the same name they would tend to reserve for people like Hitler or the KKK and it makes them angry. You are not helping the situation when you throw around the word oppression because it doesn't apply to what's going on. We're not talking about an active conspiracy to demean people. We're talking about subtle prejudices and stereotypes that people cling to without even consciously realizing it.
What I want to know, Collin, is - regarless of anyone's intention or lackthereof to objectify women, regardless of the reasons prostitution exists - do you believe the act of prostitution objectifies the person having sex for money?
Does the prostitute (man or woman) objectify the "John"?
No.
naděje umírá poslední
OPPRESSION – unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power.
Now, maybe it's just me, but I have yet to see the unjust or CRUEL exercise of authority or power over women in our society. Is their inequality, definitely. Is there unjust, definitely. Is there cruel, no. Women have every opportunity and rights that men have in this country. You want to go to college, no problem. You want to start your own business, no problem. You want to be a doctor, lawyer, scientist, engineer, etc.., no problem. You want to vote, own property, no problem. Inequality does exist, but the use of the word oppression is disingenuous. Women in our society are not oppressed and trying to split hairs by doling percentages of oppression is just ridiculous.
I'm going to answer this anyway.
Yes.
So what?
When you own a business and you pay your worker based on the number of cars parts they make in a day, you're doing the same thing. ANY society based on money objectifies people by putting a dollar figure on their value to the buyer. I see nothing inherently wrong with this, unless it is so ingrained to the point of psychopathy (serial killers... all humans are just to be used). But most people acknowledge each other's humanity but still say "look, I need your help/services and I'm willing to pay this for it" and I don't think that is inherently wrong.
again. mammasan stated i can talk about oppression when i'm mutilated. because it seems to him that mutilation is a qualifier of oppression. so i made a sarcastic response that mirrored his---he can talk about sexism and objectification when he grows a vagina, since those with vaginas are the ones not in power. both ridiculous statements, aren't they?
cross the river to the eastside
i know this question is not directed at me at all....but i just want to ask, or say........
has anyone ever had a one-night stand? purey with the intent of getting laid and then moving on? with or without money...there is indeed a degree of objectification there, a desire for sex for the sake of sex....and one certainly can believe that is morally *wrong* as is their choice....but there are many others, myself included...who are a-ok with that.
looking at films, magazines, models, etc.....objectification exists, probably will always exist. i don't necessarily see it as entirely *wrong* or *bad* either. of COURSE i do not think ANY one or thing should be viewed soley as an 'object'....but we as a species, as are many species, are sort of 'wired' to look at the surfae of things, appreciate the surface of things...be attracted/repelled, etc....from a biological standpoint and sure......just purely aesthetics. it is not all 'bad' per se.
and sure, i am all for sex for sex's sake if that is what one desires AND is mutually agreed upon.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I really wish you'd stop saying that. Although I obviously can't state with absolute certainty that no prostitute exists in the world who loves her job, it's a piss-poor and trivializing defense of a profession which generally serves to exploit women who are facing tragic life circumstances.
Yes both statement are ridiculous. I used mine to point out what true oppression was. What women in this country face is inequality not oppression.
I posted before I read your response. Do you at least see what he's saying?
naděje umírá poslední
I've been trying to say this but never seem to get it right. This is exactly what I mean. Is it wrong for a woman to go into a bar and have a one night stand with no intent of ever speaking to the guy again, just because she wants sex? When it is a guy doing it and he simply hands her money instead of plying her with drinks and sweet talk for a few hours, why does it suddenly become wrong?
you do not see the 'unjust' in a woman doing the same job for less pay? it IS unjust, thus part of opression. as i said earlier, you want to argue the degree of opression, fine...another point entirely, but to deny it is just, well, unjust.
inequality = unjust.
if YOU want to consider it ridiculous to use the term opression, certainly is your perogative. however, it doesn;t actually make it right either.
i personally use the term inequality, but this is one area where i will not disagree with the right of others to use the term opression if they so desire, b/c it does fit.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
so inequality is not unjust? you do use a definition that says unjust OR cruel. there are many definitions out there, too . . .
cross the river to the eastside
yes - there are issues of forced prostitution which i think could be addressed slightly by making it legal and regulating the industry ...
And that is your opinion. To me the use of the word oppression is disingenuous. It is a mockery of what true oppression women in other countries face. To hear a women in this country, who can go to college, have a career, vote, own property, have the same freedoms and liberties as there male counterparts use that term is ridiculous. They have no idea what it is like to live in a truly oppressive society. Hence my overboard comment to Allison (VG) about female genital mutilation, etc...
Did you forget how to read when you left NYC. My post stated that their is unjust behavior towards women.
That's hard to deal with facts.
I saw a documentary about prostitutes both male and female, who live in countries where it's legal, who like or even love their job. Some were proud of their job.
It's not a defense of the profession which exploits women who are facing such circumstances. It's a defense of the notion that prostitution will exist even without the objectification of women.
naděje umírá poslední