Prostitution

decides2dream · November 2008

mammasan wrote:

No one can really say what great sex is because it varies from person to person. Someone may not be able to experience great sex unless they are with someone that they have a deep emotional connection to and other can, so who is to say which one is better.

agreed.
kinda the whole point. it just seems too often discussions are set up 'rating' this or that, and what *is* higher/better, etc...whereas really, it's all subjective!

and i do happen to disagree with the idea that objectification is always 'not ok'.....wrong...whatever adjective makes people comfy.

of course, like most things...it's subjective and up to us as individuals to make these distinctions. someone else may well say what is right or wrong...ok or not ok......but that doesn't actually make it so.

polaris · November 2008

unifiedscene wrote:

Is that bad or wrong? Some seem to think so... that it is wrong for a man to objectify a woman and use her for sex based solely on looks. I see no problem with it as long as she's a willing participant. Granted, the guy might be missing out if that's the ONLY kind of sex he goes for, but I still fail to see what's so wrong about someone doing that once in a while.

well ... i think the problem some may have is that if one sees the sex worker as someone without substance - then that has societal implications that are bad ... i'm gonna assume tho if there is mutual respect between the participants then there is no wrong to this ...

but at the same time i think we are discussing many topics from different perspectives here as well ...

angelica · November 2008

mammasan wrote:

What if I and my partner choose to have nothing more than a purely physical relationship based on sex. I can still respect her as a person but there is no emotional attachment there. We are basically using each other for purely physical and sexual purposes so how is this not OK.

If you truly respect her as a person/human, that is not objectification.

There are all kinds of degrees of this stuff, and people can figure out what works for them. Again, it's not about inherent right/wrong, it's about what works, what doesn't.

The degrees of fragmentation and detachment will ultimately determine the degrees of ultimate disatisfaction with the situation. As I've said, I've acted on all kinds of behaviours/urges. Ultimately, I evolved due to finding what worked or did not. We move towards more of what works, and let what does not work fall away. for example, people generally don't seek a lifetime commitment of an empty relationship.

angelica · November 2008

unifiedscene wrote:

I didn't say it couldn't have those things. I said why is it automatic that sex for the sake of physical, animal, simple pleasure is less fulfilling than sex with some emotional bond. Sometimes I want steak, sometimes I want salmon. One is not better or more fulfilling than another. It just depends on what I'm in the mood for. The same goes for sex... sometimes I want something meaningful, and sometimes i just want to feel good, like getting a massage.

I didn't say it's automatic that it's less fulfilling. The sense of fulfullment/lack of fulfillment is subjective, and depends on variables and the evolution of the individual.

.

VictoryGin · November 2008

mammasan wrote:

I'm pretty sure that you where on board with scb, Saturnal and VG with the idea that sexual or physical attraction is objectification. You may have said that there is nothing wrong with this level of objectification but you where definitely categorizing it as objectification.

woah. i haven't weighed in on attraction and objectification at all.

geez, if you're going to speak for me i'm going to have to start editing your posts again.

attraction is not the same thing as objectification, but the thread has progressed past this i think already. i like what polaris has going on.

angelica · November 2008

unifiedscene wrote:

If desire is okay, and objectifying is okay, how are the two of them together not okay?

I didn't say objectifying is okay. I said objectifying is objectifying.

I don't see it as okay. At all. By any stretch of the imagination.

decides2dream · November 2008

polaris wrote:

well ... i think the problem some may have is that if one sees the sex worker as someone without substance - then that has societal implications that are bad ... i'm gonna assume tho if there is mutual respect between the participants then there is no wrong to this ...

but at the same time i think we are discussing many topics from different perspectives here as well ...

absolutely, and an interesting perspective.
i do believe it is certainly possible.

and YEA....right?

mammasan · November 2008

VictoryGin wrote:

woah. i haven't weighed in on attraction and objectification at all.

geez, if you're going to speak for me i'm going to have to start editing your posts again.

attraction is not the same thing as objectification, but the thread has progressed past this i think already. i like what polaris has going on.

I retract my statement, you where not part of that group.

angelica · November 2008

mammasan wrote:

I retract my statement, you where not part of that group.

I don't think anyone in that group was part of that group!

mammasan · November 2008

angelica wrote:

I don't think anyone in that group was part of that group!

Sure.

Sweet Emotion · November 2008

unifiedscene wrote:

It's still unfair. A woman and a man choose to work the same job, one makes less. A woman and a man choose to go to the same party, one has to pay more. Still unfair, thus, under your definition earlier, it is oppression.

Women make better money in porn than men.

catefrances · November 2008

Sweet Emotion wrote:

Women make better money in porn than men.

womens rights rule!!!!!!!!

Collin · November 2008

VictoryGin wrote:

you obviously missed the whole part about oppression and power. men are not being oppressed by paying to go to a party. nothing i've said would indicate they're being oppressed in that situation. and if that upsets so much, why don't you do something about it? and i'm if wrong about why women get free drinks then tell me why they do. honestly i'm dying to know.

edit: i also know plenty of responsible people here in the states, thanks. and thankfully know plenty who aren't so ignorant and quick to make blame the victim statements. not so sad, really, as you. and i guess i have another reason to be happy in my culture---there is not systemic cover charge inequality that i'm caught up in. i don't go to clubs like that.

Nope, I did not miss it.

Men have to pay to get in, women don't. That is an injustice. It's soley because of gender.

The definition of oppression, which was used when we were discussing the oppression of women when mammasan said women are not oppressed in the US, said that it was 'unjust or cruel treatment ...'

Men having to pay is unjust, thus by definition men are being oppressed. I already stated that I disagree with that, and I also disagree that women are oppressed.

I also said I definitely agree there's injustice towards women and inequality. Though, unlike some, I believe that there are injustices towards men as well.

It doesn't really upset me that much, I just cited an example.

I think my post said that I don't know anyone who just gives women free drinks. But maybe, who knows, the guys are just trying to be friendly. How does it go it the States? The guy orders both drinks, or does the lady actually gets to make her own choice? If so, she can determine how much and what she drinks.

Either way, it might be hard for you to believe but not every guy has the intention of getting girls drunk so they can take advantage of them.

Dumbass, ignorant, sad... Please, don't hold back.

Actually VictoryGin, from every single discussion I've had with you about feminist issues I could only conclude that women have it better here. Inequality is more recognised as a problem, we have a lot of programmes fighting these inequalities, birth control, including the pill, are easy accessible. Maternity leave is paid, and everyone has the right to parental leave as well, you know, three months paid. Let's not forget our health care and social security system. But let's not get off topic.

Prostitution cannot be punished by law here. They're actively fighting against immigration for the purpose of prostitution. The organisation of prostitution is of course forbidden.

VictoryGin · November 2008

Collin wrote:

Nope, I did not miss it.

Men have to pay to get in, women don't. That is an injustice. It's soley because of gender.

The definition of oppression, which was used when we were discussing the oppression of women when mammasan said women are not oppressed in the US, said that it was 'unjust or cruel treatment ...'

Men having to pay is unjust, thus by definition men are being oppressed. I already stated that I disagree with that, and I also disagree that women are oppressed.

I also said I definitely agree there's injustice towards women and inequality. Though, unlike some, I believe that there are injustices towards men as well.

It doesn't really upset me that much, I just cited an example.

I think my post said that I don't know anyone who just gives women free drinks. But maybe, who knows, the guys are just trying to be friendly. How does it go it the States? The guy orders both drinks, or does the lady actually gets to make her own choice? If so, she can determine how much and what she drinks.

Either way, it might be hard for you to believe but not every guy has the intention of getting girls drunk so they can take advantage of them.

Dumbass, ignorant, sad... Please, don't hold back.

Actually VictoryGin, from every single discussion I've had with you about feminist issues I could only conclude that women have it better here. Inequality is more recognised as a problem, we have a lot of programmes fighting these inequalities, birth control, including the pill, are easy accessible. Maternity leave is paid, and everyone has the right to parental leave as well, you know, three months paid. Let's not forget our health care and social security system. But let's not get off topic.

Prostitution cannot be punished by law here. They're actively fighting against immigration for the purpose of prostitution. The organisation of prostitution is of course forbidden.

right, that was the definition that mammasan pulled. i think it's inadequate because it doesn't underscore the key element of power. i would post a better definition but i think that's about done.

i totally disagree that having to pay to get into a party is oppression, but hey, fight for your rights. i'm not sure what that has to do with prostitution so much, but what does it matter.

Collin · November 2008

VictoryGin wrote:

right, that was the definition that mammasan pulled. i think it's inadequate because it doesn't underscore the key element of power. i would post a better definition but i think that's about done.

i totally disagree that having to pay to get into a party is oppression, but hey, fight for your rights. i'm not sure what that has to do with prostitution so much, but what does it matter.

The definition was: "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power"

The key element of power is there.

If you would suggest this definition; power + prejudice = oppression.

Then you'll have to help me out here. I understand that if those in power have prejudices, consciously or unconsciously, against certain groups and thus treat them differently, unfairly or cruelly it is oppression.

How do you define those in power is one question I have. Is it anyone in power? Or just men, ignoring the women in power? If it's the latter, which would not be that illogical since more men are in power, how do you feel about the cases where women are in power? I mean women are in power, less in the corporate world or politics but there are other power structures in other fields as well, such as education - women earn more Ph.D.'s in education and several top universities have women as presidents. In a lot of households women are the homemakers, this has certainly been the case for decades.

Would you say that the people who educate and raise the children have no power? Are they incapable of holding prejudices?

How about injustices against men? Yes, there are more injustice against women, but humour me and consider the rare, if you insist, cases in which it happens, does that make it any better?

This leads me to another question, the elect few in power in oppressive regimes, men usually, cannot by your definition oppress men. How do you call the treatment they undergo under such cruel and unjust regimes?

Also, just like you, I totally disagree that men having to pay to enter is oppression. Like I said already, twice. Or maybe three times.

This has little to do with prostitution but you brought up oppression, and people disagreed with your definition of it or your view of it. What do you expect that everyone just keeps debating on your terms with your definitions? That's not exactly debate.

writersu · November 2008

Collin wrote:

Nope, I did not miss it.

Men have to pay to get in, women don't. That is an injustice. It's soley because of gender.

The definition of oppression, which was used when we were discussing the oppression of women when mammasan said women are not oppressed in the US, said that it was 'unjust or cruel treatment ...'

Men having to pay is unjust, thus by definition men are being oppressed. I already stated that I disagree with that, and I also disagree that women are oppressed.

I also said I definitely agree there's injustice towards women and inequality. Though, unlike some, I believe that there are injustices towards men as well.

It doesn't really upset me that much, I just cited an example.

I think my post said that I don't know anyone who just gives women free drinks. But maybe, who knows, the guys are just trying to be friendly. How does it go it the States? The guy orders both drinks, or does the lady actually gets to make her own choice? If so, she can determine how much and what she drinks.

Either way, it might be hard for you to believe but not every guy has the intention of getting girls drunk so they can take advantage of them.

Dumbass, ignorant, sad... Please, don't hold back.

Actually VictoryGin, from every single discussion I've had with you about feminist issues I could only conclude that women have it better here. Inequality is more recognised as a problem, we have a lot of programmes fighting these inequalities, birth control, including the pill, are easy accessible. Maternity leave is paid, and everyone has the right to parental leave as well, you know, three months paid. Let's not forget our health care and social security system. But let's not get off topic.

Prostitution cannot be punished by law here. They're actively fighting against immigration for the purpose of prostitution. The organisation of prostitution is of course forbidden.

I think it is a trade off; women get taken to dinner, taken out places, tricked into thinking the guy likes to leave the couch and then if they marry, she gets the shit and he gets the couch (maybe permanently) and then she remembers when he tricked her into thinking he was actually "fun".......
not prostitution but the same ideas as you said about women and drinks etc.
It's a sad trade off but it is the reality that I see. I do not know anyone who is happily married.......no one.

_ · November 2008

decides2dream wrote:

no, my question was if you believe if objectification disappeared, prosititution would. i already agreed objectification is certainly a BIG part of prostitution, but i don't think it is ALL of it. thus my question about thinking it would disappear.

I don't think I'm explaining myself well. I think prostitution is a form of objectification. Kind of like apples are a form of fruit, for instance. If fruit ceased to exist, then apples would necessarily cease to exist because they are a form of fruit. Same with objectification and prostitution. If objectification ceased to exist, there could be no forms of it remaining, including prostitution. If prostitution still existed, that would mean objectification still existed. Know what I mean?

_ · November 2008

mammasan wrote:

It's not about thinking of them as instruments of sexual pleasure but thinking of them as ONLY instrument of sexual pleasure. That to me is sexual objectification.

Yeah, I get that. But the conversation seemed to have become lop-sided based solely on the "only" part of the definition and leaving out the "instruments of sexual pleasure" part.

I'm just saying it seems like you could admire someone's physical beauty, not knowing or caring anything about them beyond that, and still not be objectifying them if you're not thinking of them as instruments of sexual pleasure.

I was basically agreeing with you. I'll try to cut it out if it bothers you.

_ · November 2008

unifiedscene wrote:

Have you ever admired a handsome man and had a momentary thought of their potential for a great night in bed?

I can't say it's NEVER happened, but I can't really think of a time when it has. I don't particularly enjoy having sex with a guy unless and know and like something else about him other than his physical appearance.

I know this has confused some men in the past. For instance, oftentimes in college when I would see a strikingly handsome man, I would tell him how handsome he was. Pretty much every time this happened, the guy assumed I wanted to go out with him. But really I didn't want to go out with them, especially since I didn't even know them, and I never really thought about them again - sexually or otherwise.

That, to me, is perhaps an example of purely admiring someone's physical beauty without sexually objectifying them.

_ · November 2008

mammasan wrote:

I'm pretty sure that you where on board with scb, Saturnal and VG with the idea that sexual or physical attraction is objectification. You may have said that there is nothing wrong with this level of objectification but you where definitely categorizing it as objectification.

I haven't said or thought that physical attraction is necesarily objectification. As a matter of fact, I've specifically said there's a difference.

Misunderstandings abound....

Prostitution

Comments

Categories