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.
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.
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.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
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.
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.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
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?
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.
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.
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.
It depends. Guys can make killer money doing gay porn. There was a guy on Mtv doing one of those True Life documentaries that said he made $3,000 to $5,000 a scene.
It depends. Guys can make killer money doing gay porn. There was a guy on Mtv doing one of those True Life documentaries that said he made $3,000 to $5,000 a scene.
Good for him. Next time you need some fast cash you'll know how much a DP might get you.
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?
Prostitution is neither illegal nor morally objectionable because it objectifies women. I think that is a 20th century convention. Or maybe we could pin that on Freud, who knows.
If you go back through history prostitution is a story of women not of men. You have to know what their reasons or goals were. The Sacred Whore, a powerful, respected, confident woman, a priestess.
The courtesan, a woman who was often not a prostitute, but well taken care of, so that she might live a life of leisure without having to marry.
Today, I think the arrangement is still, more often than not, a very mutually beneficent business deal. Working women are out there because they need to pay their rents, eat, take care of their kids, just like anyone else. They are using the most base of any of the skills or talents they might possess but it is the choice they have made. And it is them who have decided to wander about scantily clad. I would say that if anything, it has been the women themselves that have done all the objectifying. The men aren't guilty of anything just because there is no emotional attachment to the act or to the person involved.
Prostitution was outlawed because it ultimately empowered women.
Prostitution is neither illegal nor morally objectionable because it objectifies women. I think that is a 20th century convention. Or maybe we could pin that on Freud, who knows.
If you go back through history prostitution is a story of women not of men. You have to know what their reasons or goals were. The Sacred Whore, a powerful, respected, confident woman, a priestess.
The courtesan, a woman who was often not a prostitute, but well taken care of, so that she might live a life of leisure without having to marry.
Today, I think the arrangement is still, more often than not, a very mutually beneficent business deal. Working women are out there because they need to pay their rents, eat, take care of their kids, just like anyone else. They are using the most base of any of the skills or talents they might possess but it is the choice they have made. And it is them who have decided to wander about scantily clad. I would say that if anything, it has been the women themselves that have done all the objectifying. The men aren't guilty of anything just because there is no emotional attachment to the act or to the person involved.
Prostitution was outlawed because it ultimately empowered women.
and as prostitution is so very much older than objectification of women, it is the objectification of women and the lack of respect for them by certain parts of our society that had led to prostitution becoming the high risk occupation is has. the mindset that oh shes just a whore has got to stop.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
Again, it's not like that here. If I take a girl out to dinner, it's either as a friend or girlfriend. Generally we pay seperately, as a matter of fact, I remember a few times that I wanted to pay everything and the girl simply laughed and said: 'don't be silly' and refused to let me pay the whole dinner. That's fairly normal around here, at least with all of the people I know and hang out with. We don't have the whole dating thing here. There's no process in which you sort of buy the girl - which the girl seems to expect anyway - with meals and drinks. That's your country, not mine. We don't go on dates.
Either way, stop putting women in such a victim role and men in such a bad light. Seriously, if this is the reality in the US, then yet again I sigh in relief.
Or could it be that your post is not objective at all and you're just trying to put men in a bad light.
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.
I agree with you, but not entirely (hell ain't freezin' over yet! )
Is it not possible to admire someone's physical beauty without knowing them, but still be respectful? Can it not be that one goes to a prostitute without thinking of them as instruments of sexual pleasure but rather as a person, one they are about to have sex with, but still a person?
Maybe it's just an inherent difference between men and women. The article I posted earlier proves that men can have casual sex more easily than women. In your post you say, you can't have sex with someone merely because they look good. Men can, and I don't think it's fair to attribute this to objectification. That would be a simplistic approach.
Prostitution is neither illegal nor morally objectionable because it objectifies women. I think that is a 20th century convention. Or maybe we could pin that on Freud, who knows.
If you go back through history prostitution is a story of women not of men. You have to know what their reasons or goals were. The Sacred Whore, a powerful, respected, confident woman, a priestess.
The courtesan, a woman who was often not a prostitute, but well taken care of, so that she might live a life of leisure without having to marry.
Today, I think the arrangement is still, more often than not, a very mutually beneficent business deal. Working women are out there because they need to pay their rents, eat, take care of their kids, just like anyone else. They are using the most base of any of the skills or talents they might possess but it is the choice they have made. And it is them who have decided to wander about scantily clad. I would say that if anything, it has been the women themselves that have done all the objectifying. The men aren't guilty of anything just because there is no emotional attachment to the act or to the person involved. Prostitution was outlawed because it ultimately empowered women.
and as prostitution is so very much older than objectification of women, it is the objectification of women and the lack of respect for them by certain parts of our society that had led to prostitution becoming the high risk occupation is has. the mindset that oh shes just a whore has got to stop.
That is a very old mindset. That is how people are discredited. Mary Magdallan suffered this one through out the ages. And it was done at some point by men (within the church) when it was decided they would enjoy a dominant role. Because very early on women were very much the equals of men. I've seen ancient paintings and carvings in Turkey, where Paul holed up during his wanderings, that show him with women of importance. To deny them their positions with Paul, sometime later, the women's eyes were scratched out. How crazy is that?
If prostitution were legalized, as it should be, it could become a lower risk occupation, with management. And then probably the mindset might shift somewhat, with time. But the discrediting, the degrading of people will probably never stop. Such is the frailty of the human heart and mind.
Prostitution is neither illegal nor morally objectionable because it objectifies women. I think that is a 20th century convention. Or maybe we could pin that on Freud, who knows.
If you go back through history prostitution is a story of women not of men. You have to know what their reasons or goals were. The Sacred Whore, a powerful, respected, confident woman, a priestess.
The courtesan, a woman who was often not a prostitute, but well taken care of, so that she might live a life of leisure without having to marry.
Today, I think the arrangement is still, more often than not, a very mutually beneficent business deal. Working women are out there because they need to pay their rents, eat, take care of their kids, just like anyone else. They are using the most base of any of the skills or talents they might possess but it is the choice they have made. And it is them who have decided to wander about scantily clad. I would say that if anything, it has been the women themselves that have done all the objectifying. The men aren't guilty of anything just because there is no emotional attachment to the act or to the person involved.
Prostitution was outlawed because it ultimately empowered women.
When sexuality is focussed on in high level spiritual pursuits as is the case with the contempary Sacred Sex teachers where woman is understood as Goddess (and Priestesses) (AND males God), it is hugely divergent from the general level of prostitution abound. The key difference is that the basis is Spiritual, while also being very whole on all levels, including physically sexual. As well, Sacred Sexuality and sex at this level of authentic empowerment is based on male/female balance within the males and females participating. Any kind of attitude of "getting one's rocks off" as has been alluded to in this thread, is not referring to the levels where the empowerment of women is achieved, where her true worth is acknowledged. And for that matter, authentic male empowerment is not being acknowledged or achieved, either.
I fully understand that women become prostitutes to achieve certain forms of power. The issue is that inauthentic forms of empowerment bring benefit on one level, while being undermining on another. Authentic empowerment is pure empowerment. I fully understand that one progresses, and if one finds prostitution a progression--the best choice--I'm all for that. However, at the same time, I am for authentic empowerment, and therefore keep aware of the dehumanizing factors that currently exist in the occupation. Someone may be ten years from finding a lasting sense of authentic empowerment--or 20--, and still, having a reasonably clear map of the current territory, plus the terrain up ahead is always beneficial in being the best support along the way.
Many times, as women segue out of dehumanizing sexual practises, as Tracy Lords, or Linda Lovelace (or myself) can attest to, they do not feel empowered. And as they seek authentic empowerment, a different form of narrative--one that does not glamourize/minimize the pain they've been through due to their sexual practises--is needed. In this context, the words which describe what they've experienced are the likes of "objectification". Wherever such words have stemmed from, they have evolved from a need, and remain--rather than falling away because of lack of use--because they are relevent.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I think if a woman uses sex as a way to earn her living though, she is taking away the emotional power of it for herself and I think that must be painful on an emotional level. The act is meant to chemically bond people and if that is purposely ignored, what does that do to the woman's own emotional life?
It's all well and good to say she is being empowered, but I think it must kill part of her. How can the money replace her ability to bond in a meaningful way?
I think if a woman uses sex as a way to earn her living though, she is taking away the emotional power of it for herself and I think that must be painful on an emotional level. The act is meant to chemically bond people and if that is purposely ignored, what does that do to the woman's own emotional life?
It's all well and good to say she is being empowered, but I think it must kill part of her. How can the money replace her ability to bond in a meaningful way?
I agree with you.
This is why the empowerment isn't a true empowerment, and is rather an inauthentic empowerment. It's a compromise...she compromises aspects of her integrity, or her integral self (body/mind/emotions/spirit) in order to get the aspects she feels are empowering.
Money literally cannot replace the loss of integrity.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When sexuality is focussed on in high level spiritual pursuits as is the case with the contempary Sacred Sex teachers where woman is understood as Goddess (and Priestesses) (AND males God), it is hugely divergent from the general level of prostitution abound. The key difference is that the basis is Spiritual, while also being very whole on all levels, including physically sexual. As well, Sacred Sexuality and sex at this level of authentic empowerment is based on male/female balance within the males and females participating. Any kind of attitude of "getting one's rocks off" as has been alluded to in this thread, is not referring to the levels where the empowerment of women is achieved, where her true worth is acknowledged. And for that matter, authentic male empowerment is not being acknowledged or achieved, either.
I fully understand that women become prostitutes to achieve certain forms of power. The issue is that inauthentic forms of empowerment bring benefit on one level, while being undermining on another. Authentic empowerment is pure empowerment. I fully understand that one progresses, and if one finds prostitution a progression--the best choice--I'm all for that. However, at the same time, I am for authentic empowerment, and therefore keep aware of the dehumanizing factors that currently exist in the occupation. Someone may be ten years from finding a lasting sense of authentic empowerment--or 20--, and still, having a reasonably clear map of the current territory, plus the terrain up ahead is always beneficial in being the best support along the way.
Many times, as women segue out of dehumanizing sexual practises, as Tracy Lords, or Linda Lovelace (or myself) can attest to, they do not feel empowered. And as they seek authentic empowerment, a different form of narrative--one that does not glamourize/minimize the pain they've been through due to their sexual practises--is needed. In this context, the words which describe what they've experienced are the likes of "objectification". Wherever such words have stemmed from, they have evolved from a need, and remain--rather than falling away because of lack of use--because they are relevent.
You cover quite a bit of ground with this one. But the theme seems to be about combatting dysfunction. You begin with the Sacred Sexual which observes the balance and harmony of each person and their energies, and the spiritual aspect of those acts. Very beautiful. And, possibly, what you need after whatever it has been that you have gone through, in your life.
Mysticism, raising the Kundalini Serpent, opening chockrahs, celebrating sex and each other, are all very wonderful and can be empowering, particularly when it hasn't always been that way. As you yourself say, it is a "different
form of narrative".
And Tantric sex is definitely not about "getting one's rocks off" but as commerce, prostitution is. Because Time is Money. The dehumanizing aspects of sex trade or in life that people experience are not due to which ever particular pursuits one may be involved but happen because of the other people involved and one's coping skills and character. It is not the job, or religion, social group, political party, or ethnicity, that dehumanizes the person. That happens to be the lowest form of attack. It's all a con job.
It's tragic that with as great as the human mind might be it that it is so easily manipulated.
The dehumanizing aspects of sex trade or in life that people experience are not due to which ever particular pursuits one may be involved but happen because of the other people involved and one's coping skills and character. It is not the job, or religion, social group, political party, or ethnicity, that dehumanizes the person. That happens to be the lowest form of attack. It's all a con job.
It's tragic that with as great as the human mind might be it that it is so easily manipulated.
In any inclusive view that endeavors to understand the whole beyond slivers of context, the environment distinctly plays a role. The individual prostitute, or 'john' is one with the society they developed and exist within, or the politics and power plays that they internalize into their character, and that continue to affect and surround them. One's pursuits cannot be divorced from the person in question, or they are no longer one's pursuits. Therefore, if we define lines and limits within the whole picture, it's not changing the whole picture, it's merely changing our view of it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You cover quite a bit of ground with this one. But the theme seems to be about combatting dysfunction.
I pointed out earlier a few times that I embrace it all, which is the opposite of wishing to 'combat dysfunction'.
In accepting and embracing things as they are, it includes....the "as they are" part, which is beyond any ideology. This is a part of my pursuit of understanding. While I have my own personal view, I am not attached to that beyond the level of personal preference/view. At the same time, I am open to acknowledge and understand all the breadth and depth of what exists beyond me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
In any inclusive view that endeavors to understand the whole beyond slivers of context, the environment distinctly plays a role. The individual prostitute, or 'john' is one with the society they developed and exist within, or the politics and power plays that they internalize into their character, and that continue to affect and surround them. One's pursuits cannot be divorced from the person in question, or they are no longer one's pursuits. Therefore, if we define lines and limits within the whole picture, it's not changing the whole picture, it's merely changing our view of it.
So, in the first half of your statement you agree with me and then in the second you run it off the rails and go somewhere else.
The conversation, as I understand it, is in form a generalization and not of anyone in particular, Angelica, or your "sliver of context". No one was being divorced from her pursuits. Again, it is about coping skills and character.
This is why the empowerment isn't a true empowerment, and is rather an inauthentic empowerment. It's a compromise...she compromises aspects of her integrity, or her integral self (body/mind/emotions/spirit) in order to get the aspects she feels are empowering.
Money literally cannot replace the loss of integrity.
Angelica, I wasn't even touching the topic of integrity or any kind of value assessment. I'm leaving all judgemental view points out of my opinion.
I'm talking about what it could possibly be doing to numb the person's emotions and spirit. To repeatedly ignore one's feelings or use them to do something one might not authentically feel like doing (over and over again) must wipe them out eventually.
Imagine how a man would feel if his job was to constantly fill up cups of sperm for a sperm back. Would he be able to get an erection for love when he came home from work? Wouldn't he feel emotionally exhausted and uninterested from the exertion of forced masturbation?
So, in the first half of your statement you agree with me and then in the second you run it off the rails and go somewhere else.
The conversation, as I understand it, is in form a generalization and not of anyone in particular, Angelica, or your "sliver of context". No one was being divorced from her pursuits. Again, it is about coping skills and character.
I'm saying it's about coping skills, character, society, politics, etc.
You said: "The dehumanizing aspects of sex trade or in life that people experience are not due to which ever particular pursuits one may be involved but happen because of the other people involved and one's coping skills and character."
I'm saying, in general terms, that one's particular pursuits are a part of who one is. I'm saying any variable involved is a variable involved in understanding what happens.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Angelica, I wasn't even touching the topic of integrity or any kind of value assessment. I'm leaving all judgemental view points out of my opinion.
I'm talking about what it could possibly be doing to numb the person's emotions and spirit. To repeatedly ignore one's feelings or use them to do something one might not authentically feel like doing (over and over again) must wipe them out eventually.
Imagine how a man would feel if his job was to constantly fill up cups of sperm for a sperm back. Would he be able to get an erection for love when he came home from work? Wouldn't he feel emotionally exhausted and uninterested from the exertion of forced masturbation?
I understand what you are saying, and as I said, I agree.
Integrity refers to one's state of wholeness, and of being undivided. Once we shut out our emotions, we compromise who we are and become divided...we tune out our wholeness. I use the term integrity regarding when someone shuts down their emotions for money.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
Women make better money in porn than men.
womens rights rule!!!!!!!!
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
naděje umírá poslední
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.
cross the river to the eastside
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.
naděje umírá poslední
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.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
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?
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.
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.
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....
Apparently they do... i see that you have CLEARLY stated there is a difference...
I'd write more on this thread.... but i have to get packing. i have an early flight tomorrow.
Good for him. Next time you need some fast cash you'll know how much a DP might get you.
Prostitution is neither illegal nor morally objectionable because it objectifies women. I think that is a 20th century convention. Or maybe we could pin that on Freud, who knows.
If you go back through history prostitution is a story of women not of men. You have to know what their reasons or goals were. The Sacred Whore, a powerful, respected, confident woman, a priestess.
The courtesan, a woman who was often not a prostitute, but well taken care of, so that she might live a life of leisure without having to marry.
Today, I think the arrangement is still, more often than not, a very mutually beneficent business deal. Working women are out there because they need to pay their rents, eat, take care of their kids, just like anyone else. They are using the most base of any of the skills or talents they might possess but it is the choice they have made. And it is them who have decided to wander about scantily clad. I would say that if anything, it has been the women themselves that have done all the objectifying. The men aren't guilty of anything just because there is no emotional attachment to the act or to the person involved.
Prostitution was outlawed because it ultimately empowered women.
It's all about the money shot. The rest is just meat and potatoes - so to speak.
and as prostitution is so very much older than objectification of women, it is the objectification of women and the lack of respect for them by certain parts of our society that had led to prostitution becoming the high risk occupation is has. the mindset that oh shes just a whore has got to stop.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Again, it's not like that here. If I take a girl out to dinner, it's either as a friend or girlfriend. Generally we pay seperately, as a matter of fact, I remember a few times that I wanted to pay everything and the girl simply laughed and said: 'don't be silly' and refused to let me pay the whole dinner. That's fairly normal around here, at least with all of the people I know and hang out with. We don't have the whole dating thing here. There's no process in which you sort of buy the girl - which the girl seems to expect anyway - with meals and drinks. That's your country, not mine. We don't go on dates.
Either way, stop putting women in such a victim role and men in such a bad light. Seriously, if this is the reality in the US, then yet again I sigh in relief.
Or could it be that your post is not objective at all and you're just trying to put men in a bad light.
naděje umírá poslední
I agree with you, but not entirely (hell ain't freezin' over yet!
Is it not possible to admire someone's physical beauty without knowing them, but still be respectful? Can it not be that one goes to a prostitute without thinking of them as instruments of sexual pleasure but rather as a person, one they are about to have sex with, but still a person?
Maybe it's just an inherent difference between men and women. The article I posted earlier proves that men can have casual sex more easily than women. In your post you say, you can't have sex with someone merely because they look good. Men can, and I don't think it's fair to attribute this to objectification. That would be a simplistic approach.
naděje umírá poslední
excellent post. imo.
That is a very old mindset. That is how people are discredited. Mary Magdallan suffered this one through out the ages. And it was done at some point by men (within the church) when it was decided they would enjoy a dominant role. Because very early on women were very much the equals of men. I've seen ancient paintings and carvings in Turkey, where Paul holed up during his wanderings, that show him with women of importance. To deny them their positions with Paul, sometime later, the women's eyes were scratched out. How crazy is that?
If prostitution were legalized, as it should be, it could become a lower risk occupation, with management. And then probably the mindset might shift somewhat, with time. But the discrediting, the degrading of people will probably never stop. Such is the frailty of the human heart and mind.
When sexuality is focussed on in high level spiritual pursuits as is the case with the contempary Sacred Sex teachers where woman is understood as Goddess (and Priestesses) (AND males God), it is hugely divergent from the general level of prostitution abound. The key difference is that the basis is Spiritual, while also being very whole on all levels, including physically sexual. As well, Sacred Sexuality and sex at this level of authentic empowerment is based on male/female balance within the males and females participating. Any kind of attitude of "getting one's rocks off" as has been alluded to in this thread, is not referring to the levels where the empowerment of women is achieved, where her true worth is acknowledged. And for that matter, authentic male empowerment is not being acknowledged or achieved, either.
I fully understand that women become prostitutes to achieve certain forms of power. The issue is that inauthentic forms of empowerment bring benefit on one level, while being undermining on another. Authentic empowerment is pure empowerment. I fully understand that one progresses, and if one finds prostitution a progression--the best choice--I'm all for that. However, at the same time, I am for authentic empowerment, and therefore keep aware of the dehumanizing factors that currently exist in the occupation. Someone may be ten years from finding a lasting sense of authentic empowerment--or 20--, and still, having a reasonably clear map of the current territory, plus the terrain up ahead is always beneficial in being the best support along the way.
Many times, as women segue out of dehumanizing sexual practises, as Tracy Lords, or Linda Lovelace (or myself) can attest to, they do not feel empowered. And as they seek authentic empowerment, a different form of narrative--one that does not glamourize/minimize the pain they've been through due to their sexual practises--is needed. In this context, the words which describe what they've experienced are the likes of "objectification". Wherever such words have stemmed from, they have evolved from a need, and remain--rather than falling away because of lack of use--because they are relevent.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's all well and good to say she is being empowered, but I think it must kill part of her. How can the money replace her ability to bond in a meaningful way?
This is why the empowerment isn't a true empowerment, and is rather an inauthentic empowerment. It's a compromise...she compromises aspects of her integrity, or her integral self (body/mind/emotions/spirit) in order to get the aspects she feels are empowering.
Money literally cannot replace the loss of integrity.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You cover quite a bit of ground with this one. But the theme seems to be about combatting dysfunction. You begin with the Sacred Sexual which observes the balance and harmony of each person and their energies, and the spiritual aspect of those acts. Very beautiful. And, possibly, what you need after whatever it has been that you have gone through, in your life.
Mysticism, raising the Kundalini Serpent, opening chockrahs, celebrating sex and each other, are all very wonderful and can be empowering, particularly when it hasn't always been that way. As you yourself say, it is a "different
form of narrative".
And Tantric sex is definitely not about "getting one's rocks off" but as commerce, prostitution is. Because Time is Money. The dehumanizing aspects of sex trade or in life that people experience are not due to which ever particular pursuits one may be involved but happen because of the other people involved and one's coping skills and character. It is not the job, or religion, social group, political party, or ethnicity, that dehumanizes the person. That happens to be the lowest form of attack. It's all a con job.
It's tragic that with as great as the human mind might be it that it is so easily manipulated.
In any inclusive view that endeavors to understand the whole beyond slivers of context, the environment distinctly plays a role. The individual prostitute, or 'john' is one with the society they developed and exist within, or the politics and power plays that they internalize into their character, and that continue to affect and surround them. One's pursuits cannot be divorced from the person in question, or they are no longer one's pursuits. Therefore, if we define lines and limits within the whole picture, it's not changing the whole picture, it's merely changing our view of it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
In accepting and embracing things as they are, it includes....the "as they are" part, which is beyond any ideology. This is a part of my pursuit of understanding. While I have my own personal view, I am not attached to that beyond the level of personal preference/view. At the same time, I am open to acknowledge and understand all the breadth and depth of what exists beyond me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So, in the first half of your statement you agree with me and then in the second you run it off the rails and go somewhere else.
The conversation, as I understand it, is in form a generalization and not of anyone in particular, Angelica, or your "sliver of context". No one was being divorced from her pursuits. Again, it is about coping skills and character.
Angelica, I wasn't even touching the topic of integrity or any kind of value assessment. I'm leaving all judgemental view points out of my opinion.
I'm talking about what it could possibly be doing to numb the person's emotions and spirit. To repeatedly ignore one's feelings or use them to do something one might not authentically feel like doing (over and over again) must wipe them out eventually.
Imagine how a man would feel if his job was to constantly fill up cups of sperm for a sperm back. Would he be able to get an erection for love when he came home from work? Wouldn't he feel emotionally exhausted and uninterested from the exertion of forced masturbation?
You said: "The dehumanizing aspects of sex trade or in life that people experience are not due to which ever particular pursuits one may be involved but happen because of the other people involved and one's coping skills and character."
I'm saying, in general terms, that one's particular pursuits are a part of who one is. I'm saying any variable involved is a variable involved in understanding what happens.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Integrity refers to one's state of wholeness, and of being undivided. Once we shut out our emotions, we compromise who we are and become divided...we tune out our wholeness. I use the term integrity regarding when someone shuts down their emotions for money.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!