Name:CrazyIvan

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Yet another reason to move to Britain..........(On Prositution)

In case you don't know, I have an affinity for the British. The humor, the history, the language(or dialect if you perfect) etc. But now, I have an even greater reason to move to Britain:
They have Ebay for sex. Yes, this is going to turn into an entry about legalization of prostitution. If you can't handle discussing/thinking about that, a) why are here? and b) go somewhere, preferably something in the late 17th-century variety.
This is really a topic the deserves a whole essay unto itself(hell, a whole blog), but since I've been really bad with writing essays, I'll cliff note it here.

The arguments:
The Moral Argument: The moral argument is basically the assertion that prostitution ought to be illegal because its "morally wrong." First of all, morality has no place in law (another whole essay). Even ignoring that, immoral to whom? Well I'd imagine to the people who are against sex outside of marriage are against it, but for obvious reasons, we'll ignore them (unless you want your sex life governmentally approved). The insteresting thing is the people who don't oppose such sex who are morally opposed to prositution. I find this hard to understand, why is something which is prefectly fine (legal/moral) suddenly become horrible when money changes hands? For instance, what are they feelings on what I call "indirect postitution," where the sex isn't charged for on an hourly basis, but the "relationship" is based fundamentally upon sex and the transfer of wealth. Is this ok? If you are one of these people, you're ok with sex, but you have moral objections to positution, leave a comment, I'd like to talk to you. My gut feeling is that their real objections is one of the following arguments, but the use the big M to enlist the moralist to their cause.

The "You are a better peson than that argument": This is the argument that assumes people are prostitues because they believe that is the only thing they are capable of doing (and therefore, the only self-worth they have). This need to be the case. Maybe it's the most expediant way of achieving what they want, maybe they enjoy it, maybe it adds excitement to their dull lives. The girl from the article(Katie, see she HAS A NAME and I bothered to notice it, fancy that) says it best:
"Everyone is a prostitute at some level. We're all willing to whore some aspect of our body or soul for financial or material gains"
Waitresses, factory workers, models, stippers, porn stars, prosititues: all are fundamentally "selling their bodies"
Even intellutual people prostitue themseleves. My mentor refered to himself as an "intelellectual whore" because he used his training as pharmacist(which he hated) to support doing what he really loved, teaching. Every technical person at some point during their carreer takes a job more for the money than for the love of the job. Even students are not immune, witness "grade whores" (of which I am probably one, depending on your defination) scrafice real learning in pursuit of good grades.
These cases are not disjoint. I almost wrote "it's a matter of degree," but there seems to be some magic counterargument that "lots of things are a matter of degree" which somehow counteracts it (I'm looking at you, TC).
So I won't say that, what I will say is that these are the SAME THING in principle. The difference comes when sex is introduces and sex somehow makes what was perfectly acceptable absolutely horrid.
The demeaning women argument: This argument is largely the above with the big F(Feminism) attached. It has two parts.
1) The woman is demeaning herself by doing this. Um, isn't it up to a person to decide if they feel demeaned by something? If she feels demeaned, then she probably should be a prostitute, but if she doesn't then this argument is invalid. Isn't the whole pro-choice movement about allowing women to choose what to do with their bodies? Are you now going to turn around and say some women are too stupid to choose for themselves?
2) That prositution somehow demeans ALL women: Um did I miss a memo? See it was my understanding that a central group of the women's movement was to get woman recognized as individuals rather than as part of some homogenous, streotypical group. How does what other women do, demean you as an individual? I don't understand that. If you think that's an issue, then I think the problem is women being viewed as a unit and not prostitution.

The last argument has to do with practical issues (STDs/mistreatment of women) which I will address in the next post. (i'm tired and want to do some reading before bed).
Will post the rest sometime tomorrow. Ignore all spelling errors etc. If someone wants to take the time to fix them, I'll post a revised copy.
-CI

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home