Whose Morality is it anyway?
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
Actually, I like the Swedish model. You describe it, unhelpfully, as "criminalisation". It completely decriminalizes being a prostitute, but makes being a john a criminal offence.
That's an incredibly rosy-eyed view of prostitution. The average age people get into prostitution is 14 or 15. These are not, on the whole, free-agent workers making a rational decision on the basis of their future income streams. These are usually girls who are abused and dominated by their pimps, held in line through physical and mental abuse, and forced to have sex as many as 20 times a night. Yes, the pay is better than other options you have if you have been coerced into the workplace before you can get other qualifications, but that's hardly an argument for not regulating this exploitative trade into the f***ing ground, is it?
Yes, there are prostitutes who enter into it as adults of their own free will, and enjoy doing what they do (a very small proportion of the whole). And under the Swedish model, they would not suffer criminal consequences for doing it. Seems like it gets the best of both worlds: reducing exploitation of women, and not criminalizing women who do it despite the illegality of solicitation.
Like it or not, every law that is made involves promoting behavior you like or discouraging behavior you don't like, whether that behavior is commercial or personal. There's no such thing as a law that does not involve making a moral statement. Therefore, rather than have no laws at all, I would rather focus on ways to make the legislators we choose reflect the will of the people who elect them.
That's an incredibly rosy-eyed view of prostitution. The average age people get into prostitution is 14 or 15. These are not, on the whole, free-agent workers making a rational decision on the basis of their future income streams. These are usually girls who are abused and dominated by their pimps, held in line through physical and mental abuse, and forced to have sex as many as 20 times a night. Yes, the pay is better than other options you have if you have been coerced into the workplace before you can get other qualifications, but that's hardly an argument for not regulating this exploitative trade into the f***ing ground, is it?
Yes, there are prostitutes who enter into it as adults of their own free will, and enjoy doing what they do (a very small proportion of the whole). And under the Swedish model, they would not suffer criminal consequences for doing it. Seems like it gets the best of both worlds: reducing exploitation of women, and not criminalizing women who do it despite the illegality of solicitation.
Like it or not, every law that is made involves promoting behavior you like or discouraging behavior you don't like, whether that behavior is commercial or personal. There's no such thing as a law that does not involve making a moral statement. Therefore, rather than have no laws at all, I would rather focus on ways to make the legislators we choose reflect the will of the people who elect them.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
And this is a distinctly unrosy eyed view of prostitution.
It should be noted that the English collective of Prostitutes, who represent prostitutes in England are absolutely against the Swedish Model, and that the prostitutes in Sweden are also against it.
Still one does NOT want to get distracted by this argument because that is covered very well in the myriad of other threads.
The key point is that if a prostitute turns round and states that it is her right to decide if she is a victim, and that she is not, then the government has no right to turn around and treat her opinion as not valid.
Except that we are talking about victimless crimes here.
Sure. A prostitute can decide that she isn't a victim. That doesn't mean that the government is not allowed to discourage prostitution, in a way that doesn't criminalize the prostitute.
You are only able to define prostitution as a victimless crime by taking a consciously narrow view of it - see above discussion on swinging.
You are only able to define prostitution as a victimless crime by taking a consciously narrow view of it - see above discussion on swinging.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Of course the government can inform her of the risks, and recommend against it if it is dangerous, the same as in any other industry.
You said that you think that I am using a narrow view to see it as victimless. By stating this you are assuming that the majority are victims and would acknowledge this if asked. However I would suggest again that this is only an assumption and that this is even more reason to give the workers their rights.
Neither of us is able to know whether the ones who accept that they are victims are in the majority or not, and I'm sure we can agree that we should strive to help them with better adult education etc.
However, I am erring on the side of caution by listening to the workers and to what they say. They want workers rights and the ability to take control. Anyone who fails to listen like this I would suggest that they would be letting their own moralism trump this primary need to listen to the workers, and to empower them first and foremost, before anything else.
gorski
customised free radical
They should be workers like everyone else but...
Amongst them there are children, too. They don't need "adult" education - they had way too much of that, what they need is the normal one...
You really haven't a clue of the fact that you also have a morality and that you are considering yours "neutral", whereas all the other participants in the debate are "ideological" and "moralizing". How quaint, sir...
Amongst them there are children, too. They don't need "adult" education - they had way too much of that, what they need is the normal one...
You really haven't a clue of the fact that you also have a morality and that you are considering yours "neutral", whereas all the other participants in the debate are "ideological" and "moralizing". How quaint, sir...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I was half expecting a thread of humorous jokes about philosophers doing improvised comedy skits on morality...I'm damn dissappointed...
Altho it has got GMart and gorksi at each other which is worthy of some spectation...good to see you've moved past Randism Gmart...
Altho it has got GMart and gorksi at each other which is worthy of some spectation...good to see you've moved past Randism Gmart...
Gmart
Well-Known Member
The infamous but...
You keep going on about me not having a clue, yet you don't seem keen to specify.
Sure there are aspects of the negative parts of this industry which are upsetting, yet this is even more reason to get it into the white economy where it can be observed and controlled reasonably.
My opinion is of course not completely neutral, (tho, of course, I try), but where your instinct seems to be to avoid legalisation for no reason I can see except that it's dangerous for a certain number of workers. No thought for those who suffer because of prohibition.
These workers should have the rights all the rest of us take for granted. There is no place for being judgmental when there is no victim other than the vague 'society'.
We should be listening to the workers and in this case they are united in being against the Swedish model, and in favour of legalisation which would enable them to survive better in the face of oppression.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Sure you started well with:
But spoiled it slightly with the dodgy:
Though mostly you're just sidestepping saying anything at all, whilst stating as if it were obvious a version of:
Simple question, do you feel these workers should have the same rights as any other worker before we address any other issues?
But spoiled it slightly with the dodgy:
Though mostly you're just sidestepping saying anything at all, whilst stating as if it were obvious a version of:
Btw, to say I have not stated my position is...quite extraordinary...
Simple question, do you feel these workers should have the same rights as any other worker before we address any other issues?
gorski
customised free radical
Or maybe you just don't get it. As you clearly do not.
Every Socialist could understand quite easily and explain to you the ABC of Emancipation of Humanity, in terms of work/ownership/relating to other people: that everybody should live off of their work/labour alone [if capable; if not then we, the rest of Humanity, need to take care of them], i.e. without exploiting anybody, as well as not being exploited. It equally means exploiting neither men nor women, not objectifying them, and in particular, in this context, decomodifying that which is so important and essential to us, Humans... And no, it isn't just sex... But it has to do with it. Anyone buying a story that it [prostitution] does nothing to them in terms of how they relate to other people in terms of love is seriously lacking in judgement... or worse...
So, no, you do not get it. Zion explained some ways around it but you just can't allow anything new into your system.
We trashed it out in another 2 big threads and you could see many more details/aspects of it in them but... You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath on that one, now won't you...
So again: why do I bother, I wonder...?!?
Every Socialist could understand quite easily and explain to you the ABC of Emancipation of Humanity, in terms of work/ownership/relating to other people: that everybody should live off of their work/labour alone [if capable; if not then we, the rest of Humanity, need to take care of them], i.e. without exploiting anybody, as well as not being exploited. It equally means exploiting neither men nor women, not objectifying them, and in particular, in this context, decomodifying that which is so important and essential to us, Humans... And no, it isn't just sex... But it has to do with it. Anyone buying a story that it [prostitution] does nothing to them in terms of how they relate to other people in terms of love is seriously lacking in judgement... or worse...
So, no, you do not get it. Zion explained some ways around it but you just can't allow anything new into your system.
We trashed it out in another 2 big threads and you could see many more details/aspects of it in them but... You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath on that one, now won't you...So again: why do I bother, I wonder...?!?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
You can be as Utopian as you like in your dreams but you still insist on using the word 'exploit' without answering the simple question as to whether the workers should get equal rights BEFORE you start dealing with whether they are exploited if they don't feel that they are.
Your sidestepping can continue as long as you wish, but your refusal to state categorically that these workers deserve equal rights just rankles. If you did so then the debate could be explored, but your refusal just shows you up to be an enemy of the workers.
You feel that you know best. And seem to see no reason to listen to the workers.
Even the post above shows this, when you state that 'their' judgment is "seriously lacking". So you are judging before allowing these workers to get equal rights.
It is YOU who do not get 'it'. You seem keen to state this over and over, yet you refuse to answer simple questions.
The reality is that you would rather see these workers taken advantage of rather than give them equal rights with everyone else. All the negative aspects of this industry cry out for worker protection, as do the workers themselves, but moralists like you are too concerned with talking about their own view of Utopia to notice the need for rights NOW!
You remind me of the conservatives, and more recently Labour, passing acts of parliament without any conversation with the unions concerning the needs of the industry (education, health,etc), just based on their own idealism. Wake up!
Your sidestepping can continue as long as you wish, but your refusal to state categorically that these workers deserve equal rights just rankles. If you did so then the debate could be explored, but your refusal just shows you up to be an enemy of the workers.
You feel that you know best. And seem to see no reason to listen to the workers.
Even the post above shows this, when you state that 'their' judgment is "seriously lacking". So you are judging before allowing these workers to get equal rights.
It is YOU who do not get 'it'. You seem keen to state this over and over, yet you refuse to answer simple questions.
The reality is that you would rather see these workers taken advantage of rather than give them equal rights with everyone else. All the negative aspects of this industry cry out for worker protection, as do the workers themselves, but moralists like you are too concerned with talking about their own view of Utopia to notice the need for rights NOW!
You remind me of the conservatives, and more recently Labour, passing acts of parliament without any conversation with the unions concerning the needs of the industry (education, health,etc), just based on their own idealism. Wake up!
gorski
customised free radical
No, you are [this is ridiculous to the extreme]!Sidestep this: would you like your mother, sister, daughter etc. - or father, brother, son - to be a sex "worker"?!?
In all honesty, how would you feel to see some of them being brutally fucked by a stranger and humiliated in the process [natural, if you're a man, non?], in full view of everybody or maybe just you knowing that is going on in her/his life?
Or say, you go out "in search of some meat" and s/he appears flicking her tongue at you and speaking "sweet obscenities" to you, before realizing it's you...
How about it, GM [funny this, in relation to your attitudes, being a product of "liberal" morals, possibly without realizing how this could affect you and yours, but you just don't want to think about it, allowing others to push their little Utopia onto everybody, without any seriously critical checking and verifying beforehand...
]?!?Mind you, the "liberals" [private owners] and "aristocrats" [the "noble" lot], i.e. the "leading echelons of society" in charge of creating "prevailing morality"/common sense values/education/influencing and manipulating public opinion," were and are doing all of this - but for much more money, so no real surprise there. The Q is: how come that those who are [at least potentially] so badly affected by all this shit - support it so vehemently?!?
Just give them a bit more money, take away the pimps and put it in the hands of the state, get the doctors in, so they weed out the HIV+ ones etc.
and it'll all be OK, suddenly, as we are then "more caring"... especially since we know that we can go to our beds safer in the knowledge that, most likely, we won't get some STD, so we won't be discovered by our wives etc.
The mind boggles...
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Sidestep this: would you like your mother, sister, daughter etc. - or father, brother, son - to be a sex "worker"?!?
Didn't fancy actually answering or even commenting on anything I said, and so again you decide to go into an area you feel more comfortable in.
Despite the fact that I stand by my "Rights first, discussion second" policy, I will answer your ridiculous question. I trust my Mother, Sister or Daughter etc. is over eighteen and there of her own freewill and so in that case it would be her decision, none of my business.
So now that I've answered your question honestly, perhaps you would answer mine? I doubt it!
This conversation is bizarre, I try and engage but everything I write is ignored and the replies just end up as completely unrelated. Interesting thing conversations, most are between people listening and commenting on what the other says and progressing from there. Essential to listen and think, but that's what a conversation is; in contrast with a lecture which is what people who don't fancy listening or thinking engage in, and which is what we have here. Gorski is closed minded in that he is not prepared to think about what I say, and so he just rants with no hint of having even read the post.
I mean what's the point of this:
Just trying to stimulate fear in me so that I toe the authoritarian line.
I believe in people Gorski, I trust them. Got it yet?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Gmart
Well-Known Member
As expected...
You will find it difficult to go for the jugular if you refuse to engage.
I've answered all your questions and yet received no response, and yet you've failed to address a range of issues:
1) The right on an individual to freedom to choose who one works for.
2) The right of the individual to state when they are a victim.
3) The freedom to do what they like in a free world.
4) Why should we have rules where there is no victim?
5) Why not comment on my answers to your questions?
6) Do you believe in people? Do you trust them?
7) Why do you not discuss and always just lecture
8) In what circumstances would you mind your own business?
9) Why do you refuse to listen to the workers?
10) Do you feel that all workers should have equal rights?
11) Why should your Utopia get in the way of equality and freedom?
12) Do you find attempting to stimulate fear in people constructive?
Just in case anyone missed it. Just waiting for the jugular shot eh?
Good job you told me, coz it really looked like you just didn't have the answers and seem reluctant to engage for some reason.
gorski
customised free radical
I engaged you, whereas you are not engaging.
If you have the balls to at least try to put yourself in a position of a father, brother etc. of a prostitute - please do tell. Otherwise stop this nonsense.
It's so cold, even cruel.
I know one can sidestep anything but if you do it this time I give up...
If you have the balls to at least try to put yourself in a position of a father, brother etc. of a prostitute - please do tell. Otherwise stop this nonsense.
It's so cold, even cruel.
I know one can sidestep anything but if you do it this time I give up...
gorski
customised free radical
Or maybe you can not even perceive that there are seriously greater depths, much more sincere honesty than this alleged "reach":
And even then, with all this sidestepping: would you not try to see what reasons might be behind it and try to help?
Or would you just "mind your own business"?
And even then, with all this sidestepping: would you not try to see what reasons might be behind it and try to help?
Or would you just "mind your own business"?
gorski
customised free radical
I believe that you should wake up, sir!
Most prostitutes in the UK are not there of their own free will and good life chances.
Many are on drugs, have no education, many are minors, pimps are violent and actually get them into it, in a variety of ways, if not they are at greater risk etc. etc. etc.
Utopia? Who lives in a cloud-cookoo land?!?
Echhh...
gorski
customised free radical
You really do not understand anything at all!
My position is infinitely more caring and hence ambitious than yours: it is fundamentally and substantively caring, as in "put your money where your big mouth is"! As in raise their differential chances in life! Really, not just in a declaratory manner, such as yours! What you state is easy! What I advocate is seriously difficult! But much more Human and humane.
Similar to the Swedish model, which provided for them [prostitutes] to get off the drugs and any "dependencies", get the qualifications they needed, re-socialize them, supported them properly, not just passed a law...
Utopia, eh? Some nice "reality" you advocate. Whereas, there is nothing "utopian" [in that "political gun-slinger sense" you use] about the Swedish experience.
Much more real than that "safety, well-being and welfare through legalization" liberal nonsense. Whose safety? Whose and what kind of well-being? Welfare? I mean, honestly...
gorski
customised free radical
Let me give it to you, once again:
"Liberal" morality [as proclaimed by many today] is a so called 'minimal morality' but it is, nevertheless, normative. You also have a moral position. It's just that you think that it's "superior" to any other morality. By definition, that is elitist, as it excludes from even considering anything that is outside its limits. It's the internal limitation of the liberal model as such.
The kind of "lefty" morality I espouse would fight the very causes of prostitution, for instance. [You can put instead of it "crime", "deprivation", "poverty", including "spiritual poverty" etc. etc.] It would actually dare to ask the awkward questions and would then try to give real options to the women and men in question. Real life chances.
Men and women who have a problem with that [their sexual lives] should then also get the necessary help they might have with their sexual problems and needs. And it might call for some soul searching, it seems to me, according to what I have seen/studied/experienced/debated...
And if there are problems in "liberal/conservative [or any other] marriages" that are not addressed [whatever the reason] - why would somebody else have to pay for those "unsorted" people, with their love life literally "fucked up" [by the obvious liberal and conservative spiritual poverty?], hence producing more "fucked up" lives?!?
And it's always "somebody else", isn't it? And so long as it's "somebody else", that's fine by the Conservatives and Liberals...
Well, it's not fine by me!
"Liberal" morality [as proclaimed by many today] is a so called 'minimal morality' but it is, nevertheless, normative. You also have a moral position. It's just that you think that it's "superior" to any other morality. By definition, that is elitist, as it excludes from even considering anything that is outside its limits. It's the internal limitation of the liberal model as such.
The kind of "lefty" morality I espouse would fight the very causes of prostitution, for instance. [You can put instead of it "crime", "deprivation", "poverty", including "spiritual poverty" etc. etc.] It would actually dare to ask the awkward questions and would then try to give real options to the women and men in question. Real life chances.
Men and women who have a problem with that [their sexual lives] should then also get the necessary help they might have with their sexual problems and needs. And it might call for some soul searching, it seems to me, according to what I have seen/studied/experienced/debated...
And if there are problems in "liberal/conservative [or any other] marriages" that are not addressed [whatever the reason] - why would somebody else have to pay for those "unsorted" people, with their love life literally "fucked up" [by the obvious liberal and conservative spiritual poverty?], hence producing more "fucked up" lives?!?
And it's always "somebody else", isn't it? And so long as it's "somebody else", that's fine by the Conservatives and Liberals...
Well, it's not fine by me!
gorski
customised free radical
Going back to the original Q:
At which point do we realize that other people affect us and that there is no way out of it?
So, for instance, at which point do we, having acknowledged that, openly state that it might affect our children?
We have to ask ourselves: do we want our children exposed to it before they are ready to make a comprehensive judgement about it, before they are mature enough to be able to create their own, autonomous morality. In which case, at that point [say, after they turn 18], if this is what they are after - fair enough.
But!
We do have the responsibility for their upbringing. We must act, in that respect, too. Non-action or inaction is also an action. If some people see that as a threat to their kid's maturing process, when it comes to their sexuality, who can enforce their morality - i.e. themselves - on them? [For their own lifestyle choice, that is...]
So, we have a clash. Both sides might have valid reasons for their concerns.
How is it best resolved? What can be done? Through which means? Does it have to be legislation? Can there be mediation?
Is there a solution that might take both sides into consideration, so there is no "win-lose" ["big game"] but win-win" ["fair-play"] situation at the end of it?
gorski
customised free radical
- at least from 4th to 5th minute
Note: "universalism"...
Of course, one can take Foucault's position and say we can't possibly even imagine what a "just" future [in this case differential life chances/real opportunities etc.] might be, not with our notions, forged in our Epoch, in our class system, from the current power relations and so how do we project these vague images onto a possible new society without affecting it, even recreating the old one, with all its trappings and pitfalls......
Well, there are no firm prescriptions and no one is stupid enough even to try...
We can, however, broadly state:
1) what mustn't be there [exploitation of Man by Man, domination, objectification, instrumentalization of 'other' [Human being], comodification of labour, oppression etc.], all of it easily describable, thanx to the ample historical evidence etc....
2) roughly, what is desirable, what we ought to find in the new society, for Humanity to thrive... [private ownership of means of production socialized; plenty of free time; no longer slaves to our work, working for another, who reaps the benefits; rational, rather than power based hierarchy - based in competence, merit, past labour; excellent education, values of solidarity, sympathy, empathy ingrained in us etc. etc.]
With all our innate creativity, capacity to think critically and imaginatively - we can't do much more than that... not without locking the future up, arresting it in the trap of contemporary structures, feelings, relations, as Foucault would be quick to point out, justly...
[So, without being too prescriptive, one can ask awkward questions and insist on abolishing the very ground for prostitution, as we see it. For instance...
]
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Your ability to avoid even a list of straight questions astonishes.
Why should I comment on what you say if you simply refuse to comment on what I say?
That (as I have said) is not a conversation that is you attempting to lecture.
You could take each question and simply reply using the same nouns, so when I am talking about the equal rights of workers, you actually comment on this and not some video on youtube which you think is cool.
Start another thread if you want to talk about something else.
Anyone would think you have something to hide!!??
Are you embarrassed as to your answers to those questions?
Why should I comment on what you say if you simply refuse to comment on what I say?
That (as I have said) is not a conversation that is you attempting to lecture.
You could take each question and simply reply using the same nouns, so when I am talking about the equal rights of workers, you actually comment on this and not some video on youtube which you think is cool.
Start another thread if you want to talk about something else.
Anyone would think you have something to hide!!??
Are you embarrassed as to your answers to those questions?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I imagine it must be a really bad experience... feeling completely out of your depth and not wanting to acknowledge it...
Ahh! Are you trying to goad me into commenting on what you said, even though you didn't want to comment on mine?
How sweet!
Put up or shut up Gorski, you obviously don't want to answer the questions I numbered because that would need thought, and saying that I am having trouble 'keeping up' with you is just lame.
I'm just getting sick of you sidestepping the questions I listed. A few would be fine, even normal, but twelve is just taking the piss.
Similar threads
- Poll
