h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Rules that mean that as with boing when it was unregultated leaves the people involved in it at the mercy of money driven violent promoters of the business."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand this sentence at all. Does anyone care to interpret?

TRiG.

Hi McKay. I heard a version of that story with Sir Winston Churchill as the prospective client and Lady Something-or-Other as the indignant female.

TRiG.

Yeah, the version I heard was simpler.

Will you sleep with me for £1million

Yes

Will you sleep with me for £10?

No, what kind of woman do you take me for?

We've established etc etc



So, where does that put people like Anna Nicole Smith?

I am pretty sure is was George Bernard Shaw who first said it, or at least is credited with first saying it.

>>"Debt - I would humbly suggest that the majority of people tempted into prostitution for financial reasons are not probably the wisest investors."

No s**t, Sherlock.

>>"I also feel that financial institutions make obsene profits..."

Thing is, you conflated the two ideas to suggest that all debt (or at least, all non-drug-related debt) leading to prostitution is the fault of greedy financial institutions, and that fixing the latter could effectively eliminate the former.
I'm not saying you don't have a point at all, just that the connection appears a wild overgeneralisation.

>>"The principle is the same."

People arguing from simplistic principles often end up with poor arguments. They may pretend they have some solid moral argument when really they have no more justification for their arbitrary opinion than the next person.

One *could* argue that doing anything for money or other consideration that one wouldn't happily do for nothing is prostituting oneself in some way, but that would be silly.
However, I don't see any obvious other moral *absolute* position at which a line can be drawn?

There are many things I wouldn't do, or that I'd hope other people wouldn't do, where I recognise my opinion is just a personal emotional reaction. I can't define someone as immoral just for not sharing *identical* boundaries, especially if their circumstances are different.
Equally, I can't reasonably describe what someone's self-esteem will be based on what I might think mine would be in a similar situation, or what I think their self esteem *should* be.

I dont know why your falling back on this argument as it says more for where Im coming from than where you're comimg from.

The joke - if you can call it a joke, and you have so I wont argue with that - alludes tot he point that if it is an exclusive deal and a fairly long term contract then its OK for someone to selltheir body, but its not so good if its a short term contract.

My question is why do we maintian this difference as a social rule and enshrine it in law?



"You;re right Blicky - they all said it was a bad thing, and I think its generally agreed that slavery is a bad thing

cool I like agreement almost as much as I like arguing. Guess whats coming next?

"- how much of a person's body do you have to sell for them to be a slave

Well if I were doing the selling in an exploitative deal with someone any part of ther body would be morally reprehensible for me to sell. Lets get this straight I dont agree with people buying hair that is harvested from people too impoverished and lacking in knowledge to strike a decent bargain. I think the profit margins are outrageuos. Here's the important part though *I dont sell hair*

Yes I contribute the commodification (if you see some of the effects of surgery on some actresses then you'd know just what an apt neologism commodification is) of womens bodies as a consumer but people dont own Leslie Ash's lips or Jordans fake boobies, they make a choice, a perfectly legal choice.

I dont do the selling of womens bodies in the many arenas where it happens; acting, modelling, sport and dancing to name just a few. We allow people to choose to enter a markets where safety is atleast monitored because of legal regulations. We even celebrate their acheivements with Oscars and such like. Prostituion is a market where people are sold either wholesale, retail or on a rental basis. I think that prostituion as it stands in this country is a terrible business. I think that the commodification is the least of the problems it is the slavery that is a problem a problem that we wont and lets face it have never stopped by making it illegal.

Not making it legal allows it to continues as it is.

"more importantly how much of their self respect do you destroy by treating them as a commodity.

To be honest I wouldnt hazard a guess, I dont know the levels of self respect for each person when they start do you? I dont know the level of self respect it takes for an actor to need snti-depressants because his last film flopped but I dont see calls for legal blocks on film making because of it. Im not ssying that leaglising prostituion will make prostitutes feel better about themselves. It might fo some, it will certainly remove some of the social taboo aspect though which will make some people feel more open and happy to say what they do. Ask a homosexual how they felt after their right to live as they wanted was made legal.

What I am saying is that it will help to remove the coerercion and outright forced nature from the business that makes up part, the part that really worries me within the sex trade.

one love

Well we're certainly agreeing about a lot, maybe I can persuade you yet, Blicky.

I suppose I could accept more of your arguement if I felt that it was a totally free decision that put women (or men) into prostitution. However I don't.

I'm sure there will always be a few who do it from choice, but I would suggest that they would benefit from psychiatric counselling.

Morning McKay

I think I am more with Blicky than with you here.

Consider a nymphomaniac, or a woman who just REALLY enjoys as much sex as possible. If she could earn money whilst indulging herself, then prostitution (perhaps with careful selection rather than random 'pick-ups')might be perfectly acceptable to her.

Further , it might be possible that she could indulge when necessary, and not under pressure.

Novo

<...or a woman who just REALLY enjoys as much sex as possible. If she could earn money whilst indulging herself, then prostitution (perhaps with careful selection rather than random 'pick-ups')might be perfectly acceptable to her.>

That does actually happen a read/saw on TV(prob C4!!) an item that included a woman who enjoyed having sex with strangers so prostitution was ideal and she made cash. No guilt, no pressure, satiating her own desires and getting paid for it.

An exception to the rule of prostitution simply for cash rather than the norm I would expect.

Aaah the nyphonmaniac - beloved of teenage fiction - sorry, nymphomania isn't just about sex - and someone who enjoys sex with continual strangers has severe emotional problems, and obvious commitment problems.

Say - there it is - why not use the disabled for sex ? Physical disablement, emotional disablement, mental disablement, social disablement, its all the same thing isn't it ?

Hey I know - lets use them for spare body parts as well - you guys are really on a winner here - what's next ?

C'mon guys where are you drawing the line ?

<>

If this was <>, it would put quite a different slant on it, wouldn't it? And women aren't *so* different from men, that some women don't have 'male' attitudes towards sex (and vice-versa of course).

People work for money; the price they pay, in terms of terms & conditions, varies from person to person. I don't think that sex workers *automatically* makes that price too high. Of course, if McKay begs to differ, that's his decision, even if others don't agree.

IMHO the sex industry is less likely to foster slavery and forced prostitution if it's legal.

Sorry Pedro - you believe that prostitution is an entirely female province ? Not in our super 'equality for all' state. Men are now selling their sexual favours too.

I do apologise for begging to differ - but I'm still going to do it.

Here's another account from one of these willing sex workers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6360603.stm

I too, disagree with this. We're animals who enjoy sex, we also have the urge to copulate to reproduce. Society has largely created the idea of partenrship & fidelity. That's not to say that people who can't form attachments don't have a problem.

How many prostitutes do have a relationship outside of work so to speak?
I suspect as well, that there are quite a number of prostitutes who have regular clients.

completely missed this before, TRiG, the sentence should read.

"Rules that end up in a situation where as with boxing when it was unregultated, the people involved in it are left at the mercy of money driven violent promoters of the business."

That is not to say there are no money driven violent promoters in boxing now but with legal regulation there are much more efect checks and balances against such people having complete control of the business.

"We're animals who enjoy sex, we also have the urge to copulate to reproduce. " - Well we do, but as we have morals, and hopefully we're further developed, we choose not to give in to every basic urge that we encounter. Otherwise anyone could assault you in the street if you offended them, or you could be raped by any passing male with the urge to copulate.

Surely we have risen above being driven by our gonads - I know women believe men think with their testicles, but if that were the case, why would any couple stay together ? There is always someone better looker.

Is the suggestion being made that those who opt for monogomy have settled for a lesser deal ? I would suggest that many problems facing society today stem from this lack of commitment to relationships and children. It has been made too easy for the disaffected to walk away from a relationship, because there is another sexual conquest waiting.

I could also throw in the clamydia and aids epedemics.

Yes, that does make sense now, blickybadger. Prostitution is not, now, technically, illegal, is it? So this conversation is really about regulating prostitution (or, potentially, banning it). I think everyone here agrees that something should be done. Most want to regulate it in some way, and McKay would like to ban it.

TRiG.

There are certainly benefits to monogomy for those who appreciate them, but I must say it looks like more a case of preference than morality to me. Why would you say morals imply monogomy?

I don't think monogomy would be so prevelant without social pressure, and I think it would be better if those who didn't really care about what monogomy benefits didn't automatically start those sort of relationships, since its tends to lead to deception.

In my opinion, morality comes into relationships regarding:
1) Oath breaking
2) Children
3) Power relations (don't know much about this, but I'm reminded of an entry on here about 'mind ers'.)

And don't forget that a relationship may be superficially monogamous, but statistics would have us believe that an awful lot of adultery goes on.

Biologically it's to a woman's advantage to have a protector & provider. I believe research has shown that a women is most likely to sleep with another man at the time of ovulation.

Family relationships & morals are related to the society in which one lives. Some cultures share child rearing much more than we do.

I have been pulled up myself for being culturally myopic in the past and Im seeing a lot of parochialism on tihs thread.

There have been many changesin the west that have affected the stability of the nuclear family. It was always a fragile construct and only appeared stable because it emerged in a world where it was supported by other instituions such as the church and state ,but changes in employment like equal pay for women, the increase in cheap transportand changes in the divorce laws have done a lot to undermine what is a social construct and not a natural way for people to live.

Prsotitution predates the nuclear family as does promiscuity. From what Ive heard though they were affecting marriages before the 1960's in the UK a woman could not easily divorce her husband, transport her children and provide for them before other social changes made this feasible. So in those days unlike now divorce or separation was not such an *attrative* (I wish I knew a better word) and therefore less likely option.

I think that prostitution is a bad way for peole to make a living, that is a moral opinion of mine based on nothing but gut feeling. On a similar gut feeling I think it is a greater moral evil for society to continue to place women and young men in needless danger because we are lying to ourselves that or current policies are benefiting people in this trade when they so clearly aren't.

one love