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

The theory of the nuclear family as something that has identifiably 'emerged' or been invented is one that has been created and then thoroughly discredited and swept aside by anthropologists over the past century and a bit.

Nuclear families can be found in just about any society that's been examined - including 'primitive' ones. There is a tendancy for people to turn to them during the child rearing phase of their lives.

The only part of the Nuclear Family bit that I reckon applies is the 2.4 kids part, but that's got more to do with economic factors. In any stable society, it appears that this is almost a natural law of nature with birthrates supporting a slow but steady rise in population. Where it goes out the window is with societies in a state of flux - through war, famine & the like; when birthrates rise to counter attrition and infant mortality. Religion plays a part too. The Catholic ban on contraception inevitably leads to larger families (in a general sense, not necessarily the specific).

>>"In any stable society, it appears that this is almost a natural law of nature with birthrates supporting a slow but steady rise in population."

What times and places do you base that judgement on - how many societies would be 'stable' by your criteria and have a 2.4 child birthrate?

Sorry Potholer, I was tending to think aloud. Hence the "I reckon" and "appears". It's not a point I particularly want to get tendentious over.

There is a word for thinking aloud, 'round here we callit talking.

If you look at history books you'll notice that people didnt routinely live in nuclear families in any age you care to mention. Not till the onset of the industrial revolution would families beena able to do so in significant numbers and then only after the second world war did it become part of social housing policy in the UK to provide enough housing of a type suitable for mum, dad and kids.

Now the nuclear family may be the modal set up in present day westernised countries but it is an emertgent phenomenon and not necessarily the way things are done in the rest of the world.

Now anthropologists may say what they like but Bouncy would you care to tell us how you bacome convinced that something else is true.

one love

<<"If you look at history books you'll notice..."
"would you care to tell us how you bacome convinced that something else is true.">>

From history books. That's actually just about all I get to read these days .

I flagged anthropology because that is where the hypothesis of progessively contracting family sizes came from before it was adopted from into historical models. Got tied in quite heavily to Marxism as it happens: the dominant means of production in the society is seen as producing the social structure, including family organisation.

As with just about anything that's been associated with Marxism, it ain't a very popular hypothesis with academics these days.

Im not concerned with what is fashionable in my choice of clothing or what I think.

Its fair enough for you to tell us what anthropologists and historians reagard as acceptable viewpoints but Im not inclined to throw away an idea that what Ive seen has led me to believe simply because some people think its alleged relationship to Marxism makes it flawed by association.

Which is the one of the two major problems that those selling sex encounter.

In a world dominated by people who subscribe to and push the three triple O religions (Judaism, Christianity and Religion) it is no surpirse that people assume a relationship between sex and doing wrong (or if you will, sin). Looking at the subject without the moral fog created by those religions there is little difference between the exchange of money for a physical that goes on in prostitution or coal minnning.

The other major problem is that the means of production are predominantly owned by women, women who all have the capacity for working independently. Like you said Marxism isnt very popular and never has been with some.

one love

>>The other major problem is that the means of production are predominantly owned by women, women who all have the capacity for working independently.<<

But isn't the point that they aren't working independantly - and they're not achieving independance, but enslaving themselves ?

Besides - never heard of rent boys ?

I don't think you can equate mining with prostitution - whilst selling one's labour can be regarded as a form of ownership, it is not the same as selling the use of one's body.

Most clients for pristitutes are damaged in themselves - if you read the stories of women who';ve been forced into prostitution, the middle-aged men who want straight sex are in the minority - most of the trade is made up of stag parties, who want a public performance, or to have sex they consider "dirty" - then there's the ones who want to humiliate or abuse.....

>But isn't the point that they aren't working independantly - and they're not achieving independance, but enslaving themselves ?

Enslaving themselves to who? The point is that they are in fact working independantly.

>Besides - never heard of rent boys ?

I'd have called them gigolos. It's interesting that a woman hiring a mlae prostitute is seen as en empowered, enlightened feminist thingy, and nobody worries about the mental health of the penis-for-sale. On the other hand, a man who hires a female prostitute is seen as somewhat lonely and pitiable at best, and often as a worthless faggot who can't possibly satisfy a woman or engage with a human being on an emotional level, and so is forced to pay for sex because that's the only way he'll get it.

>I don't think you can equate mining with prostitution - whilst selling one's labour can be regarded as a form of ownership, it is not the same as selling the use of one's body.

But the hooker really is selling their labour - in this case, the labour of having sex with someone.

>Most clients for pristitutes are damaged in themselves - if you read the stories of women who';ve been forced into prostitution, the middle-aged men who want straight sex are in the minority - most of the trade is made up of stag parties, who want a public performance, or to have sex they consider "dirty" -

What's wrong with wanting kinky sex? Why does wanting something other than the missionary position denote mental damage? What's wrong with wanting to have sex while your friends watch (that one's a bit of a turn on for me, personally)?

>then there's the ones who want to humiliate or abuse.....

True, but those people are everywhere. I was humiliated and abused by customers when I worked as a till monkey and as a roll maker, but people see this as acceptable. I'm not sure what, if any, point I'm trying to make in this paragraph.

"What's wrong with wanting kinky sex?" - Well that depends upon your definition of kinky - but why should you have to pay someone to do this ?

Surely that's a little boy reaction ?

"Why should you have to pay someone to do this?"

A more immediate question: Should paying someone to do this be illegal?

And another: Should receiving payment to do this be illegal?

I tend to be (possibly with some exceptions, though I cannot now think of any) of the opinion that the government should keep out of private morality as much as possible, and that an act cannot be a crime unless it has a victim. If someone sells sex, who's the victim?

(And, since we're debating terminology, I'll add that I'd call male prostitutes prostitutes. It seems simplest.)

TRiG.

blimey. Three weeks backlog on far and wide ranging aspects of the issue hey, who's been dissing 'kinky sex'? BoB we're all such prudes Just cause someone enjoys sex involving something other than the missionary position, it immediatley means they don't fit to eh nice little idea of 'behaviousr', that I guess must somewhow date back to some kind of Christian type of abstance/purdness thing

The nature of the act is irrelevant provided both parties are fully consenting. It becomes important if one party insists on having what they want because they're paying for it, whether or not that's what's on offer.

McKay, I have heard of what you call rent-boys that's why, if you check, you'll see I was careful to use the words; "predominantly" in the control of women. I am well aware that at present it can be difficult for a woman to work alone without the odious and rightly illegal inteferance of a third party working as a self appointed boss, but that has a lot to do with the way we treat prostitutes both legally and socially.

It all depends on what you call kinky really, do you mean with the lights on, infront of a mirror, in special clothes or are you talking more S&M. If you are talking about submissive and dominant roles in sexual intercourse dont forget that not all clients want to be the one doing the dominating.

A lot of people haing sex of all kinds, monogomous, swingers and solo have kinks why does it become an issue when its paid for?

one love

I've been thinking about this again recently - and trying to decide if I'm against this due to my 'christian' upbringing.

I've decided I'm not. I'm against it because it is an abuse of another person's body. Furthermore I don't think legalising it will resolve the issue - indeed I think it will make it worse.

Legalising it may resolve the men who can't find a partner issue, but I think it would increase the criminal trade.

Want a virgin ? Want someone who's REALLY unwilling ? Want a child ? Want someone to abuse and degrade ? We can supply them, and as I read more and more about the sex-slave trade I'm convinced that this is what more and more of the 'punters' want nowadays.

OK, Im not going to argue about the points where you and I clearly disagree but you have brought up a couple of new things.

What is abuse?

Do you or I get to say what is abuse of another persons body? The answer is we do. Should we have that right and should we at times review what we think.

Im thinking of women athletes here for years they were not allowed to compete in "un-ladylike" events such as the marathon or 3,000 meters track race. The governing bodies who made these rulings were predominantly made up of men. If you look at the people who enforce, adjudicate on and decide the laws of most countries what gender do you mostly see?

Im not saying prostitution *definately* isnt abuse but iM asking why do ther people get to decide?

Famously there was a case of men who freely entered into sadomaschistic activities with each other (for sexual pleasure) they were caught and put into jail. There are other groups of men who trample on each other and hospitalise each other by throwing each other onto the ground (for sporting fun). People give me money to teach children how to do this

"Legalising it may resolve the men who can't find a partner issue,

and what about the men who already have partners or ust dont want partners. How much do you actually know about this or are you just making it up becasue you *believe* it to be this way.

"Want a virgin ? Want someone who's REALLY unwilling ? Want a child ? Want someone to abuse and degrade ? We can supply them, and as I read more and more about the sex-slave trade I'm convinced that this is what more and more of the 'punters' want nowadays.

Punters have always wanted a range of things. We live in a much more open age than people have lived in for a long time in the West atleast people did their best to hide any reference to sex even tot he point of vandalising ancient artifacts they thought to lewd. Given that I wouldnt be so hasty as you to asssume that any thing you see spoken about for the first time wasnt happening just as much in the past.