Prostitution: Legal or Illegal? Absolutely NO SPAM

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:10 am

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]You can't dismiss even 0.01% chances. Just because it's a very slim chance doesn't mean it isn't worth considering.[/QUOTE]

I agree with Chim, because 0.01% in terms of people is still a considerable number.

snoopyofour · Post by **snoopyofour** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:13 am

It can be considered but it's never a basis for a decision. Nothing is decided like that.

Athena · Post by **Athena** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:24 am

umm, legal.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:28 am

Yes, because god forbid we consider the views of a small group of people. Those are never important.

What exactly makes prostitution so wrong? Really, what? What cons does legalized prostitution have aside from the ambiguous moral issue (which I call ambiguous because morals differ greatly between people/races/regions/religions/etc.)? And of those cons, which of them can be dealt with by legalizing prostitution?

snoopyofour · Post by **snoopyofour** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:36 am

@Chim. What group of people would that be? Prostitutes who use their excess cash to donate to charities? The people who sell sex to pay for their children's surgeries? Please.

As regards why prostitution is bad. Prostitution and Male Supremacy (1 of 2)

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:39 am

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]@Chim. What group of people would that be? Prostitutes who use their excess cash

to donate to charities? Please.[/QUOTE]

What makes a prostitute less likely to donate to a charity than anyone else?

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:42 am

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]As regards why prostitution is bad. Prostitution and Male Supremacy (1 of 2)[/QUOTE]

The very name of that is sexist in my opinion.

Athena · Post by **Athena** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:42 am

It seems to me like prostitutes are the ones always donating to charity, seeing as, they exchange something to someone who has none.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:46 am

I want to bring us back to basics. Prostitution: what is it? It is the use of a woman's body for sex by a man, he pays money, he does what he wants. The minute you move away from what it really is, you move away from prostitution into the world of ideas. You will feel better; you will have a better time; it is more fun; there is plenty to discuss, but you will be discussing ideas, not prostitution. Prostitution is not an idea. It is the mouth, the vagina, the rectum, penetrated usually by a penis, sometimes hands, sometimes objects, by one man and then another and then another and then another and then another. That's what it is.

Ahem.

snoopyofour · Post by **snoopyofour** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:47 am

[QUOTE=Damuna]Ahem.[/quote]

Cough cough.

See, I can do that to. Do you actually have a point lurking behind that "ahem."

Maybe you're thinking to point out that she doesn't say men can be prostitutes. In this case I have to ask, what do you think you've proven? Is it somehow different for a man? And if so, does this change anything for the women who still comprise the majority of prostitutes?

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:51 am

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]@Damuna
#1: Prostitutes tend to use what little money they have to survive.

#2: Give me one good reason why, or is that just an excuse not to have to read it.[/QUOTE]

1. In places like Nevada, due to being a legally sanctioned profession, prostitutes are extremely well paid.

None of that affects how charitable anyone can be, anyway.

2. It's immediately screaming to me that the person believes that prostitution is a woman's job only, which is supported by the quoted text.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:55 am

His point was that that entire article smacked of sexism.

And you might want to re-read your signature. During my schooling on how to write a fact-based essay, sites that were ".com" are considered unreliable sources. Does anywhere in that article even acknowledge Andrea Dworkin as someone who is accredited? Heck, does anywhere in that article even say who she is, other than a member of some anti-prostitution movement? What is she an expert in? Does she have any degrees in a field relevant to this speech of hers, or our topic in general? Does she have a lot of experience in dealing with issues revolving around prostitution?

And how come you decided to focus on the one part of my post you could attack, and ignored the part you could not answer?

snoopyofour · Post by **snoopyofour** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:00 am

@Chim. The fact that you actually had to ask says much more than I ever could.

"And how come you decided to focus on the one part of my post you could attack, and ignored the part you could not answer?"

I have answered it, several times, throughout this thread. I don't feel the need to again.

@Damuna
"In places like Nevada, due to being a legally sanctioned profession, prostitutes are extremely well paid."

This is misleading, they earn about $300 per trick. This says nothing of how many tricks they can turn or how quickly. Also, these prices are inflated because of the legality and safety and the fact that these things are hard to come by anywhere else. They have the supply, they can hike up the price. Make prostitution legal everywhere and you can guarantee the wages will shrink even further. Simple economics pal.

I think someone else has already made the above argument somewhere on this thread.

PS: You still have yet to answer this. "Maybe you're thinking to point out that she doesn't say men can be prostitutes. In this case I have to ask, what do you think you've proven? Is it somehow different for a man? And if so, does this change anything for the women who still comprise the majority of prostitutes?"

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:09 am

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]
PS: You still have yet to answer this. "Maybe you're thinking to point out that she doesn't say men can be prostitutes. In this case I have to ask, what do you think you've proven? Is it somehow different for a man? And if so, does this change anything for the women who still comprise the majority of prostitutes?"[/QUOTE]

You've damaged your own case, just like she's doing. You're asking if it is somehow different for men and women, and men and women can both be abused physically and mentally abused equally.

If you can't see that she's saying that prostitution is a woman's while also at the same time trying to talk about "male supremacy", then you're thinking about one thing too hard.

I actually think I'm going to stop posting here, since it's rather pointless really.

And I bet you're going to think "oh, it's because he obviously knows I'm right", if not actually post it.

snoopyofour · Post by **snoopyofour** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:25 am

[quote="Damuna]You've damaged your own case"]

This doesn't make any sense so I'm going to have to guess what you were trying to say and thus I may be wrong in my interpretation. From what I see, you're saying that it somehow damages my case that Andrea Dworkin limits her speeches to the positions of female prostitutes. How? Male prostitutes don't change anything, either they experience the same things as female prostitutes or they don't. If they don't, then what you're suggesting is that the experiences of female prostitutes be ignored, what could be more sexist? Or men do experience the same thing, in which case, my point still stands.

[quote="Damuna] And I bet you're going to think "]

hmmmm, I don't know what you bet or to whom, but you probably need to pay up. What I actually think is that you're realizing you're in deep water and trying to back peddle.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:32 am

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]
hmmmm, I don't know what you bet or to whom, but you probably need to pay up. What I actually think is that you're realizing you're in deep water and trying to back peddle.[/QUOTE]

Actually, that was exactly the sort of reaction I thought you'd say there.

snoopyofour · Post by **snoopyofour** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:36 am

I'm proud of you.

Actually I take it back. Forget I said anything seeing as this is poised to become a last word battle.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:47 am

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]@Chim. The fact that you actually had to ask says much more than I ever could.

"And how come you decided to focus on the one part of my post you could attack, and ignored the part you could not answer?"

I have answered it, several times, throughout this thread. I don't feel the need to again.[/QUOTE]
And what, pray tell, did I ask that makes you believe such? Was it the fact that I questioned the validity of your link? That I asked for the author's credentials? The fact that I had to ask those questions does say more than you ever could; it proves you have little factual evidence to back up your claim. Her opening statement actually proves my point on her validity:

I also feel an awful lot of conflict about being here, because it is very hard to think about talking about prostitution in an academic setting. It's really difficult.

She has no real experience in the field; she finds it difficult to debate prostitution in an academic setting because she is debating feelings and thoughts, which is quite apparent through her speech. And feelings do not win arguments in academic settings, hence her discomfort.

And no, you haven't. All you seem to try to do is base your argument on feelings and opinions, not cold hard facts. The idea of a man using a woman's body for sex is merely a notion; you cannot prove anything of this, unless you're psychic and failed to tell us, in which case you can read the minds of men everywhere who "use" women for sex. You cannot back up a debate with feelings; feelings are what people use to distract others from the actual issue being debated, a tactic use especially when that person has no facts to back them up.

Prostitution: what is it? It is the use of a woman's body for sex by a man, he pays money, he does what he wants. The minute you move away from what it really is, you move away from prostitution into the world of ideas.

And that one takes the cake. She automatically classes prostitution as a female's "job," undermining her own feminist argument by trying to not only classify prostitution as a woman's field, but by then appealing to the feelings of those people who feel women are treated with inequality (since she says these women are being used). She moved away from her own discussion from the very start, away from prostitution, and her speech was nothing more than a "world of ideas."

You did not make a list of cons, like I had asked, so we could have a more rational debate about the issue. You just dismissed the question and claimed to have already answered it, adding an air of superiority and boredom to try and make it appear as though you actually did. But you haven't. Aside from the moral issues of "people using people for sex" and "it's just wrong to sell your body," you have not debated any of the hardcore issues dealing with why you think prostitution should remain illegal. We're talking about how it is dangerous--both physically and mentally--to prostitutes, how such under-the-table dealings could lead to the spreading of venereal diseases to/from clients, how illegal drugs can become involved in such matters, or how any of those things can be negated/controlled/eliminated if prostitution was both legalized and controlled. A legal prostitute can do the job of "pleasing" their clients because they want to, and they could work in a safe, drug-free environment where a client is less likely to harm them.

I'll debate this issue with Darzog and the others, but all you seem to do is respond with allegations of having answered such things in the past, with a backhand of contempt at those who deign to argue against you.

snoopyofour · Post by **snoopyofour** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:23 pm

@Chim, everything you just wrote tells me that there's no point in talking to you. You don't know anything about feminism (illustrated by your ignorance about Dworkin) which means you know little if anything about genuine humanitarianism, you know nothing about the reality of prostitution as illustrated by the ease to which you succumb to misleading numbers and statistics, and more than likely you are one of the very people Andrea Dworkin was refering to in her speech. Did I leave anything out? Yes, but there's no reason to go into the rest.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:59 pm

This is outright flaming.

[QUOTE=snoopyofour]@Chim, everything you just wrote tells me that there's no point in talking to you. You don't know anything about feminism (illustrated by your ignorance about Dworkin) which means you know little if anything about genuine humanitarianism, you know nothing about the reality of prostitution as illustrated by the ease to which you succumb to misleading numbers and statistics, and more than likely you are one of the very people Andrea Dworkin was refering to in her speech. Did I leave anything out? Yes, but there's no reason to go into the rest.[/QUOTE]

@snoopyofour: This is uncalled for. Just because the person doesn't agree with YOUR OPINION doesn't in any way by default make him ignorant. What makes you think you have the monopoly and outright authority on the subject matter? You haven't even finished your tertiary course, much less have post grad degrees on this area of expertise.

Having different and opposing takes is fine. More often than not, people just agree to disagree. But to insinuate that you are superior simply because others disagree with your point of view is totally unSYM-like. That's not the way we do things here.

You have showed time and again how beligerrent and opinionated you are and have offended a number of posters here. I got a series of e-mails pointing to this post and another one involving Galuf.

I'm bringing this to Buck and the supermods.

My recommendation is for me and the mods. I leave it to Buck and the supermods to decide what they do out of this.