Open Side Menu Go to the Top
View Poll Results: Sex with a prostitute...
Having sex with a prostitute is unethical, harmful to the women and should be illegal.
7 2.99%
Should be legalized but it would remain unethical, & still often harmful to the women.
57 24.36%
Is not particularly unethical, many other jobs can be just as harmful and it should be legalized.
161 68.80%
Other (please specify)
9 3.85%

03-08-2010 , 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montius
Wait, so is my neighbor selling me tomatos a mutually exploitative transaction? I mean, he's using his tomatos (something I desire to have) to get me to give him money (something he desires to have).
obviously not because its probably not his sole source of income. But to use a less rediculous example, I would argue that when third world governments destroy their local populations ability to produce and they are forced into subsistence farming anyone that purchases from these farmers instead of local farmers to save a little bit of money is exploiting the fact that these people have had institutionalized violence initiated on them.

Now I wouldnt call anyone strictly immoral for doing this because not purhcasing from these people doesnt help them. But for someone in such a destitute position as prostitution mabey it would be better for the johns (at least those that arent acting out on their own psychological problems) to go jerk off and support other forms of business that could produce real jobs for these people.

I'm not going to argue that you guys are obligated to have empathy for people you dont know, but I just dont understand how you have zero empathy for people simply because you dont know them?

And yes, the evidence is overwhelming that the majority of prostitutes are victims of sexual abuse.
Prostitution thread
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Prostitution thread
03-08-2010 , 03:48 PM
ian - this is kinda off topic, but you were speaking earlier about the empathizing with, not exploiting and understanding people who have had their choices directly limited by state violence. You might have read it already, but I read this a while ago on Kevin Carson's blog, and it addresses the sort of thing you are discussing very well, using the example of the industrial revolution, and all the proles who "chose of their own free will" to work in the factories. Thought you might find it interesting.
Vulgar Libertarianism Watch, Part 1

Spoiler:
More recently, the argument was reincarnated by Radley Balko, who referred to Third World sweatshops as "the best of a series of bad employment options available" to laborers there. Within a couple of days, this piece was recirculated over the "free market" [sic] blogosphere, along with numerous comments that "sweatshops are far superior to third-world workers' next best options...," or to similar effect (the last phrase comes from another article by Carden posted on the Mises blog last May, by the way). For more examples of the same argument, just Google "sweatshops"+"next-best alternative".

But the grand-daddy of this argument was Ludwig von Mises, writing in Human Action:

The factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to take a factory job. They could only hire people who were ready to work for the wages offered to them. Low as these wage rates were, they were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them. [Regnery Third Revised Edition, 619-20]

See, laborers just happen to be stuck with this crappy set of options--the employing classes have absolutely nothing to do with it. And the owning classes just happen to have all these means of production on their hands, and the laboring classes just happen to be propertyless proletarians who are forced to sell their labor on the owners' terms. The possibility that the employing classes might be directly implicated in state policies that reduced the available options of laborers is too ludicrous even to consider.

In the world the rest of us non-vulgar libertoids inhabit, of course, things are a little less rosy. There was a great deal of continuity between the Whig landed aristocracy that carried out the enclosures and other abrogations of traditional rights to the land, and the employing classes of early industrial Britain. The early industrialists of Manchester, far from being (as Mises portrayed them) an upstart class who accumulated capital through their own parsimony, were junior partners of the landed oligarchy; the latter were a major source of investment capital. And the factory owners benefited, in addition, from near-totalitarian social controls on the movement and free association of labor; this legal regime included the Combination Acts, the Riot Act, and the law of Settlements (the latter amounting to an internal passport system).

In addition, the general legal framework (as Benjamin Tucker described it) restricted labor's access to its own capital through such forms of self-organization as mutual banks. As a result of this "money monopoly," workers were forced to sell their labor in a buyer's market on terms set by the owning classes, and thus pay tribute (in the form of a wage less than their labor-product) for access to the means of production.

Lysander Spooner, a hero to many anarcho-capitalists, in Natural Law described the process in somewhat less than capitalistic language:


In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class---who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth---began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labor to the land-holding class---their former owners---for just what the latter might choose to give them. Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative---to save themselves from starvation---but to sell their labor to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that.


These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to preserve his life. They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a subsistence by their labor. They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the property and quiet of their late masters.

The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their own safety and the safety of their property, to organize themselves more perfectly as a government and make laws for keeping these dangerous people in subjection; that is, laws fixing the prices at which they should be compelled to labor, and also prescribing fearful punishments, even death itself, for such thefts and tresspasses as they were driven to commit, as their only means of saving themselves from starvation.
03-08-2010 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_In_My_Name
No of course not. Buying and eating tomatoes hasn't been shown to be a self destructive, emotionally crippling exchange, at least as far as I know.
Prostitution hasn't been shown to be an objectively self-destructive, emotionally crippling exchange either.

Quote:
But from the few studies I've read, and the stuff Stefan talks about in the podcasts and on the forum (his wife had been a psychologist, or therapist or something for 14 years at some point), men who frequent prostitutes often (not always) have emotional problems, problems relating to people, trouble maintaining relationships, low self-esteem and so on, and visiting prostitutes tend to increase many of these problems for them.

I could be wrong about this stuff on the Johns though, I've read rather little about it. I think it's a strong possibility though.
It probably is true. But it does not follow that prostitution (or soliciting a prostitute) is unethical or immoral in every case.
03-08-2010 , 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montius
It probably is true. But it does not follow that prostitution (or soliciting a prostitute) is unethical or immoral in every case.
I've constantly said throughout this thread, hell, even in that post, that I'm not talking about every single case, just a large number or a majority of cases. I'm not talking about some magical, unobtainable, universal truth here. I'm talking about a general concept of the ethics of the institution of prostitution as it exists in the real world.
03-08-2010 , 04:03 PM
thanks for the links NIMN, I'll look them over when I have some time,
right now I'm really busy procrastinating for my midterm tomorrow
03-08-2010 , 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_In_My_Name
I've constantly said throughout this thread, hell, even in that post, that I'm not talking about every single case, just a large number or a majority of cases. I'm not talking about some magical, unobtainable, universal truth here. I'm talking about a general concept of the ethics of the institution of prostitution as it exists in the real world.
And don't you think that has anything to do with it being prohibited? You even said porn was much safer and less abusive that prostitution, which is nearly an identical, but legal, industry. Moral or not, prohibiting prostitution makes it far more dangerous and abusive to those involved.
03-08-2010 , 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by obsidian
And don't you think that has anything to do with it being prohibited? You even said porn was much safer and less abusive that prostitution, which is nearly an identical, but legal, industry.
Yeah, I admit a lot of it is to do with prohibition, but I've also given evidence that there is still a lot of abuse in legalized scenarios. I still support legalization, but I don't think it would be enough for me to be cool with someone who visited prostitutes.
03-08-2010 , 05:00 PM
I saw a talk given by a woman who was discussing issues regarding stripping and prostitution. This was over 20 years ago so fine details are sketchy. What I remember is the discussion about what drives a person to do it. Its kind of become a cliche that strippers or prostitutes come from troubled homes. I believe this has been demonstrated to be largely true by research.

What I took away most was the question asked after this story...

There was a bar somewhere in the southwest that had a stripper show where a woman fellated an animal. Women's groups tried to get it shut down unsucessfully. Eventually it was closed down because animal rights activists made a case that is was animal abuse.

Afterwards the speaker asked... what would drive a person to 'be with animals' for a living. Does a person ever normally consider "do I want to be a doctor or do animal shows?" Or become a prostitute?

While Its possible there are women making these choices after weighing all the possible choices, If I had to guess I would think that no one chooses to go this route unless something's already f***ed up in their lives.

Which is why I voted #2
03-08-2010 , 05:29 PM
Quote:
The possibility that the employing classes might be directly implicated in state policies that reduced the available options of laborers is too ludicrous even to consider.
Reading comprehension ftw.
03-08-2010 , 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zasterguava
Reading comprehension ftw.
His point is that what he calls "vulgar libertarians" (which is not all libertarians btw, just a subset of them), systematically ignore or do not spend enough time addressing this point when addressing these arguments. It's more about the image and narrative which is being built up in some sections of the libertarian community. For example - "As one of the most egregious examples of this tendency, consider Ayn Rand's characterization of big business as an "oppressed minority," and of the Military-Industrial Complex as a "myth or worse."

I don't see how you can dispute this tendency in some parts of the libertarian community. I've read quite a few anarcho-capitalists who completely agree with what Carson is saying here.
03-08-2010 , 06:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLIxDgO6Q4E

Does anyone think the girl in the above video should be prevented from being a prostitute? Also, does anyone think a John who hires her should necessarily feel guilty or unethical?
03-08-2010 , 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_In_My_Name
His point is that what he calls "vulgar libertarians" (which is not all libertarians btw, just a subset of them), systematically ignore or do not spend enough time addressing this point when addressing these arguments. It's more about the image and narrative which is being built up in some sections of the libertarian community. For example - "As one of the most egregious examples of this tendency, consider Ayn Rand's characterization of big business as an "oppressed minority," and of the Military-Industrial Complex as a "myth or worse."

I don't see how you can dispute this tendency in some parts of the libertarian community. I've read quite a few anarcho-capitalists who completely agree with what Carson is saying here.
Yes, anarcho-capitalists such as Walter Block have criticized Rand's view of big business. However, your source seemed to implicate Mises in the section I quoted, which is absurd.
03-08-2010 , 06:23 PM
[NIMN]She clearly doesn't know what is best for her and is being exploited by her customers[/NIMN]
03-08-2010 , 06:31 PM
Nobody said there was not a single prostitute that enjoyed their work. If girls are coming to this because they love banging for money all the power to them, not sure about NIMN, but I was not talking about this. The statistics still show that girls like this are in the minority.
03-08-2010 , 06:33 PM
[mjkidd]I couldn't give two ****s about the girl I'm paying to **** me. If she happens to have been molested, raped or beaten as a child, then that's her problem to deal with, not mine.[/mjkidd]
03-08-2010 , 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianlippert
Nobody said there was not a single prostitute that enjoyed their work. If girls are coming to this because they love banging for money all the power to them, not sure about NIMN, but I was not talking about this. The statistics still show that girls like this are in the minority.
I agree. I mean, if you can find a happy, well adjusted prostitute to **** I probably won't judge you as much as they guy who ****s any girl off the street without thinking, but I still wouldn't pay to **** that chick, and I still wouldn't look too favourably on someone who did tbh.

You also can not tell through a 5 minute tv interview if that girl does not have serious psychological issues either. If you want to take that as evidence you're not contributing to the self-destructive behaviour of a psychologically damaged person, then go right ahead, but I'm personally not taking that as good evidence.

Just my personal opinion
03-08-2010 , 06:44 PM
Random bit of related information: A few years ago, I dont remember when, using a prostitute became illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). One of the main reasons is due to the how human trafficking goes on in this business and the basic impossibility of telling if someone was forced into it or not.
03-08-2010 , 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_In_My_Name
[mjkidd]I couldn't give two ****s about the girl I'm paying to **** me. If she happens to have been molested, raped or beaten as a child, then that's her problem to deal with, not mine.[/mjkidd]
If a woman has had a difficult childhood it is up to her to deal with it the best she can. Who else can solve her emotional problems besides herself? Certainly not you, and your moral pronouncements about her line of work don't help her at all.
03-08-2010 , 06:48 PM
This is just my opinion, it might be wrong and it might be dumb, but I'll post it anyway.

Paying someone to have sex with you is usually not the sign of a happy person. I don't see how you could enjoy sex with someone who is only there because you are paying them to be there, and would probably never have sex with you if it weren't for the money. I find that extremely sad, personally.

You might say that guys need sex, so if they're not getting any, what's weird about paying for it, they just wana get off.

Well guys also need friendship, but if anyone paid other people to hang out with him and be friends with him, we'd almost all view that person as a very sad, lonely, and weird individual.

Is there much of a difference?
03-08-2010 , 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjkidd
If a woman has had a difficult childhood it is up to her to deal with it the best she can. Who else can solve her emotional problems besides herself? Certainly not you, and your moral pronouncements about her line of work don't help her at all.
Yeah, **** empathy for other people. That's for pussies and communists.
03-08-2010 , 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulturesrow
Random bit of related information: A few years ago, I dont remember when, using a prostitute became illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). One of the main reasons is due to the how human trafficking goes on in this business and the basic impossibility of telling if someone was forced into it or not.
[mjkidd]It's still ok to have sex with them. It's not my responsibility to make sure I'm not raping someone who has been enslaved by a human trafficking gang.[/mjkidd]
03-08-2010 , 06:52 PM
03-08-2010 , 06:52 PM
It is possible to both have empathy for a prostitute who had a difficult childhood while at the same time not morally condemning someone who uses her services.
03-08-2010 , 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjkidd
If a woman has had a difficult childhood it is up to her to deal with it the best she can. Who else can solve her emotional problems besides herself? Certainly not you, and your moral pronouncements about her line of work don't help her at all.
and if she can't deal with her problems and becomes a whore, 'f-her' right? I mean... I don't care if their abuse led them to this. The important part is there's a silver lining to this - now I can pay for some sex.

And anyone making moral pronouncements about whoring aren't helping her at all. Am I right?

Now if it was my friend's daughter, then it would be a different story. Because I got obligations to my friend. But some random girl who was sexually abused... I don't want to hear it. I'll stick my fingers in my ears cause Its more important that I can pay for the sex when I need it.
03-08-2010 , 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_In_My_Name
ian - this is kinda off topic, but you were speaking earlier about the empathizing with, not exploiting and understanding people who have had their choices directly limited by state violence. You might have read it already, but I read this a while ago on Kevin Carson's blog, and it addresses the sort of thing you are discussing very well, using the example of the industrial revolution, and all the proles who "chose of their own free will" to work in the factories. Thought you might find it interesting.
Vulgar Libertarianism Watch, Part 1
This could probably be it's own thread. I've got an opinion (and I'm sure others do too), but won't derail this one further.
Prostitution thread
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Prostitution thread

      
m