What to do with prostitutes

Z said:
IF you live in a culture that condones incestual sex between father and daughter, and that culture is the predominant authority under which you exist, then yes, it's fine... within that culture. But in the U.S., the general cultural status is that incest is wrong, up to (and occasionally including) cousins. And that cultural more overrides most local cultures, so in our society, there isn't any (legal and socially accepted) culture that accepts incest.
Click to expand...

SO there was nothing wrong with slavery and raping slaves? How does this fit into ideas of say a state committing crimes against humanity? The state makes the laws and enforces them.
But, yes, that does mean that any action can be condoned - IF it is placed in such a context where the cultural and sociological conditions are such that such actions are condoned anyway. If, for example, extreme overpopulation and lack of resources so cheapens human life that murder is considered a good thing (to reduce population), then murder becomes good. And so forth.
Click to expand...
So you would accept that case in australia who had the argument that he did not know it was illegal to rape a young girl because he had already purchased her as a wife? He should have been informed that his actions where not legal but as they fit into his society it was moral?


Good to know that any action can be condoned and is fundamentally laudable. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with genocide for example.
 
ponderingturtle said:
SO there was nothing wrong with slavery and raping slaves? How does this fit into ideas of say a state committing crimes against humanity? The state makes the laws and enforces them.
Click to expand...

In this case, you're talking about the state (an entity) which exists in the greater context of a global society (a culture), so 'crimes against humanity' is covered quite well.

As far as your questions re: slavery, in the cultural context in which these events occured, there was nothing wrong within that culture with slavery - though I can't speak about slave rape, as I don't know what the cultural situation was.

But as the culture changed, slavery became immoral.

So you would accept that case in australia who had the argument that he did not know it was illegal to rape a young girl because he had already purchased her as a wife? He should have been informed that his actions where not legal but as they fit into his society it was moral?
Click to expand...

Is raping your wife legal in Australia?

I don't know the case.

Good to know that any action can be condoned and is fundamentally laudable. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with genocide for example.
Click to expand...

Depends on the context. I admit, due to my own cultural bias, I can't think of any good example to make murder of every man, woman, and child of a race agreeable, but if there were some widespread culture that called for the total extermination of another culture - and again, if these cultures didn't exist in a yet-larger context (such as the global community) - then, sure, genocide would be fine.

But genocide and crimes against humanity are covered by the fact we have a global society that considers these things taboo.

That's not difficult to understand, is it?

Meanwhile, no such society taboos exist for age of consent; only for pedophilia. And even as such, that's not yet global.

So, yes, morality is flexible and relative.

Why is this such a problem for you?

For example, do you want the current taboo against homosexual marriage to remain forever fixed, or are you hoping our society will change so that it's no longer considered wrong? How about the speed limit - should that ever change? Should the breasts of women always be considered to be taboo in public, except in predesignated nudist areas, or is the morality against the exposed female breast something that should change?

Your idea about static morality is, to me, old-fashioned and smacks of x-ianity.
 
I second the notion of moral relativism.

And I want the female breast to be accepted as normal viewing materieal, cause I'm tired of wearing shirts in the summer when guys get to go around without. That is BS, seriously.
 
SoBitter said:
I second the notion of moral relativism.

And I want the female breast to be accepted as normal viewing materieal, cause I'm tired of wearing shirts in the summer when guys get to go around without. That is BS, seriously.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.

And it would necessarily have to be a change in the moral standard, because merely changing the law would lead to a few brave women baring all, only to be surrounded and ruthlessly ogled by the mouth-breathing neanderthal portion of the population.

You know - the 'guys'? :)

And if it's any consolation whatsoever to you, SoBitter, I took a personal vow about ten years ago (when my weight first topped 200) to NOT go topless in public until women could safely too. Which, for someone who used to only get dressed if he was leaving his room, is quite a change, I must say.
 
Hmm. I thought this thread was going to be about what to do with that dead hooker in the trunk of my car.

Well, while we're here, any suggestions?
 
Death has never stopped you before, fowlsound. Just do what comes naturally, I'm sure you'll get it eventually.
 
Taffer said:
Death has never stopped you before, fowlsound. Just do what comes naturally, I'm sure you'll get it eventually.
Click to expand...

I'm still chaffed from the last rotten c*** that split on me.













Nothing like a dead hooker joke to liven things up.....until a necrophelia joke ruins it.
 
Z said:
In this case, you're talking about the state (an entity) which exists in the greater context of a global society (a culture), so 'crimes against humanity' is covered quite well.
Click to expand...

This is just might makes right. Their actions where moral but became immoral when others could enforce it.
Is raping your wife legal in Australia?

I don't know the case.
Click to expand...
It was an aboriginal man who married a young girl and then raped her when she refused him sex. SO he raped her. In his culture this was accepted, so he really shouldn't have been punished because he was not aware of Australian law, and so had no way of knowing that raping a young girl was wrong.

found it link

He got one month in prison precisely because of your position here. How can he be punished for something that is condoned by his society? You say it is because his society is inside a larger one, but that is just the result of conquest, by that rational many of the so called war crimes are moral in WWII because they where in conquered territory.

Depends on the context. I admit, due to my own cultural bias, I can't think of any good example to make murder of every man, woman, and child of a race agreeable, but if there were some widespread culture that called for the total extermination of another culture - and again, if these cultures didn't exist in a yet-larger context (such as the global community) - then, sure, genocide would be fine.

But genocide and crimes against humanity are covered by the fact we have a global society that considers these things taboo.
Click to expand...

No they are wrong
That's not difficult to understand, is it?
Click to expand...
Yes it is. There is nothing that is not permissible just as long as it is legal in your society.
Meanwhile, no such society taboos exist for age of consent; only for pedophilia. And even as such, that's not yet global.

So, yes, morality is flexible and relative.

Why is this such a problem for you?
Click to expand...

Because some activities are wrong, period. This is a great way to be an apologist for say the inquisition, nothing immoral or wrong happened, because society sanctioned the torture and burnings, so there is no need to apologize or consider that something bad happened.
For example, do you want the current taboo against homosexual marriage to remain forever fixed, or are you hoping our society will change so that it's no longer considered wrong? How about the speed limit - should that ever change? Should the breasts of women always be considered to be taboo in public, except in predesignated nudist areas, or is the morality against the exposed female breast something that should change?

Your idea about static morality is, to me, old-fashioned and smacks of x-ianity.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing for static morality, you have not asked me at all what I would base a moral system on, and that is moral philosophy backed up testing to make sure that you are not making unsupported assumptions, like say about the superiority of men.

You are the one who would not view a static morality as bad because there is no absolute morality so you can not view a moral structure that say treats women as property and burns all homosexuals as any worse than one that does not do these things. So as they are equal why try to change it?
 
SoBitter said:
I second the notion of moral relativism.

And I want the female breast to be accepted as normal viewing materieal, cause I'm tired of wearing shirts in the summer when guys get to go around without. That is BS, seriously.
Click to expand...

But this isn't relativism, relativism is the idea that arresting you for not wearing a shirt and permitting you to not wear a shirt are equal in terms of morality.

There is nothing fundamentaly wrong with say Iran when it publicly exicutes homosexuals because society is in favor of it. That is the relativism that is being promoted here.
 
Loss Leader said:
What? Are the prostitutes children now? Because I thought they just used to be children who were abused. Now they are the children?

Also, what is a "construction child"?

And if you mean to say that I would allow a child to come over and do construction at my house, the answer is that of course I would not. I don't know anybody who would.
Click to expand...

My Franglais must get in my way sometimes.
My point was for those with a cavalier position on prostitution.

Some say they would not care if their off spring were in the trade.
I am asking if they would then use their own offspring for gratification.
When I ask this they usually reword their replies.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
Some say they would not care if their off spring were in the trade.
I am asking if they would then use their own offspring for gratification.
When I ask this they usually reword their replies.
Click to expand...

That's a completely silly thing to say. The fact that there are societal taboos against incest has absolutely nothing to do with whether prostitution should be considered a legitimate profession. If my daughter were a prostitute (in a world where prostitution was socially acceptable), the fact that I wouldn't want to take advantage of her services doesn't necessarily mean I object to her choice of career, it just means that I find the idea of having sex with my own daughter creepy and gross.

If my kid were a doctor, I wouldn't want to be his or her patient because it might be awkward and uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want him or her to be a doctor at all, and it certainly doesn't mean that being a doctor is "bad."

Anyway, you raised this point in response to my question of whether prostitutes are "selling their bodies" any more than manual laborers are, and I still don't see what your reply has to do with what I was asking.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
What you have missed is that your O. P asked what can we do about prostitution? You refer to the problem of prostitution. You then give 6 anecdotes.

Anecdote 1 – nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 2 - nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 3 - nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 4 – prostitution being the solution not the problem
Anecdote 5 - nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 6 - nothing to do with prostitution

You then say that if nothing is done on the streets you can’t see improvement and talk about posting to gain insight into solutions (of prostitution).

I think you are trolling

Regards
L
Click to expand...

I was trying to show the prevalence of sexual problems around the home and how it drives people into prostitution.
Statistics are sometimes dry to our minds. If I say that 50% of males abuse someone, it is dry.
If I ask you to stand in line somewhere and look at the man on your right and then look at the man on your left and tell you statistically that they are both abusers then this casts a different light on the statistics.
Half who have responded then are likely abusers. Of course that does not apply here??

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
I was trying to show the prevalence of sexual problems around the home and how it drives people into prostitution.
Statistics are sometimes dry to our minds. If I say that 50% of males abuse someone, it is dry.
If I ask you to stand in line somewhere and look at the man on your right and then look at the man on your left and tell you statistically that they are both abusers then this casts a different light on the statistics.
Half who have responded then are likely abusers. Of course that does not apply here??

Regards
DL
Click to expand...


It looks like your 50% figure went from a hypothetical to a fact all within one paragraph. I presume that's not what you really meant.

Are you saying there's data that 50% of males sexually abuse someone? Or is this all forms of abuse? Is this from specific studies? I'm not sure you're wrong, but I'd sure like more data before I conclude you're right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom