Rights Vs. Morals

[Lil Red]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319222128' post='2324778']Prostitution should most certainly be legal. It is in my country and we haven't noticed our society degrade because of it. Most likely things have improved, with government providing protection to sex workers and gaining taxes from this lucrative industry.[/quote]
i don't know where you're from, do you mind saying?

to your point, even in countries where prostitution is legal, the illegal prostitution of children/minors still exists and is a huge problem.

[stevil]

NZ

[Lil Red]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319223365' post='2324789']Porn is great, it demystifies sex and an aspect of the opposite sex that a young adult may have insecurities about. It can also be used to spice up bedroom activities for a couple whom feel things are getting a bit stale. It also provides a means of income for many people.
I would however be interested in hearing your view on how it can be detrimental to society, as this might give me something to consider on this topic.[/quote]
a lot of porn comes from foreign countries...where they don't worry about pesky rules about who is a minor and who is not...many times children under 16 are used in porn magazines and films. the income doesn't go to the 'actors', it goes to those who make the films...directors and producers. porn is detrimental to those in the industry...mental & physical health problems abound. porn is also detrimental to those watching it, secular studies have shown that those who use porn on a regular basis find it more difficult to be attracted to a living person. porn also is a huge money maker for gangs, who find that the penalties concerning employing underage girls is far less than trafficking drugs (which is a growing problem in the U.S.) while i was looking for more information into prostitution in New Zealand, I came across [url="http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/11-10-2006/84991-child_prostitution-0/"]this article[/url] (not sure of their sources, though):
[quote]Child prostitution is a global phenomenon these days. Children are mostly trafficked for sexual exploitation from Eastern Europe, North Africa, and Ukraine. Western Europe, the United States, United Arab Emirates and New Zealand are among the major consumers. Russia is both a supplier and producer. Sociologists put the blame on the low standard of living. Psychiatrists say pedophiles are to blame. According to Lyudmila Narusova, a member of the Upper House of Russian Parliament, the problem stems from a lack of comprehensive legislation on the web sites.[/quote]
this has nothing really to do with religious arguments (though i do believe in the religious arguments) and everything to do with a just society.

as for spicing it up in the bedroom, perhaps if people waited until marriage to have sex, they wouldn't need constant spicing up the bedroom.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319222128' post='2324778']Prostitution should most certainly be legal. It is in my country and we haven't noticed our society degrade because of it. Most likely things have improved, with government providing protection to sex workers and gaining taxes from this lucrative industry.[/quote]
like i said, i'm not really well-versed in all this, but i did a little digging about prostitution in New Zealand, and found [url="http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/searchmaxim/article?id=1502&post=1&srchWords=prostitution%20reform"]this link[/url] from a think-tank in NZ (i think it's a conservative think-tank based upon their 'About Us' section) where they speak about the Prostitution Reform Act failing to deliver on its promises:
[quote]Prostitution is, by its very nature, harmful. When passing the PRA, emphasis was placed on the protection it would offer prostitutes, with the objective that the Act "promotes the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers." The report shows that the law has neither reduced nor increased the numbers of those involved; its advocates are therefore claiming that it is working. However, this fails to acknowledge the myriad difficulties involved with it. Although the report suggests that the numbers of those working in the industry "have remained stable" in the period since 2003, accurate figures are notoriously difficult to obtain. Community workers dealing with those on the street also suggest a different story, claiming that the numbers they see are rising. While only a small proportion of prostitutes work on the streets, they are at a proportionately greater risk of harm than those working from indoor premises. Despite the Act, sex workers report being robbed, raped, physically assaulted, threatened or held against their will.

Under-age prostitutes are always in particular danger of harm and it has been suggested that the legality of the industry means it is now harder for the Police to be stringent in finding under-age workers. Encouragingly, the report sets out "a model of best practice for assisting sex workers to exit the industry," and it acknowledges the harm done by street-based sex work to those involved in it and calls for them to be "encouraged to either move to a safer, indoor setting, or leave sex work altogether." The Committee highlights the role money plays as a driving factor for people working in prostitution, and it should be a real cause for concern that people might be driven to prostitution simply to make ends meet. In its survey, 73 percent of sex workers said they worked in the sex industry to "pay household expenses," and nearly a third of them gave "no other income" as the reason they began prostitution. Disturbingly, significant numbers cited "support for alcohol or other drug use" as the reason they began prostitution; this was the reason for over half of street-based workers.

It is no great surprise that the Act has done little to protect those engaging in such a vulnerable and dangerous activity. It is meaningless to talk about choice in the face of an industry with so much abuse, addiction and mental health issues associated with it. We have a duty as a society to do more. Prosecuting those using prostitutes and helping those trapped in the industry to get out of it would be better than pretending that all of those involved are there through "choice."[/quote]

lastly, i would just like to say that prostitution goes back to times where women (and children) are treated like chattel, like objects to be bought and sold like furniture. i thought that as an enlightened society we want to prevent situations where women feel like they have to sell themselves in order to provide for their families or themselves, not ignore those situations don't exist? i'm sharing a link that is [url="http://people.exeter.ac.uk/watupman/undergrad/aac/anti.htm"]arguing against legalizing prostitution[/url], but it has a few bad words and some graphic language (i.e., adults only should be reading it!). Two quotes I'd like to share from that link:
[quote]Legally able to sell her body, albeit for a short period of time, women become commodities. Commodification of women not only leads to women becoming second class citizens, but it also normalises the concept of a human being becoming the property of someone else. For Hughes, there is no difference between trafficking which is by now universally recognised as a severe violation of human rights, and prostitution, which in Europe is widely tolerated, occasionally partly legal, and in the case of Holland, entirely so: "Prostitution is consuming thousands of girls and women and reaping enormous profits for organized crime in post-communist countries. In addition, each year, several hundred thousand women are trafficked from Eastern European countries for prostitution in sex industry centers all over the world. The practices are extremely oppressive and incompatible with universal standards of human rights. The sex trade is a form of contemporary slavery and all indications predict its growth and expansion into the 21st century." [/quote]
[quote]The European Parliament reports that police do not expect the sex trade to grow substantially in the Nordic region, however, the Swedish government hopes "By prohibiting the purchase of sexual services, prostitution and its damaging effects can be counteracted more effectively than hitherto. The government is however of the view that criminalisation can never be more than a supplementary element in the efforts to reduce prostitution and cannot be a substitute for broader social exertions." Hughes would agree that there is a wider social context, however she says "Above all, state bodies and non-governmental organizations should understand that prostitution is a demand market created by men who buy and sell women's sexuality for their own profit and pleasure. Legal reforms should therefore create remedies that assist victims and prosecute perpetrators"[/quote]

oops, three last links (sorry! i know this is a lot)
[url="http://www.operationlookout.org/Lookout_Magazine/2010/02/11-myths-about-prostitution"]11 Myths about Prostitution[/url]
[url="http://oxyparadoxy.blogspot.com/2011/06/sickening-and-heartbreaking.html"]Sex Trafficking of Americans: The Girls Next Door[/url]
[url="http://people.exeter.ac.uk/watupman/undergrad/aac/health.htm"]Sex Work & Health[/url]

[stevil]

When an article begins "Prostitution is, by its very nature, harmful" then the objectivity of the article is in question.

This one is interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7927461.stm

[Lil Red]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319319290' post='2325288']
When an article begins "Prostitution is, by its very nature, harmful" then the objectivity of the article is in question.

This one is interesting [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7927461.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7927461.stm[/url]
[/quote]
that link is interesting, because it gives a situation almost as i described:
[quote]When "Sophie", a medical worker from Christchurch, fell behind on her mortgage payments last year, she found that her job was not paying enough. Her only option was a temporary career change: she became a prostitute.[size=3]
"I needed money fast so I didn't lose my house," she explains.[/quote][/size]
[size=3]
[quote]lastly, i would just like to say that prostitution goes back to times where women (and children) are treated like chattel, like objects to be bought and sold like furniture. i thought that as an enlightened society [b]we want to prevent situations where women feel like they have to sell themselves in order to provide for their families or themselves, not ignore those situations don't exist[/b]?[/quote][/size]

[Oremoose]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319319290' post='2325288']
When an article begins "Prostitution is, by its very nature, harmful" then the objectivity of the article is in question.
[/quote]
May I ask why? If an artical begins as such all it is stating is it's thesis statment. And since the objectivity of the artical is driven by the thesis the only thing tha should be qustions is does the artitical show clearly that the thesis is true or not.
if it were found true then the artical can be seen as a good source. If not then the artical can be scanned for good valid points then discared.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Oremoose

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319223365' post='2324789']
Porn is great,
[/quote]
LOL...

tell my wife that.

[stevil]

[quote name='Oremoose' timestamp='1319320967' post='2325297']
May I ask why? If an artical begins as such all it is stating is it's thesis statment. And since the objectivity of the artical is driven by the thesis the only thing tha should be qustions is does the artitical show clearly that the thesis is true or not.
if it were found true then the artical can be seen as a good source. If not then the artical can be scanned for good valid points then discared.
[/quote]
People tend to find what they are looking for.

If I were to do an in depth analysis I'm pretty sure I could be objective about it.
I have no issues with prostitution with regards to morals or preconceptions, I also have no incentive as I am not involved in the industry as either a service provider, investor or customer. I certainly wouldn't start from an assertion that prostitution is harmful. I might ask the question, is it harmful? does it provide benefits? What is the impact of legalising it? Then I would go on to explore those to find the real stats, have conversations with brothel owners, with sex workers, with customers, with police, with whomever else might be impacted. Have the numbers of people working in the industry been impacted? Are the number of underage workers impacted? Are incidents of abuse/assault impacted? Are cases of pregnancies or STDs impacted?

[stevil]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1319321055' post='2325298']
LOL...

tell my wife that.


[/quote]
You could try and convince your wife to watch one with you. Of course pick one with more romance and storyline that may appeal to her. Just don't appear too keen. You guys might get some fun ideas out of it. But of course if she thinks it is sinful and immoral then best not to go down that path.

[MIKolbe]

no..

she just thinks it's disgusting, and repetitive...and boring.

but thanks.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1319324229' post='2325322'] it's disgusting, and repetitive...and boring.[/quote]
yup.

[Clare~Therese]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1319245053' post='2324909']
What are rights and where do they come from?
If the state grants rights, it can just as easily take them away.
And by this logic, rights signify nothing objective, but only arbitrary desires.
[/quote]

IAABC because I read this and the first thing I thought was, 'Big Brother giveth and Big Brother taketh away.'

[Selah]

[quote]
You could try and convince your wife to watch one with you. Of course pick one with more romance and storyline that may appeal to her.
[/quote]

They have notoriously bad scripts.

"Oh, you ordered a pizza...SEX LOL! LOOK, WE ARE SO TOTALEE HAVING SHEX BECUZ DIS IS TOTALEE HAO PEPLEZ DO EEET EN REEL LIFEZ!!! DIS IZ NOT ABUSHIVE IN ANEE WAY!!11"

Repetitive, badly written, unrealistic and boring.

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319036722' post='2323662']
Guns and gay marriage are a personal vice?

Are you saying if individuals engage in gay marriage, smoke, sex, drugs, porn, alcohol, guns that no one other than themselves are affected?. Personal vice or not, I disagree.
[/quote]


That depends on how liberal your use of the term 'affected' is. But there is no substantive impact that justifies impinging on another's freedom from any of these activities unless they are abused. If I want to have have Ecstasy fueled gay sex with my (hypothetical) husband while we smoke, watch gay porn, and drink followed by some target practice then that doesn't impact you. The fact that you decided that the same document that permits killing people for the crime of transvestism and sanctions slavery says that these things are naughty is your own business and shouldn't be used to impinge on my freedoms.

If these things lead me to things that substantively impact the public, like me neglecting a child in my care, then the state can and should step in.

[Papist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1319425647' post='2326037']


That depends on how liberal your use of the term 'affected' is. But there is no substantive impact that justifies impinging on another's freedom from any of these activities unless they are abused. If I want to have have [b]Ecstasy fueled gay sex with my (hypothetical) husband while we smoke, watch gay porn, and drink [/b]followed by some target practice then that doesn't impact you. The fact that you decided that the same document that permits killing people for the crime of transvestism and sanctions slavery says that these things are naughty is your own business and shouldn't be used to impinge on my freedoms.

If these things lead me to things that substantively impact the public, like me neglecting a child in my care, then the state can and should step in.
[/quote]
How has this attitude and behavior served our society in the past 40 years?

[dairygirl4u2c]

this stuff shouldn't be so controversial or complicated.

as long as they ain't hurtin other people, don't take away the liberties of others... yes, the 'rights'.

killing hurts others, stealing does, abortion arguably does.

gays having sex does not very directly at all without bein contrived about it, masturbation don't, cursing at one's house in private doesn't, immorality kept to oneself or themselves doesn't. etc.

it's outrageous and ridiculous to start banning things cause they are immoral, or sinful.

why don't we ban the seven sins? other than bein abstract sometimes, cause we recognize people's right to sin, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Edited October 24, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

you dont' go banning every other sin, there's nothing magical about these. you don't ban adultery, masturabtion (hard to implement if ya did, but that's beside the point), swearing, hitting your little brother as a kid, [color=#ff0000]gluttony[/color] etc.

there's in fact something very virtuous and right, about letting people do as they will, as God intended. in fact, banning every possible sin, is in fact the sinful thing to do.

what's of course ironic is when so many a conservative will rally cry about getting cigarettes banned, or transfat or whatever. then try to ban you from masturbating, by law, in your own home. way to be consistent there, ya'll.

Edited October 24, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319459851' post='2326193']
How has this attitude and behavior served our society in the past 40 years?
[/quote]


Well. America no longer has institutionalized Apartheid, interracial couples can marry, gay people are no longer arrested for being sexually active with consenting partners, and people who are qwerty are significantly less likely to be killed by vigilantes for expressing themselves in peaceful, non-violent ways. So I'd say pretty well.

Not that this attitude is a manifestation of the last 40 years. America is based on the idea of people having civil liberties, of a government of restrained, demarcated powers where the rights of the individual is preserved and if it must be infringed upon it is for a more substantive reason than the dictates of your unsubstantiated religious hopes/beliefs.

Your religion is based on faith, that is to say it is based on hope. You hope, despite anything approaching conclusive evidence, and in the face of a great deal of contradicting evidence, that your religious faith is founded on something solid and that it will in the end amount to more than a personal delusion you retain to cope with life. And that's fine. You have a freedom of religion that is sacrosanct in this country. As it should be. You can baselessly believe that Christ is the Son of God and you consume him weekly in the Eucharist. A Muslim can baselessly believe that angles rest on his shoulders and count his good and bad deeds. Et cetera. All those things are fine. What you do not have the right to do is decide that your unsupported metaphysical longings should be forcibly imposed by the rule of law on your fellow citizens.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Hasan

[Papist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1319477834' post='2326295']
Well. America no longer has institutionalized Apartheid, interracial couples can marry, gay people are no longer arrested for being sexually active with consenting partners, and people who are qwerty are significantly less likely to be killed by vigilantes for expressing themselves in peaceful, non-violent ways. So I'd say pretty well.
[/quote]
So you attribute this to the philosophy of anything and everything is a-okay as long as the parties involved are consenting adults. Seriously? I see it differently. I attribute the rapid increase in abortion, teen pregnancy, divorce, addictions, STDs, etc. to this philosophy.

[Papist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1319477834' post='2326295']
Your religion is based on faith, that is to say it is based on hope. You hope, despite anything approaching conclusive evidence, and in the face of a great deal of contradicting evidence, that your religious faith is founded on something solid and that it will in the end amount to more than a personal delusion you retain to cope with life. And that's fine. You have a freedom of religion that is sacrosanct in this country. As it should be. You can baselessly believe that Christ is the Son of God and you consume him weekly in the Eucharist. A Muslim can baselessly believe that angles rest on his shoulders and count his good and bad deeds. Et cetera. All those things are fine. What you do not have the right to do is decide that your unsupported metaphysical longings should be forcibly imposed by the rule of law on your fellow citizens.
[/quote]
If you say I can't do such, then you can't say me beating my wife is wrong nor should it be against the law. And don't say it is wrong b/c I am hurting someone that is not me. Where do you get that believe that it is wrong if someone else is hurt?

Why you bringing up religion and my faith? Very telling of you.