Cancer scientist reveals secret life as a prostitute

[SallyMander]

London, England (CNN) -- An erotic blogger whose double life as a prostitute became a hit TV series has ended years of fevered speculation by revealing her most intimate secret -- her true identity.

Brooke Magnanti, a cancer specialist at a university in western England, unmasked herself in a British newspaper as the woman behind "Belle de Jour," the salacious online diary of a high class call girl.

"It feels so much better on this side. Not to have to tell lies, hide things from the people I care about," the 34-year-old wrote on her blog after the Sunday Times published its interview with her.

Magnanti's frank and sometimes funny accounts of working as a call girl earned her a huge following, a lucrative book deal and legions of critics who variously accused her of glamorizing the sex industry, making it up -- and of being a man.

The 34-year-old said she became a call girl in 2003 to support herself in London while completing her doctoral thesis after realizing she had no qualms about being paid for sex.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/16/sex.blogger.identity/index.html


ETA, Interesting story! Having gone through a PhD in biology, I can attest to the fact that it can be hard to get by on a grad student stipend -- but I just supplemented my income by working as a caterer! ;)

[YOY]

1. At a point she's not doing it because she has to and moreso because she wants to.

Obviously she had no moral qualms with it.

Interesting.

[pitohui]

15. no, she ISN'T doing it, hasn't been doing it for a long time, at this point her blog is fiction

she has been lying for donkey's years

[Warpy]

2. Sex work is dirty and dangerous and pays really well

I didn't have the stomach for it but I have dealt with women and a few men over the years who did it at all levels from street hooker to call girl.

I've just never seen why it had to be kept illegal except the lack of legal protection for the workers benefits men by giving them the illusion of holding all the power.

It would be greatly preferable if wandering mates could go to pros who would protect everyone's health rather than bar dates who don't.

[Mixopterus]

8. Eh

I'm not sure I would want a state to sanction deeply unethical behavior, despite the arguably positive effects it may have.

[seabeyond]

20. countries that have legalized, see problems that have been caused by it. increased sex slaves

with legalization, brings more of the corruption in under the guise of legal and harder to go after the crimes.

sweden has shifted from legalized to illegal for the jon, dont prosecute the prostitute.

[Euromutt]

50. There's not one country that has fully legalized prostitution

Not in the sense of making it "a job like any other." Sex workers have to register with the local authorities, operators of, ahem, facilities (e.g. brothels) have to get special licenses (which are at best given grudgingly) and everybody's subject to none-too-friendly inspections by the local vice squad. Find me another industry that's subject to those kind of restrictions.

All the available evidence indicates that it's criminalization of prostitution that drives it underground, where it quickly falls under the influence of organized crime. And if there's anyone who by definition puts their own enrichment before other people's well-being, it's organized criminals.

The Swedish model has met with dubious success. It's driven prostitution off the streets, certainly, and it's cut down on the number of johns, but the kind of person who's still likely to seek out prostitutes is the nastier class of customer--the one who wants kinky stuff--and because the better behaved customers are the ones obeying the law, the sex workers can't afford to turn down the nastier kind. When a customer misbehaves, sex workers are reluctant to report them, because if word gets around that she's turned in a customer, other customers will avoid her. Quite a few Swedish sex workers have resorted to plying their trade in neighboring Norway and Denmark, commuting across the border, to the chagrin of the sex workers resident in those countries.

And don't think Sweden doesn't penalize sex workers on the basis of the one law: there's another law which makes it illegal for sex workers to work indoors, work with others, advertise their services, and makes it illegal for others to "profit from sexual labor." The result is that the sort of thing that would actually make sex workers safer--allowing them to rent premises cooperatively and hire security, or even an accountant--are all criminal offenses. Moreover, it is very difficult for a Swedish sex worker to have a normal family life: partners may be prosecuted for "profiting" from the sex work, and Swedish courts frequently declare sex workers to be unfit parents and declare their children wards of the state.

The Swedish approach is fundamentally hypocritical in that it pretends to view sex workers as victims, but in practice tries to coerce sex workers out the trade by making their lives as hellish as possible, which could only work if the sex workers were doing it willingly.

[edwardian]

22. Unethical?

Judgmental much?

[Mixopterus]

25. It is unethical

If you knew anything about actual ethical systems, namely deontology.

[Warpy]

23. It's entirely ethical behavior, IMO

and anybody who sees a hooker as a degraded set of orifices has never known a good one.

Face it, some of our sisters see degradation as coming with the house in the burbs and the man who expects a full time unpaid maid with a little something thrown in that neither Mom nor a paid maid would provide.

There will always be a market of men seeking uncomplicated gratification and/or experiencing a fantasy. Protecting the women who fill that marketplace should be our aim, with the secondary aim of protecting a customer's wife from any health consequences.

Legalize it, regulate it, and make sure it stays safe. What we do now just isn't working.

[Mixopterus]

24. That depends

If you are a consequentialist or a deontologist, really. I'm a deontologist with a strong background in virtue ethics, and I can tell you that allowing oneself to be used as the conduit for someone's pleasure and experience is deeply unethical for both parties. Remember, Kant said that humans are to be considered an end unto themselves due to their status as a being with reason and self awareness (sentience) and their welfare should be considered regardless of the immediate consequence. For a human to be treated as a means to an end (pleasure) would be considered unethical.

I would sooner agree with severe fines on a scaling basis for both prostitute and client than allow the wholesale legalization of what is essentially the most ancient and unethical of ways in which men really do oppress women.

[EOTE]

26. What if you don't believe in deontology?

Why should the public at large be held to your moral beliefs? Kant also believed it would be a bad thing to lie to a murderer asking for the location of a potential victim. Sometimes the ends DO justify the means. I guess by your belief system, we should outlaw acting as actors are simply a means of providing pleasure to the audience. It's one of the most foolish arguments I've ever heard as our whole economy is based upon buying goods or services from others in exchange for money. The standard for whether something is ethical should be whether or not the act is done by consenting adults. Not your bizarre mysticism.

[Mixopterus]

27. You apparently never read Kant's later works or what came of it

You are neglecting that categorical imperatives could be organized by a hierarchy of larger importance, which was further refined by Ross. For instance:

I have duty to protect life at all costs
I have a duty to myself
I have a duty to protect others
...
I have a duty not to lie

In such a case the duty to to life and the protection of others overrides the duty never to lie, meaning a person can simply misdirect the murderer in question.

Your example of the actor and exchange of monetary units for a service is also most perplexing, and makes me wonder if you actually understand deontology, particularly in its modern forms. The actor is not being robbed of anything aside from the time he so willingly volunteered for in exchange for repayment, no doubt, meaning a voluntary exchange at no detriment to either party. The prostitute, however, perhaps through economic duress is unlikely to have entered her profession with the same willingness as the actor, OP callgirl aside. Furthermore, she is intentionally subjecting herself to disease, unwanted pregnancy, violence, and the most base impulses of another for their own benefit. To be frank, the prostitute to the client is merely a receptacle for their semen and something to fuck to gain a bit of physical pleasure, which undermines her value as a human being at the most base level. I am unsure as to how you could even conceive of an actor and a prostitute even inhabiting the same realm? It makes not a bit of sense. Let us not forget the unethical behavior of the client, as he pays to treat a woman as if an object, a far greater crime than what the prostitute is likely only guilty of under duress.

Your standard of consent is also a poor one by ethical standards. If someone were to be willingly sign themselves over into slavery it would be ethical? No, it would not, as the master-slave relationship is never an ethical one. A great many things can be achieved through mutual consent of an action, but ethical standards are not one of them.

I await your response eagerly.

[EOTE]

30. Funny, your need to make up things to further your argument.

First of all, both you and I were discussing Kant, so for you to bring up Ross is disingenuous. Kant believed that the means are more important than the ends. So you're saying that sometimes the ends DO justify the means, which is correct, but it's not deontology.

And my example of the actor is still perfectly suitable. What you and so many of your ilk always fail to understand is that most people don't enjoy the work they do, I certainly don't. Are you going to outlaw IT work because I hate doing it and am only doing it because of economic duress? Furthermore, some women actually LIKE having sex. You're saying they shouldn't be able to choose prostitution as a profession because you disagree with it. With regard to disease, unwanted pregnancy and violence, well, you make a damn good argument for legalization. All those things would happen significantly less with legalization. You are inserting all of your emotion into this argument, and it's rather hard to argue against emotions. You say that a john pays to treat a woman as an object, many would disagree with you. Are you for outlawing 1 night stands too? I think I'm used as an object just as much if not more so than a prostitute. Hell, if I was a prostitute, I wouldn't dread going to work every day.

People ethically sign themselves over into slavery all the time, it's called BDSM. As soon as there's a lack of consent, THAT'S where it becomes unethical. What this argument boils down to is that you want prostitution to remain illegal because you find it icky. You don't care about freedom, you just don't want to be offended. People will work at jobs that offend you, people will like things that you don't like. That doesn't mean you should outlaw them. Your argument is ludicrous.

[Mixopterus]

32. No, you are reframing the argument

I was talking about deontology via Kant, with Ross developing it in a modern sense. Furthermore, Kant did indeed reorganize how the categorical imperatives work by establishing a loose hierarchy which Ross merely expanded upon. Seriously, if you don't know the material then please don't run into a discussion like a berserker, swinging about accusations. There IS a hierarchy to the categorical imperatives as established by Kant, which is not saying the ends justify the means, it says that certain duties supersede others. Completely different.

No, your example of the actor is flatly ludicrous, the relationship between audience and actor and prostitute and client are so departed in their basic mechanics as to make your argument absurd. You are not trying to discuss philosophy with me, you are just throwing absurdities at me and then backing it up with nothing. Liking the act has nothing to do with a deontological ethics, as the duties care not whether you do not like enacting them. Your desire to take up IT as work was entirely your choice, unless you were forced into it. You can do any number of things with your time, so I fail to see your point. Furthermore, your choice of IT as a profession has established the basic fact that you had access to education and resources, enough to obtain some sort of degree at least or training. Much of prostitution in the world is simply not the case, even in countries where it has been legalized. Most, not all, but most of those women go into prostitution due to a -lack- of those two assets which enabled your IT career: Education and resources.

Additionally, legalization has only had marginal effects on the global prostitution market to stem disease, violence, and the base inequity of it. Even where it has mostly worked (Netherlands) much of their sex workers come from abroad, particularly Eastern European countries in which they are driven by desperation, not because they "like sex".

As for the one night stands, that is also unethical, but not illegal in the modern world. It is also not reliant upon a monetary transaction or a system of inequity to supply sex workers, but more the mutual consent of two profoundly stupid people. I would not want such a thing illegalized, but it was never illegal to begin with, so I fail to see your point.

BDSM is hardly slavery, it's a temporary state engaged in by fetishists. Slavery via contract/agreement would be closer to the reality of early feudalism and indentured servitude as well as some variants of slavery and servitude in antiquity. Your argument was that consent makes it ethical, you said nothing of the duration. Consent can be given via contract by the terms of the contract, meaning by your standard variants of slavery are ethical. As I said, it's not a good standard and that is why it is not held as one.

I'll also ignore your attempt at mind reading, thanks. My intentions are not your business.

[EOTE]

37. People can't always work the job they want.

And now, with employment at 17%, you're intent on reducing employment options. What I said about Kant is true, you may not like it, but it's true.

Some people don't get a good education and have to become a garbage man. Some may like it, some not. But I think they'd all be pretty pissed if you tried to take their livelihood from them. And once again, any person can ethically become the slave of another so long as it is consensual. As soon as the slave no longer wants to be a slave, it's not ethical, get it? Just as any man or woman can ethically sell their sexual services so long as it's consensual. And your judgment of people involved in one night stands shows your extreme bias. For you to call them profoundly stupid people shows me that no strings attached sex sickens you. It can't possibly be two people who both like sex. Nope, they must be idiots who are far too stupid to enter into a relationship. You really don't need to go any further than that. This is why you hate prostitution and want it to remain illegal. Fuck the livelihood and safety of sex workers, you don't want your head bothered by icky things like consensual sex outside of a relationship. As for reading your mind, it wasn't all that difficult.

I'm heading out now and won't be back until tonight, but if all you have to further offer are more of your own personal judgments, I doubt I'll be responding.

[Mixopterus]

38. That is well and good

But you didn't address the argument, particularly the ethical mechanics of the issue or the more practical facts of the global sex trade.

If you can't argue and are unwilling to continue, I'll accept your concession. I would ask you to not argue about fields in which you understand very little, just as I wouldn't argue about IT stuff with you.

P.S. Even though I'm a classical philosophy scholar you are flat out wrong about Kant, and especially modern Kantian ethics. Good day.

IIRC, a hierarchy of maxims was alluded to in Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, or otherwise a refinement of the system introduced in "Metaphysics of Morals". Ross didn't create a solidified hierarchy out of nowhere, it was a refinement of a previous aspect.

[EOTE]

43. Once again the facts are not on your side.

I would have thought you being such a scholar of Kant, I wouldn't have had to provide this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Inquiring_murderer

One of the first major challenges to Kant's reasoning came from the Swiss philosopher Benjamin Constant, who asserted that since truth telling must be universal, according to Kant's theories, one must (if asked) tell a known murderer the location of his prey. This challenge occurred while Kant was still alive, and his response was the essay On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives (sometimes translated On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns). In this reply, Kant agreed with Constant's inference, that from Kant's premises one must infer a moral duty not to lie to a murderer.

There are sometimes when lying can be a good thing. Not just not telling the truth, but lying. If you don't believe that, then you're advocating for the moral philosophy of someone you disagree with, which is pretty idiotic.

As for the ethics of prostitution, I thought this was quite apparent. By prohibiting prostitution, you are preventing two parties from meeting their needs. You are preventing the potential customer from getting his or her sexual needs met and you're preventing the prostitute from the ability to have a livelihood and/or a safe work environment. And, while making criminals of two consenting parties, you are doing absolutely nothing to improve conditions for victims of the sex trade. Any money saved by not prosecuting prostitutes and their customers could be used to fight the illegal sex trade. Prohibition of prostitution also ensures that the industry can't be regulated in order to curb the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. It also creates pimps who are horribly abusive. So, the prohibition of prostitution is incredibly unethical. Absolutely no one benefits from it, yet many suffer because of it. And if you attempt to throw that whole master/slave canard at me again, it would be laughable. By your definition, we're all masters or slaves. There will always be people who have an excess of money and there will always be people who need money. If a person with money hires a person who needs money for a specific service, that is reality, not slavery. The government shouldn't be able to tell consenting adults whether or not they're allowed to have sex just like the government shouldn't be able to tell consenting adults whether or not they're allowed to get married. We've got fundies on both sides telling grown, consenting adults that they're not entitled to the rights that others have. Simply because money is exchanged doesn't change how this is a basic issue of rights.

You've made it quite clear that the thought of sex outside of a relationship disgusts you, but your disgust makes it no less ethical. Let adults be adults and stop trying to impose your values on everyone else. If I performed my job as well as you philosophize, I wouldn't be employed for very long.

[Mixopterus]

45. Uhh

If I attempted IT as well you attempt to philosophize I would knock down half of the architecture of the internet, it seems.

One, Kant does not say one must tell the truth out of necessity, but that one is not obligated to tell the truth the murderer wants. To directly lie to the murderer is to negate a duty, the process of overriding duties is not a negation. I, of course, disagree with Kant on this and prefer the treatment Ross gave it, but lying to the murder is not required to preserve your friend. Why? Because lying is not the same as not telling the truth. One could not answer, provide a vague answer, or simply tell the truth the murderer does not want if one were to attempt an adherence to strict Kantian ethics instead of a refined hierarchy. The problem is that "I should not lie" is negated under classical, not modern, Kantian ethics. If you like I could have my brother come over, who is the hard-core Kant guy. He could explain the nuances of classical and modern Kantian ethics to you far better than I, which I think may be necessary at this point.

Secondly, deontologists of the Kantian persuasion usually use Ross as the intellectual backbone of their arguments precisely because the hierarchy of maxims is so valuable. I assumed this didn't need to be openly stated, so if it caused confusion I apologize.



Allow me to break it down for you:

The client is using the prostitute as a means to achieve sexual gratification, is this not true? As such, is he not treating the prostitute as a person imbued with all the characteristics and natural rights of a human and instead a temporary vessel to achieve gratification, yes? To convince the prostitute to engage in this activity he offers some fee, which the prostitute agrees to and then submits his/herself to the activity. The prostitute, in turn, is using the client as a means to end: To gain profit while voluntarily negating her natural rights to do so, a basically unethical act. Can you see where I am coming from here?

Furthermore, the basic economics of the sex trade are highly unethical, due to its predatory nature. It appears to thrive on desperation and lust in equal parts, with the most civilized example (in Netherlands) relying upon a fairly decent stream of Eastern European women who are victims of the economic fallout. Due to this I, personally, don't agree with legalized prostitution unless it is intensely regulated, much more than European standards, and not reliant upon the victims of economic downturns.

From a more practical perspective, it doesn't appear that legalization has really helped the sex workers that much. The best example I can think of would be the Netherlands, but as I said before they still have issues. The act of legalization really doesn't help that much, as IIRC Thailand has legalized prostitution and the situation is really not good for the sex workers. Additionally, it hasn't cut down on pimps -or- thugs either.

And why do you need the need to pin some kind of motivation on my part? I'm not accusing you of wanting to have sex with lots and lots of prostitutes, am I? I'm merely arguing an ethical viewpoint, that's all.

[Mixopterus]

49. In addition

Kant did provide provisions for consensual activity that breached the "means as an end" rule, the issue is that prostitutes seem to be driven towards that profession out of economic duress more than a love of having sex with many people. I think the ratio of relatively poor, rank and file prostitutes to high-class call girls would provide enough evidence of this.

IF and only IF there was an equitable economic order that did not force women to sell themselves for money (meaning alternatives and education) and only those women who earnestly desired such a profession entered it could I see prostitution itself as an ethically sound pursuit between consensual partners.

[EOTE]

55. You make some ridiculously stupid leaps of logic there.

First of all, you must want to outlaw an awful lot of jobs because there are a shit load of them that most people would only want to do due to economic duress. Say goodbye to waiters and waitresses, say goodbye to busboys and garbage men and janitors. All these workers are being exploited, so they must go.

Second, you were wrong about Kant. I was making the point that sometimes it's a good thing to lie. Kant (and you possibly) disagree with that. I told you that Kant said it would be unethical to lie to a murderer, I think it would be the most ethical thing to do in that case. Fuck misdirection (which is the same thing as lying) or simply refusing to answer, anything that can be done that doesn't endanger others should be done to catch the murderer, and that includes lying. Kant is dead wrong, and so are you for not having an idea where he stands until I told you for the third time and provided a reference.

Your outlook on women is pretty disgusting too. You say that because a prostitute is used as a means of providing sexual gratification that the person using the prostitute can't see him or her as a real person? What kind of sick fucking logic is that? Just because you use an actor as a means of becoming entertained, does that mean you can't see him or her as a person? Just because you use a maid as a means of getting your house cleaned, does that mean you can't see him or her as a real person? Once again, you are using your disgust of behavior you disagree with to make some wildly stupid assumptions. Your reasoning is very akin to the reasoning that fundies use to say that homosexuals are deviant, evil people. You're one and the same.

Don't you get it? Just about everyone on the planet does things they don't want to do in exchange for money. If they didn't, we'd be living in a utopia. People use other people and if that stopped, society would come to a stop. In case you're not familiar with the word, a utopia can not exist. And you say that legalization does not help sex workers MUCH. I'd definitely disagree with that, but I'd note that you do agree that legalization DOES help sex workers. So you are so hung up on your fucked up view of sexuality that you'd rather sex workers suffer than you be exposed to all that sex you find so gross.

And you're dead wrong regarding legalization of prostitution in Thailand, but I'd have been surprised if you were right about something. Take a guess as to where the typical sex worker would prefer to work, Amsterdam or Thailand. I eagerly await your response. All of your replies have been so ridiculously boneheaded, I can't imagine your next one will be anything less than amusing.

[Mixopterus]

57. You are persistent, I'll give you that

But still incorrect. I already stated that Kant provides some limited provisions for mutually consenting parties so long as there is no gross violation of the Categorical Imperative. For instance, it would be unethical for someone to consent to being murdered. Furthermore, those jobs are not exploitation in of themselves by future of their nature, as in prostitution, and can only be made into an exploitative relationship if the person is coerced or otherwise deprived of some basic right of fair compensation for their time. The issue, is sticky, I'll admit, but the question of consent in prostitution is almost always questionable, even in legal environments. The problem is further compounded by the nature of sexuality outside of prostitution as something of intrinsic value between partners due to elements of trust and mutual respect (hopefully) which is fundamentally violated by the exchange. As such, there is a core mechanistic difference between the act, say, waiting tables and being a prostitute. To extend the criteria for typical labor to questionable pursuits such as prostitution is to render the definition of labor so broad as to be rendered useless.

As for Kant, you are sadly mistaken and willful in your ignorance in equal measure. Lying is not the same as not telling the truth, categorically they are entirely different things. My response in regards to such is not new, it has been the classical response to the question of the murderer (or lying for philanthropic concerns) for a rather long time. At any rate, the question is rendered entirely moot by the treatment of Ross in modern (non-classical) Kantian ethics. I'm sure you find a consequentialist or even a utilitarian outlook most attractive, but that position is not without its drawbacks. How do you measure good beyond the charting of simple pleasure principle? Even John Stuart Mill has severe problems in his reasoning, up to and including criteria for categories so wide as to render everything under the sun a utilitarian action. If you cannot deal with Kant or his modern treatment, then so be it, but I would kindly ask to you provide a counter ethical approach and use that to validate your claim that prostitution is ethical. Only then can we get to the nuts and bolts of the ethical issue and come to a conclusion.

Fundamentally, yes, the person using the prostitute is doing just that: -Using- the prostitute. That is the core of their relationship: One using another for physical pleasure. We don't say we use the waitress or that we use the actor, which in of itself highlights the core mechanistic difference in relationship. If you were to use the word "use" to describe any relationship but a prostitute in common speech, they would undoubtedly and immediately understand the negative meaning of "use" in terms of relationships. You are, of course, confounding the classes of relationship in an unintentional or deliberate manner, I cannot tell, but the nature of the relationship is still different for the reasons I highlighted above. You are essentially widening the use of several terms, such as "use", as well as consensual exchange to the point of absurdity.

And I'll state for the (hopefully) final time that I won't suffer you as the role of mindreader. I don't hold any particular disgust for prostitution in a manner that is motivating my argument just the same as I am not automatically assuming you want to have sex with prostitutes by arguing the opposite position. That is not a fair or charitable treatment of me or my argument, and if you paid attention my qualm is not with you, so much as your abuse of a valid ethical system. I'll also ignore your needless extrapolations regarding how I view women and associating me with people who irrationally hate homosexuals (there is nothing unethical about homosexuality). You should know better.

[EOTE]

60. Repeating your lies over and over again don't make them truths.

Once again, your stance on the illegality of prostitution comes down to it creeping you out. I want fundies as far away from government as possible. You say that prostitution is exploitative because a person can be coerced into prostitution. A person can be coerced into ANY job available. What about the person who has been unemployed for years? Is he or she going to turn down that janitor job because they hate dealing with trash? Heavens no! That would be exploitative! And how about erotic dancers? Do they pass your unethical test as well? Because they only exist to titillate, surely the erotic dancing profession must be unethical too, right? Or is it just the fact that prostitutes have actual sex that makes it unethical? Your arguments are so incredibly stupid they're laughable. As to waiting tables being different than prostitution because of the "future of their nature", I have no idea what that means, so I'm going to guess you pulled it out of your ass. But their natures are only different as to how the individuals see the job. And there you go again inserting your own fundy beliefs where they don't belong where you say "the nature of sexuality outside of prostitution as something of intrinsic value between partners due to elements of trust and mutual respect (hopefully) which is fundamentally violated by the exchange." Well, some people just want to fuck. Some people think that fucking shouldn't be confined to a relationship and are just fine with that. These people are not unethical or immoral, they simply have a value system differen than yours.

And once again, with Kant, you are very wrong. Which is pretty hilarious considering that you consider yourself to be some sort of ethicist. I told you that Kant believed it would be unethical to lie to a murderer, this is a fact. You said I was wrong by saying this, that would be a lie. I'm very much aware that lying is not the same as not telling the truth, I've made that known in at least two of my previous posts to you, but you continue to be obtuse in a vain attempt to look like less of an idiot. No shit, Sherlock. I've said time and again that lying is sometimes the ethical thing to do. If you believe that it could be ethical to LIE to a murderer, you don't believe as Kant does and you're fairly stupid to be propping him up. If you're just finding this out about Kant, then you're extremely foolish for touting someone you know so little about. Just admit you're wrong already.

And as for people "Using" a prostitute. Well, people USE me to fix their computers. They use me just as any person would use a prostitute, the only difference is that people don't use me to get off, they use me to fix their computers so they can get off to internet porn. EVERYONE gets used. The only reason why the term "used" is used in a pejorative sense when referring to prostitute is because tools like you try to turn it into such a dirty, filthy profession and you want to shame both parties.

I don't need to be a mindreader to see your attitude towards sex. All I have to do is read your words. As for your disgust, you can try to hide it, but you won't do a very good job. You've revealed yourself for all to see. People who have no strings attached sex are idiots in your mind. I'd imagine there are lots of fundies who after talking to you would say "open up your mind a little bit, man". You're a sad, repressed man.

[Mixopterus]

63. Ok, you can't substantiate

That I would want prostitution to be illegal because you think I find it "icky", you can theorize all you want about that but at the end of the day I never said such. I've been more than fair with you, and haven't accused you of wanting to legalize prostitution because you want to have sex with prostitutes, because that would be an unfair extrapolation. So I will request again that you knock it off, it's not contributing anything at all. Can you at least agree to this? Otherwise there is no point in continuing with someone who is being absolutely unfair in their treatment of my stance, it's a low blow.

That issue aside, any job in which the person is coerced is inherently unethical because it is exploitation, that should be obvious. However, that is not the default state of most jobs. Prostitution has the unique position of possessing an inherently unethical quality in that you are selling, literally, your body, you are using another to gain profit through this method, and the business itself inherently preys on women without means. Most women simply do not go into prostitution because they like it, is is out of necessity. As for erotic dancers, that is neither here nor there. I would view it as a form of erotica, which does have its issues but lacks the innate mechanical quality of prostitution. I have read that it can be justified as a means of expression via sex and art, and while I would never attend such a show, I can understand the appeal. However, you are not having sex with a dancer, so it fails to meet the criteria of prostitution. I must apologize for my typo on "future" I meant "virtue", as in the basic mechanics of it. And, yes, waiting tables is indeed a different animal than prostitution. Waiting tables violates nothing in the categorical imperative or Ross's hierarchy of duties. Let us compare the two to make the difference more salient:

Waitressing has clear consent, the issue of consent in prostitution is dubious, at best. Nearly everything in the literature suggests this.

The waitress is providing an intangible service outside of herself, the act of waiting tables and serving customers, generally being a hostess. Prostitution deviates from this in that the material good in question is the woman them self, rendering it inherently unethical because you have a duty to yourself as well as others.

Waitresses CAN be exploited by their employer, but the relationship itself is not inherently exploitative (unless you are a Marxist). The act of prostitution is inherently exploitative due to the economic duress associated with their becoming prostitutes, and the fact that the woman must essentially have sex with as many men as she can handle if she wants to make a proper living. Due to this economic reality, how much consent is really going on?

Do the differences appear more clear now? I think the differences between a prostitute and a waitress are pretty apparent at this point.

As for my beliefs about sex, I think a casual observation would suggest that more sexual relationships occur in a relationship (regardless of longevity) than one night stands or casual sex. Perhaps I am wrong, but that doesn't change the ethical dilemma in treating sex in such a casual manner. Perhaps we can discuss this as well?

As for Kant, yes you are wrong, and have quite possibly the worst understanding I have seen of his works outside of a Randian. Kant states that lying is wrong as it violates the categorical imperative, but lying is not not telling the truth. As I said before, had you more thoroughly read my post, you can simply not say anything to the murderer, or tell him a truth he doesn't want. If one were to really try and work the system, you do not have true knowledge of where your friend is in the moment, and therefore cannot give a response. There are many ways to address the problem of the murderer, and many are considered valid. If you cannot understand this basic point then you may be beyond hope, but I'll continue working with you on it if you want me to. As I said before, the issue is really quite meaningless to begin with. Modern Kantian ethics also utilizes Ross' hierarchy of duties, which renders your point entirely inconsequential. Perhaps my foolishness in your eyes actually stems from your ignorance of the subject at hand? You seem rather caught up in this very basic point and cannot get around it, I would ask you to earnestly revisit the material and think more deeply about how modern Kantian ethics would treat the question of prostitution, and how other ethical systems would treat it as well.

Now, I have already addressed this point in the paragraphs above, but people are not using you, you are providing a material (and immaterial) service. They are using something outside of your body, which would be the intangible of your skill set. As for the term "used" in relation to other humans, it's simply seen as a negative in the English language, I can't help that. However, it is seen as a negative due to the fact it implies an unethical or otherwise harmful exchange.

Your last few sentences are certainly colorful, but I will refer to my first statement. Your attempts at character assassination are noted, but it's a rather low tactic.

I await your response, hopefully we can discuss the ethical issue and its workings. I'm open to your interpretation of Kant, if you would like to continue that, but I would actually prefer it if you presented your own ethical system to counter mine, as you find mine so unsatisfactory.

[EOTE]

67. You are either extremely dense or are being rather obtuse.

As for why I strongly believe that it is simply your repulsion to this form of sex that makes you want to keep prostitution illegal, it's rather quite simple. First, your petty and semantic arguments over the term "use" paints a pretty good picture for me. I'd say that anyone uses their bodies in the course of their work. You counter and say, but prostitution is different because it involves naked bodies actually touching each other and that's why the term "used" is more literal for prostitution. Well, let's get a bit more literal for you. How about a masseuse? A chiropractor? These people actually USE their bodies to help someone else achieve something. In the case of a chiropractor, it can be relief from pain. In the case of a masseuse, it can be to provide pleasure. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you don't think that becoming a masseuse is unethical, OK? So a masseuse can use his or her body to provide someone else pleasure and that's perfectly fine. But as soon as this masseuse starts giving an HJ to the customer, all of a sudden it's become a despicable, unethical act? That's why I believe your views on sex are at the very least, very unhealthy. It's not that the person uses his or her body that sickens you, it's the fact that the person uses his or her body to provide sexual pleasure. One can do just about anything with their bodies for money and it's not considered illegal or unethical so long as all parties are consenting adults. But as soon as it crosses into genital contact, THAT'S when it becomes unethical. That's rather stupid. Then you might say, well, prostitution is different because it's not a skilled profession. First off, I'd disagree with you there, if you're going to be a good prostitute, you've got to be somewhat skilled. But even if it required NO skill whatsoever, there are plenty of jobs that require no skill. Anyone can take a job at McD's, there are numerous jobs that require almost no skills or training whatsoever. Are you suggesting they should be illegal simply because they appeal to people with little or no education? Of course we need to work on providing the best educational system possible, but are we going to eliminate all jobs that are unskilled simply because people like you think they're exploitative? I'm guessing the people working at these places would rather work there than being unemployed and on the streets. I really can't see what it is about this that's so incredibly hard for you to see.

Once again, I'll refer you to my post 43, second paragraph from the bottom to see why the prohibition of prostitution is profoundly unethical. Are you familiar with the guns and butter analogy? Let's change it up a little bit. Say that the rights of sex workers is guns and let's say that the rights of the general public are butter. Let's say that no one is capable of providing the intrinsic value of either guns or butter, but it's a given that both guns and butter have value. The only transaction of guns and butter that any given person can take which will be guaranteed to add to their value is if he or she gets guns, butter or both without having to give up any of their own guns or butter. By prohibiting prostitution, someone is stealing our guns AND butter, and not only that, but we're paying for them to do so too. So we've got two parties, prostitutes and their customers and they're both being fucked over by prohibition. And not only that, but we're further wasting huge amounts of our tax dollars so that both prostitutes and their customers can be fucked over. That's a LOSE, LOSE, LOSE situation. About the worst type of situation you can have. Prostitutes have to deal with violent pimps and horrible violence and an extremely high likelihood of being raped as well as being arrested for trying to earn a living. The customers need to worry about the violence and danger of dealing with an underground enterprise and they also need to worry about being arrested for trying to obtain a service for money. So, as a society we're paying law enforcement to make sure that conditions are less safe for customers, prostitutes, and then the general public in terms of STDs. That's just a whole buffet of stupidity. If you can't see what's ethically wrong with that, I'm afraid you're incapable of learning. And I'm afraid that is the case because you'll most likely respond to this once again and say, "But you're not providing any ethical system of your own!" I've done so three times now, but you won't acknowledge it.

And finally, with regard to Kant, I've told you this at least three times now and every time, you either intentionally miss the point or are so daft as to not see it. Yes, for at least the fourth time, I understand that not lying and telling the truth are not the same thing. And yes, I understand that in the theoretical we are discussing that no one would be ethically obligated to tell the murderer the victim's location according to Kant. But what Kant was trying to say here is that there is NEVER an appropriate time to tell a lie. What if by lying, you could help catch the murderer? So, if you didn't lie, you'd be helping him evade capture and increasing the likelihood he'll kill again. That is profoundly unethical. And to even be concerned with telling the truth or not when pertaining to a murderer is so incredibly stupid, it shouldn't even be considered. I know you're going to respond, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE HIERARCHY!?!? WHAT ABOUT ROSS?!?!? What about them? We're not discussing Ross or what Kantian ethics became over time. I was specifically referring to what Kant himself believed. He believed that it's never ethical to lie. That is absolute bullshit. You can try to squirm all you want about this, but it's simply bullshit. There are times where it's a good thing to lie. If you don't believe that, well then there's no helping you. If you do believe that, then you don't believe as Kant did (not as his ethical system eventually became). I've said this at least three times now and you've either pretended not to get it or are simply too dense to get it.

No one has a right to tell another what he or she can do with their body so long as they're not harming others. Do you consider yourself to be pro-choice? You're fooling yourself if you do, because you definitely don't want women to have a choice as to what they do with their bodies, you want to control them and say that they can't be trusted to do certain things with their bodies, that's just wrong. People are capable of deciding on their own what they want to do with their bodies. They don't need you telling them that when they do so, they've lost their humanity. That is extremely insulting.

[Mixopterus]

82. Once again

Your theories as to my finding it "icky" are not required and are more or less a strawman. I've not once accused you of wanting to have sex with prostitutes as a motivation for your argument, so I will ask AGAIN that you treat me with the same fairness. If you can't comply to this simple request I'm at a loss as to what to do, as it shows a genuine lack of honesty on your part and a bad intent.

Now, let us address the rest of your argument, I will only address points when it relates to my motivation if they are relevant.

"You counter and say, but prostitution is different because it involves naked bodies actually touching each other and that's why the term "used" is more literal for prostitution. "

Strawman, I never said the literal mechanics were due to proximity, but the status of the person as the thing being used. That was elaborated fairly well in my post, and brilliantly stated by Joshua. If you cannot grasp this, it's willful denial of our valid points, and nothing can be done. My point still stands, however, they are fundamentally different in respect to the person's relation to their labor.

"How about a masseuse? A chiropractor? These people actually USE their bodies to help someone else achieve something. In the case of a chiropractor, it can be relief from pain. In the case of a masseuse, it can be to provide pleasure. "

As stated before, those are skill sets involving the use of a skill as an intangible service, no different from a doctor setting a broken bone. You are grasping here, yet again, as I suspect you haven't the faintest clue what Joshua and I are talking about. Joshua's criteria for prostitution as an act is also a valid take on the relationship, which I noticed you flatly ignored. I'm more or less convinced you are acting in bad faith at this point and only want to "win", you aren't concerned with anything but.

At any rate, let us address these points:

"That's why I believe your views on sex are at the very least, very unhealthy. It's not that the person uses his or her body that sickens you, it's the fact that the person uses his or her body to provide sexual pleasure. "

Strawman and logical leap, we already explained the mechanics, you are grasping here.

"One can do just about anything with their bodies for money and it's not considered illegal or unethical so long as all parties are consenting adults. "

I already stated that consent is a very poor criteria for ethical judgment, and gave my reasons, you need to elaborate on why this is true more for it to be a valid point, I think.

"But as soon as it crosses into genital contact, THAT'S when it becomes unethical. "

Strawman

"do just about anything with their bodies for money and it's not considered illegal or unethical so long as all parties are consenting adults. But as soon as it crosses into genital contact, THAT'S when it becomes unethical. That's rather stupid. Then you might say, well, prostitution is different because it's not a skilled profession. First off, I'd disagree with you there, if you're going to be a good prostitute, you've got to be somewhat skilled. But even if it required NO skill whatsoever, there are plenty of jobs that require no skill. Anyone can take a job at McD's, there are numerous jobs that require almost no skills or training whatsoever. Are you suggesting they should be illegal simply because they appeal to people with little or no education? Of course we need to work on providing the best educational system possible, but are we going to eliminate all jobs that are unskilled simply because people like you think they're exploitative? I'm guessing the people working at these places would rather work there than being unemployed and on the streets"

We already addressed the basic differences in how one relates to their labor in prostitution vs. a number of jobs that are not prostitution in addition to the issue of sex and how this relates to prostitution. Joshua has also highlighted the difference between prostitution as an act versus other jobs as a skill set. You haven't actually addressed any of these points with an adequate form of argumentation, which renders this entire paragraph you setting up pins and knocking them down. I'm convinced you are not reading my posts at this point, and you certainly didn't read Joshua's. Either start submitting your own ethical system, act in good faith and treat philosophically valid arguments charitably, or get out of the discussion.

Seriously, you need to provide a better illustration as to why the way someone relates to their labor is identical to an act like prostitution. All you have done is provide vague points which Josh and I have provided fair rebuttals of, while you twist our arguments to suit your needs. That is why I requested you provide an ethical system of your own to counters ours, because this discussion is going nowhere due to how you are dealing with it.

"Are you familiar with the guns and butter analogy? Let's change it up a little bit. Say that the rights of sex workers is guns and let's say that the rights of the general public are butter. Let's say that no one is capable of providing the intrinsic value of either guns or butter, but it's a given that both guns and butter have value. The only transaction of guns and butter that any given person can take which will be guaranteed to add to their value is if he or she gets guns, butter or both without having to give up any of their own guns or butter. By prohibiting prostitution, someone is stealing our guns AND butter, and not only that, but we're paying for them to do so too. So we've got two parties, prostitutes and their customers and they're both being fucked over by prohibition. And not only that, but we're further wasting huge amounts of our tax dollars so that both prostitutes and their customers can be fucked over. That's a LOSE, LOSE, LOSE situation. About the worst type of situation you can have. Prostitutes have to deal with violent pimps and horrible violence and an extremely high likelihood of being raped as well as being arrested for trying to earn a living. The customers need to worry about the violence and danger of dealing with an underground enterprise and they also need to worry about being arrested for trying to obtain a service for money. So, as a society we're paying law enforcement to make sure that conditions are less safe for customers, prostitutes, and then the general public in terms of STDs. That's just a whole buffet of stupidity. If you can't see what's ethically wrong with that, I'm afraid you're incapable of learning. And I'm afraid that is the case because you'll most likely respond to this once again and say, "But you're not providing any ethical system of your own!" I've done so three times now, but you won't acknowledge it. "

Interesting line of economic thought, but ultimately flawed. As you may know, the guns and butter analogy only works in terms of national spending or command economies, it tends to fall apart under a free market economy as there is no central arbiter to decide what ration of guns vs. butter is necessary, with market forces providing a chaotic distribution based upon demand. As I think we both know, prostitution is a free market enterprise, making the analogy a little silly.

I posted a small article and Joshua posted a slew of articles which also undermine your point that legalization causes the state of prostitutes and the industry as a whole to significantly improve. That is just basic research, which you didn't respond to with your own. Your fundamental premise "Prostitution improves the lot of the prostitutes and practices in the market" appears to be deeply flawed. From what I read, something like 2/3rds of all sex workers in the Netherlands come from Eastern Europe, which is still an economically devastated area. Wouldn't that tell you that even legalized prostitution still preys on the poor?

As for your ethical systems, you have provided no such thing. All I see is a lazy mash of utilitarianism and Austrian style contract theory with a healthy dose of adolescent romantization of the sex trade. Are you, by chance, a Libertarian? Seriously, though, I mean an actual, formal ethical theory. Unless we are talking on equal terms then there is simply no point in continuing.


"And finally, with regard to Kant, I've told you this at least three times now and every time, you either intentionally miss the point or are so daft as to not see it. Yes, for at least the fourth time, I understand that not lying and telling the truth are not the same thing. And yes, I understand that in the theoretical we are discussing that no one would be ethically obligated to tell the murderer the victim's location according to Kant. But what Kant was trying to say here is that there is NEVER an appropriate time to tell a lie. What if by lying, you could help catch the murderer? So, if you didn't lie, you'd be helping him evade capture and increasing the likelihood he'll kill again. That is profoundly unethical. And to even be concerned with telling the truth or not when pertaining to a murderer is so incredibly stupid, it shouldn't even be considered. I know you're going to respond, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE HIERARCHY!?!? WHAT ABOUT ROSS?!?!? What about them? We're not discussing Ross or what Kantian ethics became over time. I was specifically referring to what Kant himself believed. He believed that it's never ethical to lie. That is absolute bullshit. You can try to squirm all you want about this, but it's simply bullshit. There are times where it's a good thing to lie. If you don't believe that, well then there's no helping you. If you do believe that, then you don't believe as Kant did (not as his ethical system eventually became). I've said this at least three times now and you've either pretended not to get it or are simply too dense to get it. "

And you didn't read what I wrote, AGAIN. Listen, it is very simple and this has been battered around the question of the murderer for hundreds of years:

LYING DOES NOT MEAN TELLING THE TRUTH.

You can

1. Not say anything
2. Tell him a truth he doesn't want
3. Confront him
4. You cannot reasonably ascertain where your friend is, so you may simply state "I do not know". It is not a lie, as any indication of where he currently is, is actually an assumption on your part.

So by Kant saying you cannot lie to the murdered he is NOT saying that you have to tell the murderer where he is, or that nothing can be done ( as was reasoned out).

In addition, you are moving beyond the simple issue of lying and jumping to the conclusion that lying can help prevent the murderer from committing his act. To provide a utilitarian argument to another, he can also simply get away and kill again. The act of lying even in a utilitarian sense does not guarantee that the result will be ethical.

Furthermore, Joshua hits the nail on the head. My original argument was deontology, I merely provided kant (with the assumption I wasn't dealing with someone who knew nothing about the field) via modern Kantian ethics. You cannot treat Kant as a freeze frame in philosophy, otherwise the same would be true of all methods of thought. No more Mills, no more modern logic. You are flatly wrong in this regard and if your arrogance cannot allow you to deal with this extremely simple fact I am sorry, but we need to move on.

I will also note that I said deontology and then Kant, you are misdirecting to Kant and Kant only and then bumbling about him. You need to move on.

"No one has a right to tell another what he or she can do with their body so long as they're not harming others. Do you consider yourself to be pro-choice?

There is the potential of harming others (disease), for one. Not harming others does also not negate an intrinsically unethical action, and it not really a good criteria to determine what is ethical and not ethical.

For instance; If I see a person in some life-threatening trouble, let's assume a child walking too close to the edge of a bridge, many would argue it would be unethical for me to not help them. However, if we look at simple causation of harm-not harm, we see that in that situation the argument falters.

You can help aid the child, and that would be commendable.

But if we're looking at it strictly from a causation of Harm-not harm perspective, then there is no fault to not aiding the child. You are not 'causing' harm by not helping the child, so the position is morally neutral.


"You're fooling yourself if you do, because you definitely don't want women to have a choice as to what they do with their bodies, you want to control them and say that they can't be trusted to do certain things with their bodies, that's just wrong. People are capable of deciding on their own what they want to do with their bodies. They don't need you telling them that when they do so, they've lost their humanity. That is extremely insulting. "

I'm going to disregard this, as it is basically you coming to unwarranted and entirely unrelated conclusions. Kind of a red herring, no?

[EOTE]

86. You are completely incapable of either reading or comprehending.

As such, I will simply cut and paste the words I've been trying to get through your thick skull all along.

"And finally, with regard to Kant, I've told you this at least three times now and every time, you either intentionally miss the point or are so daft as to not see it. Yes, for at least the fourth time, I understand that not lying and telling the truth are not the same thing. And yes, I understand that in the theoretical we are discussing that no one would be ethically obligated to tell the murderer the victim's location according to Kant. But what Kant was trying to say here is that there is NEVER an appropriate time to tell a lie. What if by lying, you could help catch the murderer? So, if you didn't lie, you'd be helping him evade capture and increasing the likelihood he'll kill again. That is profoundly unethical. And to even be concerned with telling the truth or not when pertaining to a murderer is so incredibly stupid, it shouldn't even be considered. I know you're going to respond, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE HIERARCHY!?!? WHAT ABOUT ROSS?!?!? What about them? We're not discussing Ross or what Kantian ethics became over time. I was specifically referring to what Kant himself believed. He believed that it's never ethical to lie. That is absolute bullshit. You can try to squirm all you want about this, but it's simply bullshit. There are times where it's a good thing to lie. If you don't believe that, well then there's no helping you. If you do believe that, then you don't believe as Kant did (not as his ethical system eventually became). I've said this at least three times now and you've either pretended not to get it or are simply too dense to get it. "

And you didn't read what I wrote, AGAIN. Listen, it is very simple and this has been battered around the question of the murderer for hundreds of years:

LYING DOES NOT MEAN TELLING THE TRUTH.

You can

1. Not say anything
2. Tell him a truth he doesn't want
3. Confront him
4. You cannot reasonably ascertain where your friend is, so you may simply state "I do not know". It is not a lie, as any indication of where he currently is, is actually an assumption on your part.

So by Kant saying you cannot lie to the murdered he is NOT saying that you have to tell the murderer where he is, or that nothing can be done ( as was reasoned out).

Now listen very closely, because perhaps upon the fifth time telling you this, you might begin to have an inkling of a comprehension (although I severely doubt it).
What if by lying, you could help to catch the murderer? What if by not lying, you were increasing the likelihood that the murderer gets away free? By not lying, you would be engaging in VERY unethical behavior. Understand? Of course not. So in that particular instance, Kant would be bound by his moral code and allow a murderer to go free because lying to the murderer would be so much worse than him killing again. Comprende? No? You are incapable of anything resembling independent thought. If you were, I wouldn't need to repeat myself five times over. It's really quite pathetic. This has nothing to do with:

1. Not say anything
2. Tell him a truth he doesn't want
3. Confront him
4. You cannot reasonably ascertain where your friend is, so you may simply state "I do not know". It is not a lie, as any indication of where he currently is, is actually an assumption on your part.

By lying, you can help prevent a murder. Do you understand? Do you understand?!?!? My three year old usually needs to be told things a few times before she understands it completely, but I really don't expect that kind of thing from an adult.

[Mixopterus]

87. And if you actually read the argument

You would have realized I provided a utilitarian counter to your utilitarian claim while simultaneously offering a defense of Kant. Read more closely and come back, I am growing ever impatient with your bad behavior.

[Joshua The Marshall]

92. The Randomness of Consequence

What if by lying, you could help to catch the murderer?

By lying, you violate CI. But here's the problem, you're countering with an assumption. The assumption is that you could help catch the murderer. It is not that certain. Consequence is random. Let's look at a few possible examples. You can contribute a few suggested courses of action as well, if you would like.

Course of action; You lie, and tell him a random location.

Possible Consequence; The murderer accidently kills someone at the location, thinking it's the person who they wanted to kill.

Possible Consequence; The murderer gets infuriated and kills someone at the location in a fit of rage.

Possible Consequence; The murderer gets to the location, sees the person isn't there, and comes back to you and kills you and your family.

Possible Consequence; The murderer gets to the location, sees the person isn't there, and goes looking for the person elsewhere.
Possible Consequence of the Possible Consequence; The murderer then finds other ways to find the person who they were looking for.


Course of action; You lie, and tell them the location of the police(Assuming they're looking for him).

Possible Consequence; The murderer goes to the police station and gets caught.

Possible Consequence; The murderer goes to the police, gets spooked, and drives off before he's caught.

Possible Consequence; The murderer goes to the police, gets spooked, and drives off before he's caught. He then goes to another city.

Possible Consequence; The murderer goes to the police, gets spooked, and drives off before he's caught. He then goes to another city. At that city he kills other people.

Possible Consequence; The murderer realizes the location you're telling him, and kills you, and your family.

Course of action; You lie, and tell them the location of the police (Assuming they're not looking for him)
Possible Consequence; The murderer goes to the police, and drives away.

Course of action; You kill him right out.

Possible consequence; You get charged with murder.

Possible Consequence; Accomplices may get infuriated, and kill you, your family, and the original person.

What if by not lying, you were increasing the likelihood that the murderer gets away free?

What if you follow CI, and actually confront the murderer himself, or refuse to tell him anything and then alert the police

Kant would be bound by his moral code and allow a murderer to go free because lying to the murderer would be so much worse than him killing again. Comprende?

...No? Where does Kantian ethics anywhere say that he should let the murderer go free? He simply can't lie to him. He has an infinite number of other options, such as confronting the murderer himself.

By lying, you can help prevent a murder. Do you understand? Do you understand?!?!? My three year old usually needs to be told things a few times before she understands it completely, but I really don't expect that kind of thing from an adult.

Likewise, by lying you could equally help to get someone else murdered, or help the murderer get free, or any number of things. Consequence is completely random. Why are you comfortable putting other people in danger?

Relying upon consequence is like playing Russian Roulette.

[EOTE]

61. And I've already explained how horribly unethical the prohibition of prostitution is.

I did it in post #43, second paragraph from the bottom. You haven't refuted a single thing said. In fact, you said that while legalizing prostitution would improve conditions for sex workers, you still feel that it should be illegal because... well, Kant, I guess. Your opinion is fuck the sex workers (no pun intended), I don't want anything offending my beautiful, little mind. For you to admit that it would help sex workers and you to still be against it takes a lot of balls (or perhaps lack thereof). And my comparison of you and fundies that hate homosexuals is very appropriate (there is nothing unethical about prostitution). Fundies hate homosexuals, you hate people who have sex outside of a relationship. Both of your hatreds are irrational and you'd both make the same excuses for them.

[Joshua The Marshall]

65. A general rebuttal.

"Kant also believed it would be a bad thing to lie to a murderer asking for the location of a potential victim."

In straight up Kantian ethics, yes, it would be a bad thing. However, that doesn't necessitate telling the truth on the matter. I simply could not lie. There are numerous options one has available to them. The most obvious example would be to say nothing. Likewise, we could play with a bit of Phenomenal judo and realize that, there is no way for me to currently verify the location of any one person who I cannot currently observe, and so there is no way for me to verify the precise location of any individual. This opens the way for me to explain "I don't know", which is actually as truthful as you can get. Likewise you can give them truths they don't want. "Where is so-and-so?", to which one could reply "Earth", or "The United States". "What street does he live on?" he could ask, and you could respond; "The one with pavement". Even if he asks what address he lives on, you could respond; "One of the ones with numbers?". Naturally, you yourself could act to stop the murderer directly.



"Sometimes the ends DO justify the means."

That's what a LOT of people think. For instance; Stalin. The problem with the argument that the ends justify the means is that there is actually very little rational room to objectively determine that the ends justify the means. This is because one is trying to apply an empirical form of consequence-judgment upon a non-empirical standard. You can't "observe" justification, and so there is no real standard to determine, categorically or objectively, when exactly the ends 'justify' the means. Likewise, different people find wildly different ends to be justified by different means. For instance, one person could think, by you looking at him funny, that the end of him "Keeping it real" justified the 'means' of beating the crap out of you. Conversely, the 'End' of Aryan supremacy justified the 'Means' of annihilating lesser races. I'm wholely unimpressed by arguments that the ends justify the means.


"I guess by your belief system, we should outlaw acting as actors are simply a means of providing pleasure to the audience.

Now that's absurd. The mechanisms of Prostitution and Acting are completely different. Acting is a skill set, Prostitution is an action. There's a fundamental difference here. Acting itself is a skillset, and as a result it is only a component of who you are. It would be like saying that me walking around is non-deontological because I'm using the skillset of walking. Prostitution on the other hand, is not a skillset. There is no single skill known as "Prostitution" that we can express to be fundamentally unique to the act of "Prostitution". One might be talented at having sex, for instance, but that's not "Prostitution". That's being skilled at having sex. Likewise, one could be skilled at picking up guys, but again, that's not necessarily Prostitution either. Let's look at Acting again. There is a specific skill called "Acting', with numerous other associated talents attached to it. The same with Carpentry, the same with being a Medical Practitioner, and so on. Again, this is not true with Prostitution, which is a reapplication of other skills around a more intrinsic component of someone. Sex, and our sexuality is an intrinsic part of our psychologies. Sex is a need, and as a result we attach a lot of importance to it. This is why we consider rape to be such a heinous crime.


"It's one of the most foolish arguments I've ever heard as our whole economy is based upon buying goods or services from others in exchange for money. The standard for whether something is ethical should be whether or not the act is done by consenting adults. Not your bizarre mysticism."

Economic exchanges do not equate into the degradation of the dignity of any one person unless it directly involves someone whom you are taking solely as a means to an end. A business owner who sells his goods to a store does not involve the eventual customers directly, so they're cut out of that consideration for the moment. Likewise,a person who buys from a store is not directly involving the original company. As well, in a healthy economic transaction no one is being used 'solely as a means to an end'.


" First of all, both you and I were discussing Kant, so for you to bring up Ross is disingenuous. Kant believed that the means are more important than the ends. So you're saying that sometimes the ends DO justify the means, which is correct, but it's not deontology. "

Ross is a person who worked upon Kantian ethics, so any discussion involving modern Deontology naturally involves all Deontological thinkers who worked upon and elaborated upon the main thesis. For instance, if we excise Ross, we would also have to excise all Post-Bentham Utilitarian thinkers, or all post-Hobbes Social Contract theorists. Don't you see how absurd that is? Forget your Consequentialist viewpoints of "happiness for the greatest number", we're going hardcore Bentham. Felicitus Calculus, Baby. We're only concerned about the amount of pleasure we're getting out of an action! Let's get those Hedons on and avoid those Dolores!

You actually have Kant's position reversed, though. Kant never argued that the means are more important than the ends; he argued that the Ends are what we should be focusing upon. The difference is that he was focused upon non-consequentialist ends. This is why we referred to one of the rules of constructing CI as "The Kingdom of Ends". Part of what's going on here is that you are supposed to treat everyone as if they were Ends in themselves, with the means being inconsequential so long as they are within the constraints of treating something as an End.


"People ethically sign themselves over into slavery all the time, it's called BDSM."

That's not slavery. Slavery is a form of actual, involuntary bondage. In the BDSM world, for instance, there is something called a "safe-word" that automatically breaks the Role-playing of the BDSM situation. Playtime does not equate into actual reality, or else we'd be seeing quite a few children getting killed when they play war. The Submissive half can get out of the relationship and any situation they want to without any concern. This is, categorically, not Slavery as they are not forced into any courses of action.

"What I said about Kant is true, you may not like it, but it's true."

Well, I'm intent upon disproving the 'truth' of these statements.

"As for the ethics of prostitution, I thought this was quite apparent. By prohibiting prostitution, you are preventing two parties from meeting their needs."

Prostitution isn't a need. Sex is a need, but it does not exclusively exist within the domain of Prostitution. Hence, Prostitution is not necessary for the acquisition of that need, and as a result you aren't preventing anyone from anything. There are other ways to provide for the economic well being of prostitutes that doesn't involve them degrading themselves.

"I was making the point that sometimes it's a good thing to lie. Kant (and you possibly) disagree with that. I told you that Kant said it would be unethical to lie to a murderer, I think it would be the most ethical thing to do in that case."


You like to quote wikipedia, and so; "It is important to note here that "not lying" is not the same as "telling the truth". Clearly, one is under no positive obligation to assist a murderer by telling him the truth. Saying nothing is not the same as lying. So, one may refuse to answer, or even choose to challenge the murderer, without trying to deceive him."

"Fuck misdirection (which is the same thing as lying) or simply refusing to answer, anything that can be done that doesn't endanger others should be done to catch the murderer, and that includes lying."

Misdirection is most certainly /not/ the same thing as lying. Lying is when you intentionally provide someone a falsehood. If you provide them a truth that doesn't help them, you are categorically not lying because you're not actually telling them a falsehood. Without intentionally telling someone a falsehood, there /can be no lie/. In this case though, by providing a truth they don't want to hear you aren't deceiving them at all. You really are providing them truths, and you're not using subterfuge to trick them, either. You're simply obstructing their desire to attack someone by answering truthfully, but in a way they don't want.

As well, you can simply confront the murderer yourself, after all.

"Your outlook on women is pretty disgusting too. You say that because a prostitute is used as a means of providing sexual gratification that the person using the prostitute can't see him or her as a real person?"

Your initial statement on women is unattached to your subsequent statements. Why does his argument on how a man hiring a prostitute sees the prostitute reflect upon his views on women? It doesn't, it's a statement relegated to the realm of the man in the situation.

Your argument boils down to;

You say that a prostitute is used as a means of providing sexual gratification.

You say that a person using a prostitute doesn't see them as a real person.

So, your outlook on women is disgusting.

This essentially translates to;

Condition A.
Condition B.
So, Condition C.

This is a patently absurd argument. I'll demonstrate why, because it is logically equivalent to;

Birds exist.
Cats exist.
So dragons exist.

The argument here is nonsensical.

Now, think about this for a moment. Are people who are hiring prostitutes interested in a delightful conversation and friendship? No, they're interested in one thing, which is why they're going to a Prostitute in the first place. When you boil someone's interaction with you down to a single part of their being, you degrade them because you betray their nature as a sovereign entity. A person is more than just a single component of their being. I, for instance, am not my hair. I'm also not my skin, or my hand. I'm also not my ability to see or hear. I am the totality of all my qualities.

"Just because you use an actor as a means of becoming entertained, does that mean you can't see him or her as a person? Just because you use a maid as a means of getting your house cleaned, does that mean you can't see him or her as a real person?"

There are two problems here.

One is syntax, the other relates to an issue related above. You don't "use" an actor, nor do you "use" a maid. You watch an actor, and you hire a maid. That is the strangest phrasing I've ever seen.

Likewise, in both situations we're dealing with exchanges that do not necessarily interfere with them being Ends as well. As stated; Acting and being a Maid are skillsets, they're not necessarily intrinsic components of a person's psychology.

Don't you get it? Just about everyone on the planet does things they don't want to do in exchange for money. If they didn't, we'd be living in a utopia.

That's completely not the point of Deontology. Deontology is actually /about/ people doing things they don't want to do. The difference is in whether the things are A; Rational, B; based upon Duty and Good Will. Deontology has nothing to do with a Utopia.


"People use other people and if that stopped, society would come to a stop."

That's a large assumption in two areas.

One; It's assuming that All people solely use other people as a means to an end and that if people didn't society would come to a stop. I see no such necessary condition.

Two; It's assuming your interpretation of what Kant means when he says "means to an end". You're forgetting a critical part of Kant's argument. He doesn't say you can't use someone as a means to an end. He says you can't use someone /solely/ as a means to an end. For instance, if I were to push you out of the way of a train, I would be, at some level, using you as a means to the end of saving your life.

So, the misunderstanding on your part is that you're taking the term "means to an end" too literally. You're supposed to treat everyone as an end in and of themselves.

"And you're dead wrong regarding legalization of prostitution in Thailand, but I'd have been surprised if you were right about something. Take a guess as to where the typical sex worker would prefer to work, Amsterdam or Thailand."

There's also an inherent difference in Amsterdam and Thailand. Can you assure us that the difference in conditions is due to the legalization, or due to the fact that Amsterdam is in the First World, and Thailand is a Third world nation?

"Well, some people just want to fuck. Some people think that fucking shouldn't be confined to a relationship and are just fine with that. These people are not unethical or immoral, they simply have a value system different than yours."

And some people are forced into prostitution via coercion. Legalization doesn't stop much of the problems of prostitution, including Human trafficking and child sex rings. In Nevada, where some prostitution is legal and regulated, and in the Netherlands there are still problems despite the legalization.

When we consider Nevada;

"The women have to see as many "tricks" a night as possible to make any money at all. The brothel owners are worse than any pimp." http://www.sexwork.com/legal/NevPimpHouses.html

"Many of the women in those houses are lacking spirit and are quite sad." http://www.sexwork.com/legal/NevPimpHouses.html

"The brothel prostitutes often live in prison-like conditions, locked in or forbidden to leave. The physical appearance of these buildings is shocking," says Farley. "They look like wide trailers with barbed wire around them - little jails." The rooms all have panic buttons, but many women told her that they had experienced violent and sexual abuse from the customers and pimps." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender

"I saw a grated iron door in one brothel," says Farley. "The women's food was shoved through the door's steel bars between the kitchen and the brothel area. One pimp starved a woman he considered too fat. She made a friend outside the brothel who would throw food over the fence for her." Another pimp told Farley matter-of-factly that many of the women working for him had histories of sexual abuse and mental ill-health. "Most," he said, "have been sexually abused as kids. Some are bipolar, some are schizophrenic." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender

"The women must present their medical clearance to the police station and be finger-printed, even though such registration is detrimental: if a woman is known to work as a prostitute, she may be refused health insurance, face discrimination in housing or future employment, or endure accusations of unfit motherhood." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender

"And, as Chong Kim, a survivor of prostitution who has worked with Farley, says, some of the legal brothel owners "are worse than any pimp. They abuse and imprison women and are fully protected by the state." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender

"Mary, a prostitute in a legal brothel for three years, outlines the restrictions. "You are not allowed to have your own car," she notes. "It's like own little police state." When a customer arrives, a bell rings, and the women immediately have to present themselves in a line-up, so he can choose who to buy." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender

"Investigating the sex industry - even the legal part - can be dangerous. During one visit to a brothel, Farley asked the owner what the women thought of their work. "I was polite," she writes in her book, "as he condescendingly explained what a satisfying and lucrative business prostitution was for his 'ladies'. I tried to keep my facial muscles expressionless, but I didn't succeed. He whipped a revolver out of his waistband, aimed it at my head and said: 'You don't know nothing about Nevada prostitution, lady. You don't even know whether I will kill you in the next five minutes.'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender

"Farley found a "shocking" lack of services for women in Nevada wishing to leave prostitution. "When prostitution is considered a legal job instead of a human rights violation," says Farley, "why should the state offer services for escape?" More than 80% of those interviewed told Farley they wanted to leave prostitution." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender

"Nevada's illegal prostitution industry is already nine times greater than the state's legal brothels. "Legalising this industry does not result in the closing down of illegal sex establishments," says Farley, "it merely gives them further permission to exist." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender

"When questioned specifically, Harvey said he could identify only four underage girls who actually worked in Nevada brothels. He said he suspects there are many more.
"We don't find out until it is too late," Harvey said. "The younger the girl, the more money they make. Once an underage girl works there it ruins her and haunts her the rest of her life."http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1998/Jan-21-Wed-1998/news/6806375.html

"Never buy the line that nobody under 18 works in (Nevada brothels)," he said. "It's happening." http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/1998/jan/21/pimps-force-underage-girls-to-work-in-nevada-broth/

"The group (Nevada Coalition against Sex Trafficking) argued that legal prostitution can be just as harmful to women as illegal prostitution because both involve kinds of abuse and cause long-lasting psychological damage." http://www.lvrj.com/news/9612332.html

"What happens in legal brothels is sexual harassment, sexual exploitation and sometimes rape," Farley said. "Despite the claims to the contrary, legal prostitution does not protect women from the violence, verbal abuse, physical injury or diseases such as HIV that occur in illegal prostitution." http://www.lvrj.com/news/9612332.html

""The reality is that they are having to engage in a sex act with a complete stranger as many times as 30 times a day. It is not a victimless crime." Those who want to leave prostitution have a difficult time finding help, especially in Nevada, Farley said."Most women in prostitution want to escape it," she said. "In prostitution, the conditions that make choice possible are absent. If we really want to say it's a choice, women need a range of options.""http://www.lvrj.com/news/9612332.html

"Jody Williams, a former prostitute and member of the Nevada Coalition Against Sex Trafficking, agreed. "When women quit prostitution, they ... suffer from a broad range of physical and emotional disorders," she said. "Women in prostitution suffer from the same combat stress that Vietnam and combat vets do, but they have fewer services than vets do." Former prostitutes "wind up on welfare, disability, public housing and on the street," Williams said." http://www.lvrj.com/news/9612332.html

Even in the Netherlands there are distinct issues;

"A court convicted six people Friday in what prosecutors said was the largest case of human trafficking ever brought to trial in the Netherlands... Five of the six convicted men were found guilty of participating in a large, well-established network that kept women in prostitution by force — and with extreme violence... Some of the victims were compelled to have breast enlargement surgery, and one defendant was convicted of forcing at least one woman to have an abortion. Women were beaten and forced to sit in icy water to avoid bruising. They also were tattooed." http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-11-Dutch-human-trafficking_N.htm

"In the Netherlands, where two-thirds of the women in prostitution are immigrants and one-half of them are trafficked illegal immigrants, legalization has, in fact, increased prostitution and trafficking." http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/mhvlegal.htm

Approximately three-fourths of the women who are recruited and trafficked are unaware that they are destined for strip clubs, brothels, or the street, where they are sold to eager male buyers. Most of the women are seeking to escape poverty, violence and lack of opportunities, but once they are under control of pimps or traffickers, they are "seasoned" into prostitution by physical and sexual violence and economic coercion." http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/mhvlegal.htm

"Survivors of prostitution often report that each act of prostitution felt like a rape. In order to endure the multiple invasions of the body women use drugs and alcohol to numb the assaults to their dignity and bodily integrity. Eventually, the woman's physical and emotional health is destroyed." http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/mhvlegal.htm

"Thailand, Japan, Israel, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Turkey and the US were the most common destinations (Of human trafficking), the report said... Many of these are women and young girls forced to work in the sex industry" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6497799.stm

"The number of registered Hungarian victims of human trafficking in the Netherlands nearly quadrupled last year from 2007, from 12 to 45. All 45 victims are women, who have likely been put to work in the sex industry." http://crossroadsmag.eu/2009/02/dutch-authorities-register-809-human-trafficking-victims/

"(In Amsterdam) More than 300 of the prostitution windows will be closed and more than half of all the coffee shops -- which sell drugs legally -- will also be targetted for closure once they have been identified as forming part of an organised-crime syndicate." http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/265520

"The report he submitted to the town council shocked many Dutch citizens, as it showed that more than half of the coffee shops and prostitution windows in Amsterdam already were owned by organised crime gangs who were smuggling large numbers of sex-slaves from many other countries and forced them to work in the brothels. Often these prostitutes also were deliberately turned into drug-addicts to force them to continue working there. "http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/265520

Obviously legalization in and of itself doesn't necessitate an increase in standards. In fact, in this case, the way it was legalized actually /decreased/ the standards and /increased/ the human trafficking and people forced into prostitution..

You also have a strange idea on why people get into prostitution. Prostitutes don't, normally, get into the job because they 'like to fuck'. Usually they're forced into the situation by some circumstances of life; "Prostitution is associated with a host of psychosocial vulnerabilities, including exposure to childhood physical abuse and childhood sexual abuse (CSA),1-4 interpersonal violence in adulthood,1-2,5-6 and substance use.1, 5, 7-8 Additionally, prostitution is often linked with sociodemographic disadvantage (eg, minority ethnic status, low income, homelessness, low education level)." (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/3/337#SEC2)

From the same; "Research on the mental health consequences of prostitution consists largely of studies documenting high rates of exposure to traumatic events and posttraumatic stress disorder among women involved in prostitution.6, 17-18 Most women report being raped, physically assaulted, or threatened with a weapon during the course of prostitution."

And; "Clients and pimps appear to be the main source of violence; participants report patterns of domination and control analogous to violent intimate partner relationships.19-20 Not surprisingly, women involved in prostitution report an increased incidence of depression,4 as many as 74% report lifetime suicidal ideation,6 and 53% have attempted suicide."

These conditions betray the notion that the prostitute "just wants to fuck".

[EOTE]

68. There's way too much BS in here for me to respond directly to all of it.

But since you decided to piggy back onto this thread, I address the bulk of what you said in my new post #67 and previous post #43 as well as others. If you read all my posts, you'll see that almost every issue you bring up has been addressed in my previous reports. I will make one brief note here, you spend the latter portion of your post, talking about how the conditions for illegal prostitution are so horrible and go into the violence and depression involved in it. Well no shit, of course there are going to be a ton of negatives involved with an underground, illegal activity. But it would be so unethical if it were made legal to get rid of violent pimps, violent customers and sexually transmitted diseases. All that you note there is simply a reason to make prostitution legal, not to continue the current system that ensures that women will continue to get beaten and raped. More fundie nonsense telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies.

[Joshua The Marshall]

69. Not quite.

Actually if you would read, you're missing two things.

But since you decided to piggy back onto this thread, I address the bulk of what you said in my new post #67 and previous post #43 as well as others.

My post was a rebuttal to posts #43 and #67, so I was directly dealing with the claims you were offering. That's why my post is listed as a "Rebuttal". If you would kindly address my rebuttal, I'd be delighted.

I will make one brief note here, you spend the latter portion of your post, talking about how the conditions for illegal prostitution are so horrible and go into the violence and depression involved in it.

And you need to read my citations more closely. I was not dealing with situations where Prostitution was illegal, but chiefly where prostitution was legal.

"All that you note there is simply a reason to make prostitution legal, not to continue the current system that ensures that women will continue to get beaten and raped."

All of the situations I were citing, save for the psychological conditions alone, were where Prostitution was legal. I was citing conditions in Nevada and the Netherlands. Both of these locations are where prostitution is legal. Nice try, though.

More fundie nonsense telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I'm a homosexual, Democratic Socialist Jew. It's extremely ironic to call me "fundie". Likewise, I was providing concrete arguments, not 'faith'-based nonsense.

You seem to be falling into a binary here, which is extremely similar to Fundamentalists themselves. If someone disagrees with me, they MUST be a part of X group. This is patently absurd. Someone can disagree with you and not be a fundamentalist. None of the reasons we've been giving have been religious in nature.

So, I would be obliged if you would actually address my post instead of bypassing every point I made without addressing them.

[EOTE]

71. Once again you're wrong. Prostitution is NOT legal in Thailand, it's not legal in Japan either.

Organized prostitution is also illegal in Israel. Also, all those links you provided, while the bulk of them provided opinion from single individuals (one of your links you posted like four times), the ones that do note issues with violence and such note that it is due to the continuing illegal acts still going on. No one is advocating for organized crime to be involved in prostitution, no shit organized crime is going to make things far worse for prostitutes. Legalizing something while continuing to turn a blind eye to evil, illegal things isn't going to improve conditions for anyone. If you legalize and regulate prostitution, you can eliminate (or at least diminish) organized crime from it. And why don't you try seeing how prostitutes in Nevada view their professions and lifestyles compared to prostitutes in other places where it's illegal? Are you interested at all in that comparison? You haven't honestly addressed a single issue I've brought up.

[Joshua The Marshall]

73. When did I say they were?

Organized prostitution is also illegal in Israel. Also, all those links you provided, while the bulk of them provided opinion from single individuals (one of your links you posted like four times), the ones that do note issues with violence and such note that it is due to the continuing illegal acts still going on.

I never said prostitution was legal in Israel either. I'm referring, as per my previous post, specifically to Nevada and the Netherlands.

I was posting individual quotes from links, so yes I would have to post some links several times.

And again, you seem to fail to understand that the legalization is not doing anything to prevent or curb the illegal components of it. For instance, Human Trafficking is actually increasing in the Netherlands.

No one is advocating for organized crime to be involved in prostitution, no shit organized crime is going to make things far worse for prostitutes.

Except, it seems that organized crime and the like are getting intrinsically involved with it where ever prostitution rears it's head. I believe it did even in Australia when they toyed with legalizing it in the 1980s-1990s as well.

Legalizing something while continuing to turn a blind eye to evil, illegal things isn't going to improve conditions for anyone.

So then, are we in agreement that legalization in and of itself is not going to improve the conditions?

If you legalize and regulate prostitution, you can eliminate (or at least diminish) organized crime from it.

That's not what happened in Nevada or the Netherlands. Organized crime is actually increasing in The Netherlands.

"And why don't you try seeing how prostitutes in Nevada view their professions and lifestyles compared to prostitutes in other places where it's illegal?"

Why does it even matter if in BOTH situations it's abhorrent and a human rights violation? Just because one is suffering somewhat less doesn't make it any better. In both situations people are being abused and violated. And then we don't even have any real improvement in the Netherlands because of the Human Trafficking. Naturally I'm concerned with the well-being of the humans involved here. But I'm not callous enough to say "Well, it's not as bad as over here, so it's okay". I refuse to accept any violation of Human Rights.


You haven't honestly addressed a single issue I've brought up.

Saying something doesn't make it true, all of my previous responses were constructed in response to your own posts. Could you explain why I haven't addressed any issues?

[EOTE]

75. You said that your points addressed were from where prostitution was already legal.

That's bullshit and a lie as I've already proven. You've lied time and time again, so I really don't need to waste any more time dealing with you.

[Joshua The Marshall]

76. You should look more closely.

And read a bit more carefully;

I was not dealing with situations where Prostitution was illegal, but chiefly where prostitution was legal."

Chiefly means primarily. This means I was taking other, illegal prostitution situations as contrast.

But I wasn't referring to the prostitution in Israel or Japan at all. My quote there was showing that Israel and Japan are two of the areas which see the most Human Trafficking, right alongside the United States and the Netherlands.

It is curious that the Netherlands sees a comparable amount of Human Trafficking, chiefly for the sex trade, when they have legal prostitution.

This point you're making is absurd.



Lies? Such as?

You seem to have an infatuation with saying things without backing them up. Analogy and naked declarations of fact do not a good argument make.

[Mixopterus]

83. You are being dishonest

As Joshua stated before, if you can't handle the argument you need to back out. You have demonstrated bad form in dealing with him just as you have with me, in addition to twisting others arguments in a grossly uncharitable fashion and not providing evidence or substantiation for your claims.

[EOTE]

84. You haven't provided evidence of anything. Just your feelings based upon your mysticism.

Furthermore, you've conceded that you don't support the legalization of prostitution even though you admit that sex workers would benefit from it. So whatever your motivation for legalization is, the rights and conditions of sex workers are obviously the last thing on your mind. And while you may need a tag team buddy to help you put together a coherent argument, I'm doing fine by myself, thanks. I've shown you over and over again how unethical the prohibition of prostitution is and all you can do is throw about words of philosophers you have little understanding of. You telling me I need to back out is laughable. All your arguments come from your twisted emotions and have no basis in fact or logic. It's quite clear where you come from, the rights and livelihood of prostitutes means nothing compared to outlawing sex that you consider to be immoral and ethical. Fuck people's lives, we have Mixopterus' personal ethics system to be concerned with!

[Mixopterus]

85. Hm

You have demonstrated no such thing, sadly. I would look inside yourself to find the source of the twisted arguments and dishonest treatment of others arguments. If you recall, you were the one that ran in screaming, flinging insult and accusation in equal measure (post 26)

I also think our discussion on Kant demonstrated who knows what, you have held on to a rather shallow version of his work while simultaneously disregarding the valid modern developments. You honestly haven't a clue in the matter, sir.

I'll still continue with our discussion, though, eventually you will understand the actual ethical implications involved with prostitution, no matter how many insults and accusations you throw.

[EOTE]

89. You simply can't admit that you're wrong.

Why bother addressing the myriad ignorant attempts at rebuts when you can't even once admit you're wrong when it's clear as day? Did Kant believe that it wasn't ethical to lie to a murderer regardless of the circumstances? Do you know the answer to that question? For the sixth time, child, I am referring to Kant, the person, and not what you believe his belief system evolved into or or "modern developments", some other person entirely. I was pointing out a deeply flawed portion of this PERSON'S beliefs and you've tried to fight this tooth and nail. There are times when lying is a good thing. Kant didn't believe this and I guess neither do you. But despite it being such a tragically flawed belief, you'd follow it even if it meant the murder of innocents. There's simply no denying this and until you admit it, there's no point in trying to have a conversation with you.

[Mixopterus]

90. yeah, no

We have already addressed your point about Kant over and over again, you just don't agree. That doesn't mean you are correct in your (wrong) interpretation of Kant, however.

Saying something does not make it so, offer a better explanation of your views or back out of the discussion. The only person conducting themselves like a child here is you.

[EOTE]

91. I'll gladly accept your concession.

You talking about what Kant's views have evolved into or what completely other people believe means NOTHING. I've provided evidence of such and you simply refuse to see it. Concession accepted. As for backing out of the discussion, kindly go fuck yourself. You've been owned. Your partner has been owned too. This is not about subjectivity, it's about facts. You refuse to see those facts, so game over.

[Joshua The Marshall]

93. This is also cute!

You talking about what Kant's views have evolved into or what completely other people believe means NOTHING.

Actually, it does mean something. It means everything. When he first posted, he was talking about Deontology IN GENERAL. You are the one to hyperfocus upon Kant himself, which was never what he was arguing for specifically. This is a straw-man argument, because you're misrepresenting his position.

You've been owned. Your partner has been owned too.

Refusing to address arguments does not equate into 'owning' someone.

This is not about subjectivity, it's about facts. You refuse to see those facts, so game over.

Facts? What facts have you provided? We're the only ones who have provided any facts in our discussion.

[EOTE]

112. "Kant also believed it would be a bad thing to lie to a murderer asking for the location

of a potential victim. "

Are you capable of reading, genius? These are my words. I said KANT, NOT DEONTOLOGY? Not any of your other mysticism bullshit. Get it? Of course you don't. Why should I expect you to understand something most 4 year olds would? You are wrong, just like your little buddy is wrong. If your buddy wasn't talking about Kant himself, he had plenty of time to say "Well, you're right about Kant, but I'm referring to what his philosophy eventually came to be." Neither he nor you have ever done that, so you're wrong. These are facts, comprende?

[Joshua The Marshall]

114. The issue is simple, then.

You're just misrepresenting the argument.

HE is talking about Deontology, but YOU are hyperfocusing upon Immanuel Kant for no reason. Does you hyperfocus upon Kant actually refute anything about Deontology as a whole? No, it doesn't. This is something of a straw-man argument, because you're acting like he's arguing for Kantian ethics verbatim, which he never did.


These are facts, comprende?

Facts are simple verifiable observations. This is hot. This is such and such temperature. This is such and such hardness. Someone is african-american. Right/wrong are not facts. Those are truth-values /attributed/ to perceived facts. (You are wrong, just like your little buddy is wrong.)

[EOTE]

117. It's not my fault you and your friend are incapable of reading.

I stated from the very beginning exactly what I was saying.

[Joshua The Marshall]

119. Likewise, it's not my fault you are incapable of reading what he was saying.

So then you admit you're misrepresenting his argument and attacking a point he was never making? Thank you for admitting that point, it was very polite of you. His argument was never about Kant himself, alone, and yet you specifically addressed Kant to the exclusion of his original argument.

[Mixopterus]

94. Aha, what?

The issue was of ethics with the secondary point being the reality, which Joshua so kindly submitted evidence that contradicted your argument. That means your point is shakey on two grounds:

1. You still haven't elaborated on your ethical system and why it is better

2. You haven't disproven Joshua's claim that legalization does not improve the lot of prostitutes

You are now, basically, saying we are wrong because we are wrong without backing that claim up. In addition, I am still a willing participant and have conceded nothing, as is Josh. The issue is not that we haven't "seen" your facts, but those facts are largely a priorii assumptions and believes wrapped in a very shallow utilitarian ethical system. As such, I don't think it is within your rights to declare victory yet, not unless your provide better evidence for your claim while proving your ethical system to be superior. You have done neither.

So let us continue, if you do not wish to do so we will accept -your- concession, however.

[EOTE]

107. We were discussing Kant as a person.

I'll quote myself: "Kant also believed it would be a bad thing to lie to a murderer asking for the location of a potential victim."

You said that this wasn't true, but I've proven it to be true numerous times. If you really wanted to make this about what Kantian philosophy eventually became, you should have said: "Yes, you are right about Kant himself, but I'm specifically referring to what happened AFTER he died, so I didn't really mean to use Kant as an example, but what his philosophy eventually became to be." Instead, you chose to lie. Over and over again. Why should I deal with someone who is so incredibly reluctant to admit when he's got the most basic of facts wrong? I'd gladly lie to a killer in order to get him caught, you think this would be horrendously unethical. I think letting innocents die would be unethical. That's where we disagree and we'll never see eye to eye on that.

[Joshua The Marshall]

111. You should look at his argument again.

We were discussing Kant as a person.

Actually, YOU were discussing Kant as a person. HE was talking about deontology. Let's look at his initial post;

"If you are a consequentialist or a deontologist", this is the crux of his initial argument, and he was contrasting the difference between Consequentialism and Deontology on the issue of Prostitution. He never specifically argued for Kant's argument verbatim. In fact;

"You apparently never read Kant's later works or what came of it"

I think letting innocents die would be unethical. That's where we disagree and we'll never see eye to eye on that.

Kant didn't think letting innocent people die would be ethical either. That's why lying is not the only choice in that situation. You're trying to construct a "False Dilemma". That is, either you lie or the person gets killed. There are multiple, infinite even, possibilities for one to act upon or for the consequences of the actions.

But, as I showed earlier, Consequence is completely random. You can't guarantee by your actions that the innocent people won't die, and so it's irrational to rely upon a random quantifier of morality.

[Mixopterus]

122. Wrong again

See Josh's post, I was discussing deontology as a whole via Kant and its modern variants, you were the one who become stuck on the man and a minuscule point.

I would invite you to reenter the discussion in an honest manner instead of attempting to pull a variety of shallow "gotchas". Can you at least do that much?

[Joshua The Marshall]

88. You seem to have an overinflated view of your argument.

You haven't provided evidence of anything. Just your feelings based upon your mysticism.

Except there is now actual evidence provided in the debate which you're consciously ignoring without any real reason. Likewise, Mysticism has to do with a personal relationship with god, it is a Religious concept. No where have we invoked the authority of Religion.

Furthermore, you've conceded that you don't support the legalization of prostitution even though you admit that sex workers would benefit from it.

I don't think he admitted that sex workers would actually benefit from it. In order for them to benefit from it, there would have to be an elimination of the actual harm being caused to them. Likewise, the fundamental, inscrutable components of human existence must not be violated just the same.

So whatever your motivation for legalization is, the rights and conditions of sex workers are obviously the last thing on your mind.

That's an assumption.

And while you may need a tag team buddy to help you put together a coherent argument, I'm doing fine by myself, thanks.

I don't see that, actually. :P

I've shown you over and over again how unethical the prohibition of prostitution

You've said that the prohibition of prostitution is unethical, but the actual evidence that's been provided has been pointing that there is still a fundamental violation of human rights in Prostitution. Prostitution is not worthwhile unless we can excise the fundamental violation of human rights in its process.

is and all you can do is throw about words of philosophers you have little understanding of.

All you've done is actually say that, you haven't adequately shown it.

It's quite clear where you come from, the rights and livelihood of prostitutes means nothing compared to outlawing sex that you consider to be immoral and ethical. Fuck people's lives, we have Mixopterus' personal ethics system to be concerned with!

Except that the rights and livelihood of prostitutes are, as per your own consequentialist point of view, fundamentally jeopardized by the very act of prostitution itself. The myth of the happy prostitute is just that, a myth. The vast, overwhelming majority of prostitutes, legal or not, are not doing it, as you said earlier, 'because they like to fuck'.

You argue that something is wrong when it violates consent. As per the human trafficking and the actual conditions of why people prostitute themselves and why they continue, there is no real strong argument that it is consentual. There is an overwhelming amount of coercion going on, both by people and by the system in which they live. This betrays an actual argument of consent.

Likewise, you argument revolves around harm. If something causes harm, then it is wrong. By your own standards, prostitution fundamentally causes harm to people, whether it's legal or not.

As well, you say that a woman should have a right to freely do what she wants with her body. In these cases, they STILL don't have the right to do what they want with their body. They are bought. In the case of Nevada and the Netherlands, they don't choose who they sleep with, a man buys them, and they have to sleep with them or else they face consequences, both physical, emotional, and financial.

[seabeyond]

28. then you fight for legalization. he fights for criminalization. democracy. nt

[Warpy]

31. A sex worker is providing a service for which a demand exists

and in which neither party necessarily comes out the worse.

Good sex workers create safe environments in which their clients can act out their fantasies.

There is nothing ethically wrong with any of this, your misapplication of philosophobabble notwithstanding.

You just find it icky. That's your problem, not theirs.

[EOTE]

44. Couldn't have said it better.

Just like the fundies get grossed out by gay sex and hence need to make their lives miserable, others get grossed out by sex outside of a relationship and need to punish those who would seek it. There's nothing ethical about imposing your will on others for no reason other than your personal disgust. It also amazes me that people think they're being pro-women by supporting the prohibition of prostitution. Women have by far the most to gain by its legalization.

[Mixopterus]

47. Ok, allow me to explain.

The opponents of prostitution don't do so because it's icky, just like I don't think the proponents just want to have sex with prostitutes without looking over their shoulder. Both are valid ethical stances of the issue, with my main concern(if I am show my hand) being a situation more akin to Mexico or Thailand if prostitution was to be legalized in the United States rather than a Netherlands, as well as the sex trade itself seeming to profit from the economic misfortune of others. Regulation is often seem as an intrinsic evil in the American narrative, which wouldn't bode well for an attempt at large-scale legalized prostitution, I think.

[Euromutt]

52. Prostitution isn't legal in Thailand

In the sense that while it isn't illegal to purchase sexual services, it's illegal to sell them. You couldn't create a more hostile environment to the sex workers than the Thai one.

[Mixopterus]

53. Yeah

You are correct, my mistake. I suppose a better example of legal prostitution still going very much awry would have to be Mexico or a handful of South and Central American countries. My basic point is that legalization is not a panacea, it often remains a shady business and is still rife with exploitation.

[Euromutt]

54. Conversely, however...

...if you criminalize prostitution, it's guaranteed to remain shady, controlled by organized crime, and rife with exploitation. Criminalization doesn't alleviate any problems, it just allows the electorate and their representatives to wash their hands of it. "Well, it's terrible, but we don't condone it, so it's not our problem."

[EOTE]

56. Yeah, there's no way we could do a better job than Mexico in that regard.

Mexico, where the cartels have the bulk of power. Yep, that's a perfect example to use for how America would implement legalization. Nobody said that legalization would be a panacea, that's you throwing up strawmen. What it would be, is a fuck load better than the alternative. That's kind of like saying that stopping the purchases of stupid, expensive shit isn't a panacea if you want to get out of debt. That may be true, but if you continue to purchase stupid, expensive shit when you're deeply in debt, you're pretty fucking stupid.

[Mixopterus]

58. And the Netherlands also has issues

Considering our attitude towards regulation, undoubtedly more hostile than the Netherlands, would be not be a logical conclusion that legalization would be somewhere in between a badly implemented system of prostitution (Central, South America) and a mostly well implemented form of prostitution (Netherlands and Germany)?

[EOTE]

59. And any way it's implemented, it would be far better than what we have now. NT

[Mixopterus]

64. Yeah?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender

[EOTE]

66. Yes. Because you cite an article with a person who doesn't like it, doesn't make it any less so.

If that person thought she was signing a contract to be raped, then maybe she shouldn't have signed on and chosen to stay in her profession? I've had tons of jobs I've hated, jobs that I'd dread going to in the morning, does that mean I'd be better off without them? And because the prostitution industry is regulated in Nevada, the chances of that girl ACTUALLY being raped are far less than if she had chosen to do her profession elsewhere illegally. And she doesn't need to worry about further violence from a pimp. Prohibition just ensures that sex workers work in far more dangerous and less profitable conditions. Nothing in that article you cite changes any of that.

[Joshua The Marshall]

70. This isn't just a case of 'I didn't like this job'.

You should actually read the article. The article wasn't written by a prostitute themselves, but it was about a psychologist studying the Nevada brothels. This has less to do with "not liking a job", and more to do with Human Rights.

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that the legalization in Nevada hasn't done much to actually prevent the issue here, which I just related.

This is a Human Rights violation. It's not an issue of "I don't like this job", or "This is icky". Prostitution fundamentally undermines a person's dignity and status in life.

A few quotes;

"And, as Chong Kim, a survivor of prostitution who has worked with Farley, says, some of the legal brothel owners "are worse than any pimp. They abuse and imprison women and are fully protected by the state."

"I saw a grated iron door in one brothel," says Farley. "The women's food was shoved through the door's steel bars between the kitchen and the brothel area. One pimp starved a woman he considered too fat. She made a friend outside the brothel who would throw food over the fence for her." Another pimp told Farley matter-of-factly that many of the women working for him had histories of sexual abuse and mental ill-health. "Most," he said, "have been sexually abused as kids. Some are bipolar, some are schizophrenic."

"Described as "pussy penitentiaries" by one interviewee, the brothels tend to be in the middle of nowhere, out of sight of ordinary Nevadans. (Brothels are officially allowed only in counties with populations of fewer than 400,000, so prostitution remains an illegal - though vast - trade in conurbations such as Las Vegas.) The brothel prostitutes often live in prison-like conditions, locked in or forbidden to leave."

Yes, very dignifying.

[EOTE]

72. Your bias is showing.

You say: "Prostitution fundamentally undermines a person's dignity and status in life." This is your opinion and absolutely nothing more. You can't tell me that by me exchanging sex for money that I'm demeaning my dignity or status in life. That's simply you imposing your values on others and nothing more. As for the conditions you bring up, if any legal prostitute feels that he or she is being treated unfairly, he or she is free to leave their job just as in ANY OTHER LEGAL JOB OUT THERE. If they're an illegal prostitute leaving can be far, far more difficult. Also, law enforcement has a duty to ensure that these employers are abiding by the law, if not they should be arrested. Furthermore, selectively choosing a few quotes from people in the industry is hardly a decent way to determine the actual state of conditions for sex workers in Nevada. If you were to ask me how I like my job, I'll tell you that I'd rather be raped with a broom handle than go into work every day. That sounds pretty damned awful, doesn't it? Guess it's time to outlaw IT work. You best get on that quickly.

[Joshua The Marshall]

74. Only in the same sense you have.

Everything we say shows bias. You yourself show bias when you say "There is nothing unethical in prostitution". This is a moot point, because all we have are subjective viewpoints anyway. All we can do is argue our viewpoints and see which are more rationally put together.

So yes, I have a bias towards human dignity and human rights. I admit this proudly.

You can't tell me that by me exchanging sex for money that I'm demeaning my dignity or status in life.

With a rational, well-reasoned argument, sure I can. You're subscribing to the Relativist Fallacy.

"As for the conditions you bring up, if any legal prostitute feels that he or she is being treated unfairly, he or she is free to leave their job just as in ANY OTHER LEGAL JOB OUT THERE."

Not really, actually. People go into prostitution because they feel they have no other options. They are usually psychologically involved, poor, undereducated, and so on. You're subscribing to the myth that a person can leave their job and just pick up another one at any time, potentially one that's better. That's not true. There is an entrapment in legal prostitution just as in illegal prostitution.

As per Farley, most prostitutes actually do want to leave. This is usually because their "life chances" are not the same as other people. Haven't you ever wondered why the majority of Prostitutes are from the underclasses and not the middle or upper class?

Furthermore, selectively choosing a few quotes from people in the industry is hardly a decent way to determine the actual state of conditions for sex workers in Nevada.

So, it's a good thing I'm also quoting psychological studies of the practice and more impartial 'facts' of legal prostitution, in Nevada and the Netherlands, hm?

If you were to ask me how I like my job, I'll tell you that I'd rather be raped with a broom handle than go into work every day. That sounds pretty damned awful, doesn't it? Guess it's time to outlaw IT work. You best get on that quickly.

Completely absurd. Not liking your job and being subjected to a situation which undermines your psychological health are two completely different things. Your job does not even come CLOSE to the conditions faced by illegal or legal prostitutes. It's frankly offensive that you even try to make that comparison.

[EOTE]

77. I'll use a couple of your quotes and then I'm done with you.

You've already been caught in numerous lies, so I won't bother wasting any more time with you beyond this.

You say:
"Not really, actually. People go into prostitution because they feel they have no other options. They are usually psychologically involved, poor, undereducated, and so on. You're subscribing to the myth that a person can leave their job and just pick up another one at any time, potentially one that's better. That's not true. There is an entrapment in legal prostitution just as in illegal prostitution."

I say:
"Not really, actually. People go into waitressing because they feel they have no other options. They are usually psychologically involved, poor, undereducated, and so on. You're subscribing to the myth that a person can leave their job and just pick up another one at any time, potentially one that's better. That's not true. There is an entrapment in legal waitressing just as in illegal waitressing."

And then you end with more of your subjective BS.
"Completely absurd. Not liking your job and being subjected to a situation which undermines your psychological health are two completely different things. Your job does not even come CLOSE to the conditions faced by illegal or legal prostitutes. It's frankly offensive that you even try to make that comparison."

You haven't a fucking clue what my job is like so how on earth could you decide whether my comparison is offensive or not. I'll tell you right now that my job completely undermines my psychological health. I would absolutely love to be a prostitute, it would be a million times better than my current job. Once again this is simply you inserting your own prejudices and biases into other people's lives. You haven't a clue, so you're in no position to comment. Epic fail.

With that, I'm through with you. I won't waste any more of my time knowing you'll simply counter with more lies.

[Joshua The Marshall]

78. Ah, very cute.

"You've already been caught in numerous lies, so I won't bother wasting any more time with you beyond this."

Lies? Such as? Saying something is not the same as fact.

"Not really, actually. People go into waitressing because they feel they have no other options. They are usually psychologically involved, poor, undereducated, and so on. You're subscribing to the myth that a person can leave their job and just pick up another one at any time, potentially one that's better. That's not true. There is an entrapment in legal waitressing just as in illegal waitressing."

There actually isn't entrapment in waitressing, not nearly as like in Prostitution. When you are a waitress you are not typically forced to live in a prison-like compound, nor are you docked and fined the vast majority of your pay.

And no, Waitresses are not usually psychologically involved, undereducated, or poor. They come from all walks of life. I know of Grad-students and post-graduate students who are waitresses. Likewise, lots of high-school graduates are waitresses. There is an extremely large percentage of prostitutes, however, who do not have a high school education, and even more who don't have any college education. This reference and transplanting of variables simply doesn't work.

You do not see the same situations in Prostitution.

You haven't a fucking clue what my job is like so how on earth could you decide whether my comparison is offensive or not. I'll tell you right now that my job completely undermines my psychological health.

Are you locked in your office for weeks or months? Does your job force you to not own a car? Are you forced to sleep with 30 or more men in a single day? Does your job dock the vast majority of your pay($50-$100 for something as simple as 'being late for roll-call'), and then fine you for minor infractions? Does your employer beat you? Does your employer physically rape you? Does your employer metaphorically rape you as well? Does your employer starve you for days because you don't fit a sort of 'idea' of what you should look like By your occupation, are you denied health insurance? Does your job constantly subject you to people who may have STDs, and are not tested? Are you constantly subjected to a lifestyle full of drugs and addiction necessarily due to your job? Is there a chance you were forced into the job by living in a less developed area, and then kidnapped and moved into an entirely other country? Likewise, could they have coerced you with lies of wealth and fame? Do the people at your work, then, keep you in a drug addicted stupor so you can't run away?

These are all objective situations which prostitutes, legal or illegal, face all across the world.

I would absolutely love to be a prostitute, it would be a million times better than my current job.

That, my friend, is an assumption. You're idealizing the lifestyle of a prostitute without looking at how they actually live.

I won't waste any more of my time knowing you'll simply counter with more lies."

What lies?

"With that, I'm through with you."

Concession accepted. Your surrender is taken without wrath or malice.

[EOTE]

80. Refusing to talk to a brick wall is not a concession, it's common sense.

Just about everything you say is either a lie (such as stating the negative consequences you were listing were from where prostitution was legal, if you're going to pick and choose, you're not making a point at all, just an observation) or you inserting your own biases into what you think other people should do with their lives. Expecting an intelligent debate with you would be an act in futility. You have ZERO clue as to what life in a legal brothel is like as you've evidenced above. I'll just note this little quote here "Does your employer physically rape you?" Nope, and with legalized prostitution, if a employer physically rapes a prostitute, he gets sent to jail. In illegal prostitution, the pimp gets off free. I KNOW which scenario you prefer. There is simply no point in wasting any more time with you. Apparently you thought that attempting to rebut me was important enough to join the site for, but you are not important to me at all. Goodbye.

[Joshua The Marshall]

81. A response;

Just about everything you say is either a lie

This seems to be an a priori assumption. You'll have to verify your point.

(such as stating the negative consequences you were listing were from where prostitution was legal, if you're going to pick and choose, you're not making a point at all, just an observation)

Except, that's not a lie. I wasn't picking or choosing either. The citations and evidence I was providing were all factual, and not lies.


You have to, here; Prove that I was picking and choosing

B; Prove that I knew that I was misrepresenting the situation.


You have ZERO clue as to what life in a legal brothel is like as you've evidenced above.

Neither of us know what it's like to live in a legal brothel as a prostitute. That's why I'm relying upon external (Psychological studies) viewpoints on the practice, and internal(The prostitutes themselves) viewpoints on the practice. This is much better than you who seems to be assuming an idealized vision of prostitution.

You inserting your own biases into what you think other people should do with their lives.

Reasoned arguments are not the same as what you're trying to imply here. Your argument here is suspiciously like those of southern slave-holders during the first half of the 1800s.

Nope, and with legalized prostitution, if a employer physically rapes a prostitute, he gets sent to jail. In illegal prostitution, the pimp gets off free.

Not necessarily. You see a lot of rape in the sex trade in the Netherlands. Likewise, in Nevada. In both situations, the employer does not necessarily get off free.

Goodbye.

Again; Concession accepted. And yes, it is a concession, because in this case you refuse to;

A; Engage in honest debate.

B; Provide Reasoned responses to my rebuttals.

C; Provide support to your argument.

D; Provide me, as I provide you, the benefit of a doubt. Your 'assumptions' about me being a Fundie or akin to a fundie, alongside your other declarations about what 'I' believe are telling.

And then you whine about my responses, refuse to address them properly, and then run away. That's a concession. At the very least, it shows you don't know what you're talking about.

So an ultimatum; You're not addressing my actual arguments. If you can't address my arguments, you should respectfully bow out of the discussion.

[redqueen]

97. What do you think of the citations for claim #3 on this page?

http://canadacan.blogspot.com/

[Joshua The Marshall]

99. Unless I'm mistaken, post three is a deleted post. There are no citations.

Are you referring to a specific post one of us were making?

[redqueen]

100. Sorry, I meant at the link... this is a small excerpt... there is much more.

-"Experience in countries with either legalized or regulated prostitution shows that trafficking and sex tourism increase dramatically in those countries.”
(Nordic and Baltic Women’s Organizations in Cooperation)

-“Without equivocation, the investigators can confirm that the presence of pre-existing adult prostitution markets contributes measurably to the creation of secondary sexual markets in which children are sexually exploited. Indeed, in every community we visited in which a substantial adult prostitution markets exists--Chicago, Honolulu, Las Vegas, New Orleans, New York, San Francisco--we also found substantial numbers of young people being sexually exploited . . . Despite the advocacy efforts of some groups in the U.S., we find no support for the legalization of prostitution in the U.S., especially given the relationship that we can confirm to exist between adult and juvenile sexual exploitation."
R.J. Estes and N.A. Weiner, " The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Philadelphia," PA: University of Pennsylvania, School of Social Work, Center for the Study of Youth Policy, 2002. http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/~restes/CSEC_Files/Complete_CSEC_020220.pdf

-"The Netherlands is a primary country of destination for victims of human trafficking. ...Estimates of the number of victims vary from 1000 to 7000 on a yearly basis."
van Dijk, Essy. Mensenhandel in Nederland 1997-2000 http://www.politie.nl/Nieuws/Images/32_6540.pdf]

-"...worldwide where prostitution is legalised, sexual slavery increases. This is not difficult to understand. Legalisation legitimises prostitution. Despite the fact that most efforts to regulate prostitution come from a desire to limit the industry and protect women within it, the fact is that sex industry entrepreneurs always have more power than the women in it. Kathleen Maltzhan, "Where to now?", The Brisbane Institute Combating trafficking in women, http://www.mercyworld.org/projects/mijn/pdfs/2006/asia-pacific_news13.pdf

-"Traffickers recognize the legal climate in Germany is permissive and makes it easier for them to operate as legitimate businessmen. ...who make billions of euros off the bodies of women and children."
Janice G. Raymond, The Consequences of Legal Policy on Prostitution and Trafficking in Women, Budapest, Hungary, May 28, 2004

[Joshua The Marshall]

101. Oh! I'm sorry!

Yea, sorry about that. I thought you were specifically referring to post #3. Those are interesting links by the way, were you posting them for EOTE to overview? I'm a little new to the flow of the thread-structure here.

Edit; Nevermind, I figured it out. I thought you were posting in response to me.

[redqueen]

102. Heh, no worries. And welcome to DU!

:hi:

I used to be all for legalization of prostitution. Then I read more about what happens...


-"I have often doubted since we legalized the brothels, whether we did the right thing," said Femke Halsema, a member of Parliament who advocated the measure. "For me, it was a question of emancipation and liberation for the women. But for now it is working the other way." Suzanne Daley, "New Rights for Dutch Prostitutes but No Gain," New York Times, August 12, 2001.

[seabeyond]

103. legalization doesn't work, increases problems, regardless how some continue to demand

and refuse the info out there in the countries that have tried it. plenty of data.

you gathered the info

because after all.... those so concerned, state their concern is for the woman, so surely they would recognize how legalization is not the answer for the health and welfare of these women.

though there are people like us that recognize this is not in the health and welfare of the women, we oppose cause sex is "icky" and could not possibly be because we recognize it creates a bigger problem.... trafficking, with innocent children as sex slaves and women in continued horrible circumstances.

but then when you are a guy, under the illusion the prostitute just really really likes sex and is having orgasms from some jon using her body for his want without any consideration to the prostitute, what would one expect.

[redqueen]

104. Josh put it very well upthread...

there seems to be an idealized view of prostitution that seems very hard to shake.

I hope we can learn from the mistakes of other countries. I can't imagine it would be easy to get rid of it once that door is opened, due to the money involved.

[EOTE]

105. I think it's bullshit. I'll also note that there's no cite for it. NT.

[redqueen]

106. What do you mean 'no cite for it'?

Four of the five comments defending that point are not only cited but have links.

[EOTE]

109. The information provided does nothing to substantiate the claims.

The first is a claim with no information to back it up whatsoever. The second only shows that where illegal prostitution flourishes other bad stuff happens. Well, no shit. The third is a most likely reliable statistic that provides absolutely no context. The fourth is once again a completely unsubstantiated claim. The fifth is another unsubstantiated claim. And not only is it unsubstantiated, but it says nothing to what would happen if prostitution were legalized and regulated. Legalizing prostitution without providing decent regulation is obviously not a good thing. To suggest that that's the only way to go about it is absurd.

[redqueen]

113. You read "Adult prostitution zone" as illegal. I didn't.

There is no information in the text to clarify.

What context do you need in order to see that the Netherlands having 1-7K sex workers trafficked in is a bad thing, and that having legalized prostitution has not helped? One of the main claims that proponents of legalized prostitution make is that if it was legal, the illegal stuff would go away. Obviously that is very much not the case.

You say the fifth is an 'unsubstantiated claim'... but in order to do that, you have to ignore the evidence from places like the Neths and Australia. Are you ignoring the evidence from those places, or are you disputing it?

BTW, here is some substantiation. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/38901.pdf

[EOTE]

115. Chicago, Honolulu, Las Vegas, New Orleans, New York, San Francisco

There is plenty in the text to clarify, did you even read it? I'm not positive, but I'm fairly certain that prostitution is illegal in those places.

And no one said that legalized prostitution would make the illegal stuff go away, just that it would be reduced and much easier to monitor.

[Joshua The Marshall]

116. Uh.

Except that in the Netherlands the illegal stuff is actually increasing. Human Trafficking in the Netherlands is going up, not down.

[redqueen]

118. That is obviously not the case...

as Sweden, the Netherlands and Australia have learned.

Do you find fault with the citation for the claim that where prostitution is legalized or decrminalized, that human trafficking/sex slavery increases?

[EOTE]

120. Yes I do.

"It is often said in the media that the lifting of the general ban on brothels has led to more THB. This is not a correct conclusion. Before the lifting of the general ban on brothels, THB and other (criminal) abuses were taking place in all sectors of prostitution. Some of these sectors are now under control and can be assumed to have rid themselves of their former criminal excesses, or are doing so...It is possible that THB is increasing in the illegal, non-regulated or noncontrolled sectors. If this were to be the case, it still cannot be assumed that the extent of THB is now at the same or even above the 'old' level it was at before the ban on brothels was lifted. It is in fact likely that this is not the case, merely because not every client is keen to get involved in the 'secret' prostitution sector."

http://prostitution.procon.org/sourcefiles/NL-NRMEngels3.pdf

[redqueen]

121. Yet, from the same document:

"There are no national figures on the results of inspections in the prostitution sector.
As a result there is no insight either into the number of inspections carried out and
the number of victims of THB found - as well as the number of illegal and underage
prostitutes - and with this no insight into the extent to which the regulated prostitution
sector is actually becoming decriminalised."

I don't trust this claim, either: "likely that this is not the case, merely because not every client is keen to get involved in the ‘secret’ prostitution"

What they think is "likely" holds zero weight... especially so in light of the admission made in last paragraph of that document.

[Joshua The Marshall]

108. What?

Yes, each of the links provided above had citations, links, or at least a source of information (Listing a group, in this case).

[Mixopterus]

123. Right

Because you have provided so much evidence for your claim that you can just handwave anything you see, you are dishonest to the point of contempt.

Anyway, it was shown to be valid downthread, you need to try harder.

[Odin2005]

46. Most moral philosophy is just the rationalization of inherently irrational gut feelings.

[Mixopterus]

48. Perhaps

All Kant really did was provide a rationalist structure for "commonsense" ethics, but we do derive those core ethical constants from somewhere. I don't think it makes it invalid, personally, what other metric are we to use to decide whether an action is ethical or unethical? All of the ethical stances have their drawbacks, even utterly "practical" philosophies as espoused by John Stuart Mill.

[redqueen]

98. This is not about prostitution being "icky". Please see below.

http://canadacan.blogspot.com/

-"Experience in countries with either legalized or regulated prostitution shows that trafficking and sex tourism increase dramatically in those countries.”
(Nordic and Baltic Women’s Organizations in Cooperation)

-“Without equivocation, the investigators can confirm that the presence of pre-existing adult prostitution markets contributes measurably to the creation of secondary sexual markets in which children are sexually exploited. Indeed, in every community we visited in which a substantial adult prostitution markets exists--Chicago, Honolulu, Las Vegas, New Orleans, New York, San Francisco--we also found substantial numbers of young people being sexually exploited . . . Despite the advocacy efforts of some groups in the U.S., we find no support for the legalization of prostitution in the U.S., especially given the relationship that we can confirm to exist between adult and juvenile sexual exploitation."
R.J. Estes and N.A. Weiner, " The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Philadelphia," PA: University of Pennsylvania, School of Social Work, Center for the Study of Youth Policy, 2002. http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/~restes/CSEC_Files/Complete_CSEC_020220.pdf

-"The Netherlands is a primary country of destination for victims of human trafficking. ...Estimates of the number of victims vary from 1000 to 7000 on a yearly basis."
van Dijk, Essy. Mensenhandel in Nederland 1997-2000 http://www.politie.nl/Nieuws/Images/32_6540.pdf]

-"...worldwide where prostitution is legalised, sexual slavery increases. This is not difficult to understand. Legalisation legitimises prostitution. Despite the fact that most efforts to regulate prostitution come from a desire to limit the industry and protect women within it, the fact is that sex industry entrepreneurs always have more power than the women in it. Kathleen Maltzhan, "Where to now?", The Brisbane Institute Combating trafficking in women, http://www.mercyworld.org/projects/mijn/pdfs/2006/asia-pacific_news13.pdf

-"Traffickers recognize the legal climate in Germany is permissive and makes it easier for them to operate as legitimate businessmen. ...who make billions of euros off the bodies of women and children."
Janice G. Raymond, The Consequences of Legal Policy on Prostitution and Trafficking in Women, Budapest, Hungary, May 28, 2004

[ismnotwasm]

124. And may I add; there's the questions nobody seems to ask;

Why are the majority of prostitutes female?

Why is there prostitution at all?

While I have come to certain answers to those questions personally, to get my answers, I had to ask the questions. Clear away all the bullshit and really looked at the whys and hows.

Society likes to pretend prostitution is part of some sort of social or even biological evolution, a natural occurrence. Some think it's a healthy response to sexual pressures. I think it's a destructive economic response to the gendered imbalance, the social/psychosexual pathology we call patriarchy.

The oldest profession BTW, is the story teller and the myth maker.

[redqueen]

125. Excellent questions, yes... this handbook asks those questions and more.

http://www.womenlobby.org/SiteResources/data/MediaArchive/Violence%20Centre/News/handbook.pdf

[anonymous171]

9. Legalizing it might have some unforseen consequences. Corporate Pimp companies, for instance

[pitohui]

17. it was in london, as far as i know, it was legal

seriously, does anyone read anything any more before they comment?

[seabeyond]

21. discussing pros and cons on legalization. subthread. not about op. nt

[anigbrowl]

34. So what? That might just as easily be an improvement on existing conditions

I think it's easier to deal with a corporate entity that's subject to audit and can easily be sued than a single unstable individual. The risks o violence and so on are likely to be much lower.

[Mixopterus]

35. Hypothetically

It would also give a profit incentive to encourage the economic situation by which prostitution has always thrived.

[redqueen]

110. You might be interested in the information at this link:

http://canadacan.blogspot.com/

Since other countries have tried it, we can learn from the consequences they didn't anticipate.

[Kalyke]

39. How about mates just not wander.

There - problem solved.

[Mixopterus]

40. That would be nice

But I guess ethics take a backseat to base impulses.

[EOTE]

62. If you're not in a relationship, you don't need to wander. Problem solved.

Not so difficult, was it?

[lapfog_1]

3. Deleted.

[ashling]

4. seems like she was too.

catering, that is.

[AngryAmish]

7. fantastic

[mike_c]

5. arguably, grad school isn't that much different anyway....

:rofl:

[Kali]

6. ...

:spray: :rofl: :applause:

[SallyMander]

10. ...

:spray:

[varelse]

12. DUzy nomination

[PerfectSage]

11. Did the Cancer Scientist discovers that prostitution cures cancer?

[question everything]

13. For most scientists, conducting research, even working on a Ph.D. program

is a continuing endeavor. If she had time to be a call girl she cannot be much of a scientist.

Perhaps going through the motions, but not a real scientists.

[Fleshdancer]

16. according to the article, she only did it between 2003 and late 2004

and during that time, we don't know how many times/week or month she actually did this.

[pitohui]

19. yeah she told her BF she was only holding hands and apparently he believed it

this tells me pretty much right away that the number of times she sold it were fairly minimal

she has been making up the stories in her blog for years -- not to say i didn't enjoy reading her blog but i knew it was fiction science fiction

[SallyMander]

18. Gotta disagree with you

Sure, I work crazy hours and think about my research almost nonstop... but sometimes I am thinking about research while working out, so, umm, she could have done that?! And sometimes I just flat-out need a break and I go out for beers with my friends! This does not make me a bad scientist.

[pitohui]

14. it's "belle du jour" (hope i spelled that right)

i don't think anyone believes she's ever gonna win the nobel prize

for those who don't know, this was the infamous/notorious london call girl/blogger

her BF is apparently going to lose his commission in the military because of this (consorting with a prostitute) -- of course he is now claiming to be a clueless idiot instead of the fucktard who was living off her ill gotten income

[JonQ]

29. Prostitute reveals secret life of grad student

friends and neighbors report being shocked, dismayed by the revelation. She always seemed like such a nice hooker, reports one neighbor who declined to give her name, she just made some poor life choices leading her down the dark path of organized research.

Her parents declined to be interviewed, saying only "we have no daughter".

[SallyMander]

36. Bwaahahahahahaa

:spray:

Well done, sir. :rofl:

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[MattBaggins]

42. Speaking of prostitutes.... look who popped in

[cliffordu]

41. Must make for interesting prostate exams...

[alarimer]

51. Well aren't we all prostitutes, one way or another?

I guess one thing is that graduate students are woefully underpaid to begin with.

I've never understood how we can train scientists by making them work for peanuts for literally years on end. Graduate students are often almost slaves: they do most of the work for their professors for very little pay and almost none of the credit.

[ismnotwasm]

79. Well isn't that just too precious for words.

Cancer specialist huh?

The good doctor speaks;
"You can't say I'm not real, and that my experience isn't real, because here I am," she said, adding that while some sex workers have "terrible experiences" she was "unbelievably fortunate."

I'd say.

Reminds me of "The Happy Hooker

(By the way, that's a great arguement upthread--the one on Kant)

[Vidar]

95. Good for Ms. Magnanti.

[4lbs]

96. Showtime cable channel has a series based on her called "Secret Diary of a Call Girl".

It's done 3 seasons now.

The show is more inspired by her, instead of being fully accurate.