The Purpose of Incarceration

Post Reply New Topic

I see prostitution cropping up a couple of times. You can't end it by making it illegal, and you can't ameliorate it by tolerating it. Nor should it be tolerated. I think the fact that a woman can earn more trough prositution or, to use the nice middle-class terminology, by being an 'escort', than she can by taking up mainstream employment is one of the most damning indictments one can put forward of a society. It is possibly the most brutal form of exploitation in existence today - and is a fundamentally capitalist undertaking. It exists along the same spectrum of oppression as playboy modelling, pornography and fashion modelling (in which industry it is not uncommon for very young girls to be exploited in the most disgusting fashion, during photo shoots even the more 'upmarket' models are required to perform sexual acts on photographers ranging from pulling/tugging on penis upto oral and full intercourse). One of the best arguments I can offer for socialism is the end of all prostitution and all the other (mentioned above) rubbish that goes with it.

Also I don't understand why when someone is presented with the arguement that a woman was raped becasue she was under-dressed, she was 'asking for it' etc not simply respond with the simple truth that rape is not an act of passion or lust but of absolute hatred (which would make a mockery of the above 'women are at fault' position.)

I understand humanity quite well. We humans are The Ape That Talks. In addition to abstraction and logic we have all of the other endearing characteristics of primates. We kill, we deceive, we hurl ka ka at each other.

I understand crime better than you do. I lived in Massachussetts for 42 years and New Jersey for the past five years. Crime is every day news in these states. Things are so bad that honest makes front page headlines in these states.

ruveyn

I think the main purpose of incarceration is actually to act as a deterrent, at least according to some lame criminal justice class I took years ago. If there was no punishment for certain crimes, then suddenly you've got a lot of people saying "why not?" It has been studied and proven to be a not-so-effective tool, but other than resorting to an eye for an eye, what else is there to do? Our current prison system in the US, IMO, creates more crime than it prevents. I don't think letting "victimless crimes" to go without some sort of negative consequence is a good idea though. First we must be clear on what a victimless crime is. Does it mean a crime simply without violence? I think Bernie Madoff had a few victims. We definately need to lighten up on some of the sentences though, such as marijuana possession (I think it should be legal altogether). Really I could go on and on. The entire justice system seems to be in no better position than our healthcare system. I hate the idea that it often comes down to how much lawyer you can afford. You really can buy your way out. On the flip side, you can be arrested for breaking into your home too. From the cops to the lawyers to the guards - it's all pretty messed up if you ask me. I'm not trying to say that all cops/lawyers/guards are evil (they're not), there is just a lot room for error.

For rape, cut off their parts. For stealing, cut off their hands. For skateboarding, cut off their feet. They'll never offend again.
I'm dead serious.

So basically, Saudi Arabia.

What about sluts? Shall they be tolerated? If a woman is tolerable as a slut, then why not as a paid slut? If a woman isn't tolerated as a slut, then what should properly regulate sexual relations? Why that? How do you enforce whatever standard that is? What about sex dolls? If we replaced human prostitutes with sex dolls(hypothetically) then would that be ok? Why or why not?


I don't see how it is an indictment of anything. Prostitution is a job people don't want, but a service people fundamentally will want. I mean, it is a much MORE damning indictment of society if a woman could earn more by having mainstream employment than prostitution, as such would indicate a rather degraded view of sexuality because it would then be sold so cheaply.


Ok, well, why do women enter this profession? It seems to me that there are only a few basic reasons:
1) This field, even carrying the faults it has is better than other fields.
2) This field seems better due to imperfect information, but ends up not being that good, and so there is a high turnover rate.
3) The people who enter this field cannot determine their own best interests.
4) People who enter this field are somehow effectually enslaved.

Now, 2 can be solved by better information. 3 creates a problem as then one has to argue why these people are incompetent but you know better. 4 also has issues, as I know that more underground sex activities are more likely to have slaves, but some of this spectrum does not seem so underground that slavery is practical. Then if we get back to answer 1, then we have a number of problems with condemnation as it would seem to have to go hand in hand with some form of utopianism.


So, you want blackmarket prostitution like already goes on? I mean, you can be as morally indignant as hell, but as long as there are some people who want sex, and as long as there are people who can be induced to sell it, prostitution will continue and/or the sale of other sex acts. I mean, perhaps you have some utopian strand saying "I can really abolish it" but seriously, prostitution has been around a really long time and is sometimes called the "oldest profession". So, as long as there is deviance (which is unavoidable) then there is likely to be prostitution.

And of course, I am not trying to say "prostitution is amazing". I have no desire to deal with a prostitute. Too many trust issues. I do, however, tend to chafe with evangelical seeming moralists though, so I will admit that fault.


That doesn't make sense either. "asking for it" is a matter of actually asking. I mean, even if the bargaining period is short, there should be enough norms for it to be known.

ok

that's probably one of the worst arguments I've seen put forward, but hey, you think markets are rational, so, whatever.

well I should just hand wave this bit of nonesense away on the following grounds - you completely fail to understand my position, you utterly fail to anticipate my line of argument and you appear to be using loaded terminology to illicit a response from me, coming across as...bizarre. Can I translate a little? I'll go ahead and replace every instance of the use of the word 'slut' with 'woman who has sexual intercourse with more than X (an abitrarily determined) number of partners'. My position on sexuality is that any one individual can freely choose his or her sexual partners of any orientation, engage in a sexual act with said partner/partners, with as many different partners as they feel appropriate, have access to a range of contraceptive devices, legal abortion - to cut it short I support the radical feminism of say Helene Cixous, Emily Pankhurst and so on and an equally radical position on sex. Hence why you clearly fail to anticipate my line of argument.

Your attempts to co-opt sexual freedom to justify prostitution is one of the most despicable acts of sophistry I've encountered.

Now, as to why a 'paid slut' is not 'tolerable' then seeing as you are more than aware that I'm a Marxist you should (if you know something about it) anticipate the following argument - sex in prostitution is not 'sex' in the general definition -it is sex as commodity. In prostitution money is exchanged for sexual gratification and central to this is the female body which is both source of her labour force and the object for exchange. In order to acquire the wage of her labour a woman's body must become an object for exchange, a means to an end for her as well as her 'client'. As objectification is loss of the object - alienation - and to achieve commodification one must objectify something the process we can immediately identify here is the indivdual women being alienated from her own body - if your body is no longer your own, how then, is your humanity your own (a denial of sovereignty of one's body, so to speak)? The psychological effect of this should not need a great deal of outlining - this is the reason rape is considered a weapon of both war and torture - the psychological effect on the individual of this 'denial of sovereignty' is generally horrific.

The rest of that paragraph is empty sophistry and is therefore dismissed as such.



which is, again, one of the more bizarre statements I've ever come across. Prostitution does not sell sex per se but a very specific commodification of sex and sexuality. The market hasn't arrived at a value on sex and sexuality as such but on a very specific commodification thereof, which is an ontologically violent process.



1) hence why I say it is such a damning indictment of a society
2) there is a lot of money made in europe in the trafficking of girls from the age of 12/13, some younger, they are brought in "using forged Visas, false travel documents or visas obtained through corruption or deception" (article quoted here, taken from the observer 16 December 2007). They are then "held prisoner" and forced to remain in the brothel (slavery in the broadest meaning of the term). If there is any 'turnover' at all it's because not all can be prevented from escaping. Rape, violence and forced drug use is the general model for basic training - which also covers 3 (given both their age and that they are forced) and 4. Also the argument outlined above should address prostitution in, say, Nevada or Rhode Island.



Fortunate for us that I'm not an evangelical moralist then. Very basic, crude terms - end the market, you end the thing which takes sex and sexuality and turn sit into a very specific commodity which is seperate from actual sex and sexuality. I'm well aware that 'people' want sex, seeing as I'm one of them! Seriously, to follow Engels analysis of the family monogomy exists fundamentally to ensure that the male knows a child is his, not someone else's, and he can be safe in the knowledge that his own offspring is inheriting his wealth. The panoply of cultural, sociological and ideological practices around sexuality in favour of monogomy generally result from this basis (though it is not necessarily specific to capitalism, this is how it functions, in a feudal economy the reasons are the same). If polygamy or polyandry were practiced there would be no guarantee of this at all. Abolish private property and the private accumulation of wealth (meaning the end of the market) then there is nothing to inherit and paternal identity is no longer an issue in this matter. Have sex with who you please, contraception, right to abortion, children raised communally, property held communally.

Furthermore, when considering a mate the female under capitalism either will or must take into account the economic strength of the potential mate. How often does a female not take into consideration indicators of financial power when considering this matter - e.g possession of a motor vehicle, clothing and value thereof, profession etc etc ? When considering a mate a male will, in general, consider their physical attractiveness as a vital if not decisive issue - the attractiveness of their partner often being a general indicator (especially if the male is not attractive or far less attractive than the female) of their level of wealth. Which is to make, again, the woman's body something that can be exchanged or (to crudely borrow a term) 'secured' against a certain amount of wealth depending on the desirability of the female. If economic situation need not be considered then one is free to pursue one's sexuality at will.

Those men who argue that they're too ugly to use other than prostitutes, well, women don't bother with them because they can tell they hate women enough to justify to themselves the use of prostitutes rather than actually seeking out someone 'in their league' so to speak - that is they place too high an emphasis on a woman's value as a sexual object to reasonably look beyond it and take a partner who doesn't meet their standards of physical attractiveness.

"Oldest profession" my ass. Try mother, hunter-gatherer, farmer/peasant before that even gets on the radar. Not sure why you've invoked 'deviance' though. Very odd.



I think you should reread that part as I think in your eagerness to defend the market on this you have somehow managed to attribute some kind of 'bargaining period' to rape - does this come before or after the knife is pressed to her throat?

Last edited by TitusLucretiusCarus on 19 Aug 2009, 3:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Prostitution is the oldest occupation. It has been around for thousands of years, way before capitalism. In ancient Athens they heterah kept the men amused. Women have sold or traded sexual favors ever since when and they will continue to do so as long as there or men (or even other women) who wish to buy or trade.

ruveyn

bull. see above, toward the end. If you take 'profession' to be specific, specialised role performed within an economy then the oldest would be one of hunter or gatherer.

You haven't really put forward a position except for some vague moral outrage, so what am I arguing against? If anything, I am trying to narrow a position down into some lines where an argument will either exist, or the problem will disappear.


Most economists think that markets display some elements of rationality, the issue isn't whether they do, but how much at this point. Additionally given the massive organization of society that markets continually facilitate, it is essentially impossible for them to be completely irrational. Then again, I somehow doubt that you spend a lot of time looking over mainstream economic thought, and I imagine that you tend to dogmatically reject the premises more than anything else. (Ok, I'll be honest, I think the LTV is utterly stupid, and that the STV is by this point so obvious that it cannot reasonably be denied, so I've just said my piece there. And even if we get into the history, part of the issue is one of the nature of production now and then, as the modern economy is a lot more subjectively oriented than past economies as the most basic goods generally consume less of our income than before and have more subjectively important variety)


You haven't put down much of a position. You've stated: "sale of sexuality is wrong", "abuse exists within this", "abolition of sale of sexuality is a major reason to support socialism". We aren't even at a point of contention yet, I just suspect one exists.


I view "slut" as a perfectly fine term, at least for understanding the situation, as "woman who has sexual intercourse with more than X number of partners" is just too wordy, while slut expresses that, and um.... I have difficulty guessing at your actual position, so this kind of aggression does betray my line of thinking somewhat.

I didn't fail at anything. I don't have information about your opinion. By bringing this argument forward, I get closer to where a possible disagreement might exist. I also asked enough questions so that your position could potentially be seen, as if you just responded to each question, I would have a relatively good idea of what you are talking about.


I don't see a problem with it, as I am a capitalist. Genuine freedom exists in a framework of costs and benefits.


Yeah, I don't even understand the Marxist argument. To me, objectification is a natural result of any large-scale society, as it is just a matter of forming structures that facilitate relations between strangers, and efficient arrangements of large amounts of interest. Additionally, money neither adds nor subtracts from the issue, as objectification to me is just the result of any impersonal arrangement, and monetary arrangements can potentially be personal(a known repeat customer), while non-monetary arrangements can be rather objectifying(literal slavery is one).

Additionally, the analysis also seems flawed. The issue isn't "in order to acquire the wage of her labor" but rather "in order to acquire wages as a prostitute". So, to me, in a market situation, any costs of greater or lesser alienation are likely to be implicitly be included within a calculation for getting a job(not the only factor at all mind you). So, to me, the entire problem that you point to doesn't exist, especially since I don't think you can both really deny a general level of choice while saying that the wages are higher, as greed is likely a constant.

Yes, I am not going to say that rape isn't horrific. The issue is whether market arrangements are rape, because of the "gotta work to get money" argument really seems to fail to me given that there are various employers, and so most people will never have to be prostitutes.


Prostitution sells a sexually related service. I mean, yes, there is sex involved, but sometimes there isn't intrusive sexual acts(I think some customers will buy handjobs) and sometimes there is just companionship(more likely amongst prostitutes for wealthier clients).

In any case, I am not really much of one for ontology. I mean, I am not outright anti-metaphysical, I think people who try to utterly disregard those matters are fools, but people who think they have somehow grasped a fundamental working are also fools. To say that sex transactions(or whatever you want to call it) is ontologically violent, seems to demand that there is some essence of sex and perhaps an essence of transactions and they somehow blend together and create violence, and this is absurd. There is no essence to sex, or to transactions. They're human mental constructs, and if the human mind were different, our way of regarding both sex and transactions could be radically different.


I don't see a damning indictment here though. I see nothing but an assertion of a damning indictment.

Umm... actually that mostly just addresses 4 and you are basically saying "prostitution is evil because people do illegal things", and the problem isn't prostitution so much as the illegal things. After all, the women in question weren't being paid at all, and that is problematic even under a capitalist ethic. After all, these problems exist even in an underground sex market. I would imagine that Britain's problems likely are made worse by their higher regulation of the matter, as from what I've heard, New Zealand's prostitution system is generally better than that practiced in most other places.


I don't agree with your analysis of the market. I also don't think you can force the cultural changes you want other than trying to implement the proto-Fascist Republic that Plato conceived. Finally, I would imagine that an imperfect monogamy is more likely a human tendency, I mean, the notion of cheating in a relationship seems to go much deeper than property, especially given that it exists in non-married couples. This could just be a cultural institution, but at the same time I have a doubt that this range of emotions is just somehow magically created by property, as it seems too human. The same thing with identification of a child as a person's son or daughter. This is not to say that societies where variations exist is impossible, there are exceptions to many rules, but the notion that property calculations created these rich emotions just seems absurd on it's face.


Umm... economics doesn't get in the way of freedom. I mean, there are multiple non-economic factors that will change mating behavior. I mean, women look at wealth because wealth is a measurement of status, not because wealth is everything. All that eliminating wealth does is that it causes other elements of status to become more important, and I would imagine that most of these other elements of status generally correlated with wealth just the same.

So, the notion of an exchange I think is somewhat unavoidable. Human relations are either going to be necessary, like in a small tribe, or they are going to be essentially based upon a market where the flashier parties win. That's just how human relationships work. There is always an eye for status, an eye for status exists within many social organisms, like wolves.


So, you want to remove the sexual attraction from sex? Also, how do you measure "too high" for a subjective value? Isn't that just the imposition of a value judgment, and thus essentially an evangelical morality once again?


If you abolish prostitution then you will have criminal prostitution, not even necessarily for reasons of a need for money, but more likely for a rejection of societal standards with resources possibly being a lubrication.


No, I haven't. I am actually saying that rape has no bargaining period, thus the argument they made is flawed. I mean, if there was a bargaining period, and the knife was either part of a norm or part of the agreement, then the problem doesn't exist so much. But your statement shows clearly that there is no knife in what we consider bargaining.

All in all, I consider your views as silly. I am sure you will just claim that I am a capitalist, and am just trying to defend capitalism, but I think that dogmatism hits your side more so than my side. Especially since Marxism is a particular socialist theory amongst many, but I am not sure if you can identify me *too* strongly with any particular capitalist theory. After all, my points about choice can even be made by a mainstream economist, and few of those consider themselves dogmatically capitalist(many even thought that the USSR would work until it didn't), and I am certainly not a Rothbardian or an Objectivist.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32482338/ns ... ay_people/

http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_jordan_p ... stats.html

oh sweet lord this is a thankless task

well done, awesomelyglorious, well done. exactly how much was spent on raising you to this level of profound ignorance?

honestly unless you can identify the problem here:

then I don't see why I shouldn't flat ignore you. Without going into any further debates on the relevance or truth value of either theory, identify the flaw in that post. Anyone care to tell me why I should have to contend with the trite observations of a mal-educated and grandiloquent little boy? Why the hell do I have to wade through the asinine posts of someone who has anointed himself the grand inquisitor with a chronic case of verbal diarrhea simply because somebody else forked out a couple thousand dollars to put some dead ideas in his head which he puts a case against.

every time I read something you've written to try and criticise someone else I feel this happens:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY&feature=fvst[/youtube]

now how's about you respect my right to free association and jog on?

I suppose that there is a lot that an economist could do with data on prisons.

Prisons are extremely important to the economy of America. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Having a prison in your neighborhood helps to bring boatloads of federal dollars to your community. Prisoners are a cheap source of labour.

If you need health care, you can commit a sin against the government, get condemned to prison, and the government will take care of you (at least to some extent).

In prison, at least you won't starve to death.

We have a huge gulag of prisons in the USA.

I'm sure that tons of economic treatises could be written.

Also, sociological treatises. History dissertations. Theological sermons. Etc.

We need prisons for the same reason that we need schools and churches, and for the same reason that Hitler needed gas chambers. Prisons bring people together. Our prisons are very important to our national identity, and a great source of civic pride. What would America be without Prisons? Just another Liberal Socialist nightmare, like Canada.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Adolph Hitler both did some of their best writing while in prison.

Prisons help to promote homosexuality, and to prevent certain rascals from breeding, at least for a time.

in the united states, the purpose of incarceration is to generate a profit.


just ask anyone who works for the prison industry lobby or ask anyone who handles dick cheney's money (he's invested in a few prison firms).

You sound pretty full of yourself, even for a preachy aspie.

Bull back at you.

Sluttery(can I call it that?) is a trade in value. Perhaps an exchange in sex(entertainment), or the illusion of affection. Sometimes its a means of food or temporary shelter. I saw enough of it working in the bars to know.

Sexual slavery(especially of minors) is a tiny part of prostitution. Your experience is obviously very limited. The range of prostitution that you consider is very limited. I'll relate 3 examples of women who entered or engage in prostitution for reasons which they chose, as adults, without the coercion of another person.

The first was a woman whom I worked with at the bar. She was a waitress. We learned the hard way what she was up to when we all went for breakfast one morning after the bar closed. Her cell phone rang, and she proceeded to have a conversation in front of us with a potential client. Terms, time limits and prices were discussed.

There was no middle man(pimp, agent, madam), no coercion(she expressed excitement while on the phone), and she called all the shots(pricing, et al).

The second example was a patron at the bar. She was what might colloquially be called 'a slut'. She entered the prostitution business willingly through an escort agency. She said to me one day "I like to F*ck, and now I get paid for it".

Both these women were adults, rational, and functionally intelligent. By the way, both ended up with an aura of creepiness. That industry does something to people.

The third was a woman I encountered on the street recently. This happened at 10am in the morning. She walked up to me and said "hi". When I responded back, she asked me what I was doing. I said "finishing working, and then going home".

She then said "Do you want some company?"

I said "no thanks". The implication was revealed in her next words "Do you have any change then? I am hungry."

The fact was, she was some sort of street person. She was certainly motivated, but notice that she offered her services freely. Only when I turned it down did she make plain her need. She wasnt looking for anything more than shelter and sustenance(though she would have asked for more than pocket change).

Next: Animals engage in prostitution. Good luck wiping it out in humans.

Monkeys: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/monk ... 00767.html


Penguins: http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/art ... cleID=1039


Are you pontificating or do you have any personal practical exposure with prostitution?

well, I am trying to look at it ontologically and I'm looking at it in general. I fail to see why I should have had to have paid for sex to grasp anything about it (and I'm pretty glad I've never paid for it, thanks.) And yes my experience of sexually enslaving minors is non-existent - why is that a problem? I'm trying to address the issue on an ontological level. Nor do I question the intellectual ability of those you mention.
So, first of all:

Which is the point I'm trying to make ontologically - that industry does something to people

now,



your first example is of a woman who works in one of the lowest paid jobs in not only the US but much of western europe, which would help to support my position that when a society cannot provide a better alternative (e.g. well paid enough job waitressing ) than prostitution, it is a sign that society cannot properly provide for it's individuals. I'm saying that holds insofar as the ontological argument holds that prostitution (amongst other areas briefly mentioned), is an objectifying and ontologically violent process which reduces a human being to sexual object etc.



a highly valid and useful example as a counterpoint



an example which would fully support my position, she offered sex in exchange for money because she had no home, no food and nothing else to exchange but her labour as a prostitute. Surely a very basic measurement of the success or otherwise of a society would be based upon its ability to provide decent work, food and shelter to its population? She certainly didn't offer her services freely, she was starving in the street. She only offered sex first because sex draws in a higher wage than that of a beggar and when it became clear that you didn't want to exchange money for her time as a prostitute she begged for money, which indicates where abouts it comes in the range of options for some, righ tbefore begging. You cite an example from which you draw faulty conclusions.



chimps also throw their crap at each other, perhaps I should throw a fresh one at my mother the next time we have an argument?

dolphins have also been found to gang rape female dolphins, why don't we just scrap legislation against rape? why bother jailing rapists if animals do it as well? Sociobiology has it's appliactions and is a useful intellectual pursuit but like any other science it can be abused, some would use it as a reason for a little denkverbot.