Page 10 of 23 [ 368 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 23  Next


Should Prostitution be Legal?
I'm male, and I say "Yay!" 66%  66%  [ 103 ]
I'm male, and I say "Neigh!" 14%  14%  [ 22 ]
I'm female, and I say "Yes" 15%  15%  [ 23 ]
I'm female, and I say "No" 5%  5%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 155

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

27 Oct 2012, 7:41 am

puddingmouse wrote:
I don't advocate making prostitution illegal, whatsoever.

Oh. Then why are we arguing?

puddingmouse wrote:
No, my position is that no well-of-mind person would buy sex. Selling sex is a reasonable choice in some circumstances.

If no one buys sex, no one can sell it.

ArrantPariah wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
I don't understand how you can get off with a partner who's only doing it for the money.

An orgasm is an orgasm.

I would imagine that an orgasm within a relationship is different from an orgasm without.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

27 Oct 2012, 7:56 am

enrico_dandolo wrote:
Oh. Then why are we arguing?


I think prostitution is misrepresented and I don't think other people that favour it's legality are intellectually honest about the harms it causes. There are studies that have shown that the number or trafficked women and girls increases after legalisation and regulation - and so does the number of child prostitutes. Also, legalisation and regulation as they are currently enacted don't offer the prostitutes much more in the way of safety and healthcare. I can go into more detail about this if you like, but currently in places where prostitution is regulated, the emphasis is on protecting the punter, not the prostitutes. Pretending that legalisation and regulation in themselves will solve the 'problems' of abuse of prostitutes is dangerous.

I think we need a completely different approach to this if we are going to legalise and regulate it.

enrico_dandolo wrote:
If no one buys sex, no one can sell it.


That doesn't alter my position. Just because a non-pathological activity is dependant on a pathological one doesn't change the nature of those activities.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

27 Oct 2012, 8:15 am

enrico_dandolo wrote:
I would imagine that an orgasm within a relationship is different from an orgasm without.


All that you are doing is squirting semen. Same difference.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

27 Oct 2012, 8:44 am

puddingmouse wrote:
Also, prostitution can't be the oldest profession. You would have to have food or goods to exchange for it, which would mean something like hunting or gathering would be the oldest professions.


From the Epic of Gilgamesh, which goes back to the 18th century BC

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mes ... h/tab1.htm

Quote:
Gilgamesh said to the trapper:
"Go, trapper, bring the harlot, Shamhat, with you.
When the animals are drinking at the watering place
have her take off her robe and expose her sex.
When he sees her he will draw near to her,
and his animals, who grew up in his wilderness, will be alien to him."

The trapper went, bringing the harlot, Shamhat, with him.
They set off on the journey, making direct way.
On the third day they arrived at the appointed place,
and the trapper and the harlot sat down at their posts.

A first day and a second they sat opposite the watering hole.
The animals arrived and drank at the watering hole,
the wild beasts arrived and slaked their thirst with water.

Then he, Enkidu, offspring of the mountains,
who eats grasses with the gazelles,
came to drink at the watering hole with the animals,
with the wild beasts he slaked his thirst with water.

Then Shamhat saw him--a primitive,
a savage fellow from the depths of the wilderness!

"That is he, Shamhat! Release your clenched arms,
expose your sex so he can take in your voluptuousness.
Do not be restrained--take his energy!
When he sees you he will draw near to you.
Spread out your robe so he can lie upon you,
and perform for this primitive the task of womankind!
His animals, who grew up in his wilderness, will become alien to him,
and his lust will groan over you."

Shamhat unclutched her bosom, exposed her sex, and he took in her voluptuousness.
She was not restrained, but took his energy.
She spread out her robe and he lay upon her,
she performed for the primitive the task of womankind.

His lust groaned over her;
for six days and seven nights Enkidu stayed aroused,
and had intercourse with the harlot
until he was sated with her charms.

But when he turned his attention to his animals,
the gazelles saw Enkidu and darted off,
the wild animals distanced themselves from his body.
Enkidu ... his utterly depleted body,
his knees that wanted to go off with his animals went rigid;
Enkidu was diminished, his running was not as before.

But then he drew himself up, for his understanding had broadened.
Turning around, he sat down at the harlot's feet,
gazing into her face, his ears attentive as the harlot spoke.

The harlot said to Enkidu:
"You are beautiful, Enkidu, you are become like a god.
Why do you gallop around the wilderness with the wild beasts?
Come, let me bring you into Uruk-Haven,
to the Holy Temple, the residence of Anu and Ishtar,
the place of Gilgamesh, who is wise to perfection,
but who struts his power over the people like a wild bull."

What she kept saying found favor with him.
Becoming aware of himself, he sought a friend.

Enkidu spoke to the harlot:
"Come, Shamhat, take me away with you
to the sacred Holy Temple, the residence of Anu and Ishtar,
the place of Gilgamesh, who is wise to perfection,
but who struts his power over the people like a wild bull.
I will challenge him ...
Let me shout out in Uruk: I am the mighty one!'
Lead me in and I will change the order of things;
he whose strength is mightiest is the one born in the wilderness!"

[Shamhat to Enkidu:]
"Come, let us go, so he may see your face.
I will lead you to Gilgamesh--I know where he will be.
Look about, Enkidu, inside Uruk-Haven,
where the people show off in skirted finery,
where every day is a day for some festival,
where the lyre and drum play continually,
where harlots stand about prettily,
exuding voluptuousness, full of laughter
and on the couch of night the sheets are spread!"


Executive ejaculatory administrators, or harlots, standing prettily about, and exuding voluptuousness, were an important part of what made ancient city life attractive.

This is from one of the oldest extant pieces of literature, and may be the oldest story of seduction. That Shamhat must have been one gorgeous piece of ass. After a week of shagging, Enkidu couldn't get up to chase after his animals, and went with her into the city, which she made out to be even better than Oz. Enkidu is definitely smitten with this particular executive ejaculatory assistant.



Last edited by ArrantPariah on 27 Oct 2012, 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

27 Oct 2012, 8:45 am

Quote:
Should Prostitution be Legal?

Yes, prostitutes are awesome.



27 Oct 2012, 9:22 am

puddingmouse wrote:
The difference in size and strength between the sexes seems to be evident in early humans. The only mammal where this doesn't seem to lead to male dominance I know of, is bonobos. Also, the sheer overwhelming number of patriarchies on the planet suggests to me that the system has some origin in human biology (which doesn't mean it ought not to be challenged). I'm always sceptical when someone claims that some society or other is 'matriarchal' but I will look up the group you gave as an example.

I think humans are much closer to chimpanzees than bonobos



Social dominance among humans isn't based on sheer size and strength, it's based on manipulating big strong men. And in the modern age of firearms, size and strength are useless against somebody with a gun. People will go along with just about anything if you present it to them in the right way.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

27 Oct 2012, 9:27 am

puddingmouse wrote:
I'm always sceptical when someone claims that some society or other is 'matriarchal' but I will look up the group you gave as an example.


England has a Queen. Which makes England a Matriarchy.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

27 Oct 2012, 12:16 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
The difference in size and strength between the sexes seems to be evident in early humans. The only mammal where this doesn't seem to lead to male dominance I know of, is bonobos. Also, the sheer overwhelming number of patriarchies on the planet suggests to me that the system has some origin in human biology (which doesn't mean it ought not to be challenged). I'm always sceptical when someone claims that some society or other is 'matriarchal' but I will look up the group you gave as an example.

I think humans are much closer to chimpanzees than bonobos



Social dominance among humans isn't based on sheer size and strength, it's based on manipulating big strong men. And in the modern age of firearms, size and strength are useless against somebody with a gun. People will go along with just about anything if you present it to them in the right way.


We're talking about social dominance in a primitive context.



27 Oct 2012, 12:57 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
The difference in size and strength between the sexes seems to be evident in early humans. The only mammal where this doesn't seem to lead to male dominance I know of, is bonobos. Also, the sheer overwhelming number of patriarchies on the planet suggests to me that the system has some origin in human biology (which doesn't mean it ought not to be challenged). I'm always sceptical when someone claims that some society or other is 'matriarchal' but I will look up the group you gave as an example.

I think humans are much closer to chimpanzees than bonobos



Social dominance among humans isn't based on sheer size and strength, it's based on manipulating big strong men. And in the modern age of firearms, size and strength are useless against somebody with a gun. People will go along with just about anything if you present it to them in the right way.


We're talking about social dominance in a primitive context.



I'm aware of that. But humans are wired for social interaction and social dominance that is non based purely on strength not only exists, but exists in tribal societies as well as civilization. Humans are not chimpanzees, and IDK how chimps form social orders and/or if it's based purely on raw strength. Since we are the only surviving hominids it's questionable how other hominids organized their societies.


You personally feel a sense of powerlessness from being female because you were sexually abused by men during your formative years. But although you may feel that way, that doesn't imply that women have no power in society just because they are physically weaker.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

27 Oct 2012, 2:29 pm

Ancient matriarchal societies existed. The Edenites were a matriarchal society.



blackelk
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 308
Location: New York

27 Oct 2012, 2:33 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
@Jacoby
I think the potential for psychological injury from being a sex worker is as high as that for being a soldier who goes to war. I think both roles are perpetuated by patriarchy. I'm as critical of the military as I am of the sex industry.

That's why it's different to other jobs: I don't think it would exist if patriarchy didn't exist. Thinking of sex as something you can buy is a pathology created by patriarchy. The supply is simply created to meet the demand - wanting to make money is not pathological.

I support legalised and regulated prostitution because for practical reasons: we live under patriarchy and will for the forseeable future.



Prostitution predates the patriarchy and is the oldest profession known to humanity. It goes back as far as recorded history(almost 7000 years! 8O ).


I'm not a believer in the ancient matriarchies. I believe patriarchy is at least as old as Homo sapiens.
Also, prostitution can't be the oldest profession. You would have to have food or goods to exchange for it, which would mean something like hunting or gathering would be the oldest professions.


I think medicine man is the oldest profession. Remember reading that somewhere.


_________________
"Meaninglessness inhibits fullness of life and is therefore equivalent to illness. Meaning makes a great many things endurable ? perhaps everything.?


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

27 Oct 2012, 2:38 pm

blackelk wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
@Jacoby
I think the potential for psychological injury from being a sex worker is as high as that for being a soldier who goes to war. I think both roles are perpetuated by patriarchy. I'm as critical of the military as I am of the sex industry.

That's why it's different to other jobs: I don't think it would exist if patriarchy didn't exist. Thinking of sex as something you can buy is a pathology created by patriarchy. The supply is simply created to meet the demand - wanting to make money is not pathological.

I support legalised and regulated prostitution because for practical reasons: we live under patriarchy and will for the forseeable future.



Prostitution predates the patriarchy and is the oldest profession known to humanity. It goes back as far as recorded history(almost 7000 years! 8O ).


I'm not a believer in the ancient matriarchies. I believe patriarchy is at least as old as Homo sapiens.
Also, prostitution can't be the oldest profession. You would have to have food or goods to exchange for it, which would mean something like hunting or gathering would be the oldest professions.


I think medicine man is the oldest profession. Remember reading that somewhere.


Still, harlotry was vital to building civilization, in order to make the switch from hunting/gathering/medicine-man to city-state.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

27 Oct 2012, 4:05 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
The difference in size and strength between the sexes seems to be evident in early humans. The only mammal where this doesn't seem to lead to male dominance I know of, is bonobos. Also, the sheer overwhelming number of patriarchies on the planet suggests to me that the system has some origin in human biology (which doesn't mean it ought not to be challenged). I'm always sceptical when someone claims that some society or other is 'matriarchal' but I will look up the group you gave as an example.

I think humans are much closer to chimpanzees than bonobos



Social dominance among humans isn't based on sheer size and strength, it's based on manipulating big strong men. And in the modern age of firearms, size and strength are useless against somebody with a gun. People will go along with just about anything if you present it to them in the right way.


We're talking about social dominance in a primitive context.



I'm aware of that. But humans are wired for social interaction and social dominance that is non based purely on strength not only exists, but exists in tribal societies as well as civilization. Humans are not chimpanzees, and IDK how chimps form social orders and/or if it's based purely on raw strength. Since we are the only surviving hominids it's questionable how other hominids organized their societies.


You personally feel a sense of powerlessness from being female because you were sexually abused by men during your formative years. But although you may feel that way, that doesn't imply that women have no power in society just because they are physically weaker.


It's not just strength; I think human males are hardwired to seek dominance.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

27 Oct 2012, 4:24 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
England has a Queen. Which makes England [sic] a Matriarchy.


The Queen has no meaningful political power. She is but a figurehead and a relic of an institution that has long ceased to have any relevancy or purpose.

the United Kingdom is not a matriarchy. The real power resides with an unelected old boys club in Westminster called the 'House of Lords'.



27 Oct 2012, 4:29 pm

puddingmouse wrote:

It's not just strength; I think human males are hardwired to seek dominance.


No, human BEINGS are hardwired to seek dominance! No matter what sex they are or, who they prefer to have sex with, or what gender they identify themselves as. No disrespect, but is this really not clear to you? Dominance can be achieved by other means besides raw strength. The most powerful men in this world are not the biggest and strongest.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

27 Oct 2012, 4:31 pm

AspieRogue wrote:

No, human BEINGS are hardwired to seek dominance! No matter what sex they are or, who they prefer to have sex with, or what gender they identify themselves as.


I disagree. If this is true for women, it's more true for men.