Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Schraf and Satcomm hand in hand against victimless crimes
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 54 (32158)
02-13-2003 6:03 PM


[QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++
Prostitution is a victimless crime?
Do you know how many prostitutes (and strippers) were also sexually violated as young children?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You just lost all of your credibility with me schraf. I cannot believe you'd use the same illogical ad hominem scare crap used by creationists to support your own personal opinions.
The fact that Satcomm is in agreement should indicate how far astray you've gone, but pointing that out is not going to cut it with me (it's simply guilt by association, and adhominem).
Prepare for a major spanking in logic.
A "victimless" crime is distinguished from other crimes, because all parties involved have consented to the activity in question. A consensual activity, crime or other, does not suddenly change to nonconsensual simply because the person was a victim of another crime in the past.
For example, if a large percentage of secretaries turned out to have been violated as children, that WOULD NOT make being a secretary a NONCONSENSUAL activity.
So, to answer your question, do I know how many X were victimized as children? Not exactly, no.
Does it matter? Not one bit.
And this holds true even if I were to accept your "do you know" insinuation, as if to suggest close to 90% of prostitutes had been abused.
Other than Dworkin's flawed "I asked my man-hating friends" studies, we both know such statistics are not likely. But by all means if you have some credible statistics, bring 'em on.
Before you do though, I should point out that it would be more important (statistically) to show how many people that were violated became X, than how many X were violated... that is if you want to make the charge that engaging in X is beyond the will of those who have been victimized (which means they are incapable of truly giving consent) and so becomes an extension of their victimization.
Then again, while you are compiling those statistics why not find out how many abused children become adults that drink. Or how about how many go to therapy? How about how many get rank and file jobs (like the secretary example above) instead of administrative level jobs?
In general, do people with self-esteem issues stemming from childhood traumas (sexual or other), tend toward activities and occupations considered "lower" or "illicit" or indicative of "having problems"? Hmmmmmmm. Does that make all of those activities nonconsensual and so further parts of their victimization?
Should victims be the rule by which society measures allowable activity for people who have not been victimized?
[QUOTE] by schraf+++++++++++++++++++
Sure, in a Disney world all prostitutes are doing it out of a healthy self-esteem and free choice, but how often do you really think this is the case, even where leagal?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is probably the comment that sent me over the edge.
How many people with jobs at DisneyWorld are doing it out of healthy self-esteem and free choice (think particularly hard about the people picking up trash and scrubbing toilets)? How often do you think that's the case ANYWHERE and in ANY POSITION which is not glamorous?
Realistically, most people take the jobs they have out of economic necessity and what was available to them, because most jobs are service jobs with relatively low pay and little esteem-building potential.
If your response is that most people consider prostitution lower than most other jobs, all I have to say is that a majority of people in the US believe in Xtianity. Just because people think something does not make it so, other than in the "self-fulfilling prophecy" style witchhunt activities (and circular logic use) which follow.
Let's take a licensed masseuse as a starting example. Nothing wrong there. Just someone rubbing other people's body parts, working out stress and giving pleasure to relax their client. I assume you don't believe THAT is wrong (even if statistically they were all abused as children).
But should that masseuse start rubbing certain areas of skin, and working out certain types of stresses, then that person becomes "unskilled" and "untalented" and "a prostitute". The person would suddenly be "lower."
Well schraf, that only happens when one starts with the belief that sexual organs, and sexual pleasure, and sexual tensions are "lower" or more base than other organic realities of being a human. It only happens when you attach a certain amount of guilt to such body parts and activities.
In other words, it only happens to the degree of prudishness you have grown up with or have since accepted into your life.
Here's a wake up call. There are many cultures which do not hold this view at all. Actual living people (who have not been abused as children) really do believe that the human body is natural, that it's functions are normal, and that sexuality is basically good and pleasurable. This means no guilt or shame. No necessary difference (except level of pleasure) between the masseuse and the prostitute (or other sexual career).
This is not to say that all people in the sex industry are part of this culture.
I'm certain that, due to the ease and speed it can make a person money, sexual careers draw people in on a financial basis rather than because the participants are openminded. And I would agree with your conclusion, that this is a mistake for such people (those with self-esteem issues). But I would say the same thing for scrubbing toilets for the rest of their lives (an activity many people view as lower than prostitution... I certainly would).
What this does mean, is that there are people in the industry who haven't been abused and enjoy what they do and do not agree that their work is "lower" than other job choices. They simply have different standards than you.
Thank the Gods for different standards. Vive le difference! For without that, we might not have toilet scrubbers at all.
As it is, some countries and even some US states allow for prostitution (and other sexual occupations). It is legal there and so not a crime, much less a victimless one.
If you want to know how many people in those areas choose to do it because they like it, why don't you (instead of making insinuations) buy a ticket and find out for yourself. I'd recommend visiting the Prostitution Information Center in Amsterdam... they'd certainly shed some light on the subject (even if it is a red light).
Personally (while in the free countries of Europe) I have known prostitutes, and nonprostitutes. I have known people abused when they were children and people that were not. None of the people that were abused became prostitutes. Those that chose to become prostitutes, did so because they could make good money at something they liked and for which they felt no guilt at all.
I realize that this is a personal anecdote and so not statistically conclusive. But it is more real than your insinuations used to paint an entire profession and the people within that profession with broad strokes from your prudish palette.
And yes it is a profession--- in free countries--- just like being a masseuse. In fact it is the world's oldest profession, especially if one trusts comparisons between Bonobo communities and early human culture. Then again Bonobos "rape" their children from early ages so that must "prove" that their prostitution-style activities were caused by childabuse. Damn dirty apes!
[QUOTE] by satcomm+++++++++++++++++++++
I think that child abuse goes hand in hand with other social disorders, as well. I'm sure one could find all sorts of childhood skeletons in the closets of people who commit murder, pedophilia, homosexuality, and abuse in general.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I could have built a slippery-slope argument about where schraf's prudish ideas lead, but why build one when Satcomm provides a reallife example.
Interestingly enough, Satcomm either left "rampant liberalism" off the list of disorders, or maybe that's the cause for child abuse in the first place?
I would love to have your (Schraf's) comments on Satcomm's charges of homosexuality being caused by child abuse. What if the statistics favor abused children becoming homosexual over entering sexual careers, would that mean homosexuality is nonconsensual and so no longer a victimless crime? I guess I'm assuming (given the PC crap you just spouted) that you wouldn't have anything against homosexuality. And let's not forget the drinking problem I mentioned earlier. Should we bring back sodomy laws and prohibition?
In a "turnaround is fair play" tactic, I'd love to have Satcomm's explanation regarding Xtian connections to childabuse, specifically those relating Xtian teachings to abuse of children (in the name of Xtianity)and/or the children who then become killers. How about the social disorders of war (crusades), religious and racial bigotry (take your pick), and imposed ignorance (the inquisition, and current laws altering definitions of science in favor of ID theory)? Start looking things up (even in the bible), I think you'll find the connections startling.
Somehow though, I bet both of you guys turn your back on statistics or the conclusions you'd be forced to draw (given your stand on prostitution) on these particular issues.
Or maybe the lesson will sink in? I hope so, especially for schraf. I've had a lot of respect for you (logically) up till now. Believe me this spanking hurt me much worse than it hurt you.
holmes

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 02-13-2003 6:50 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 3 by Satcomm, posted 02-14-2003 2:30 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 19 by nator, posted 02-17-2003 1:39 AM Silent H has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 54 (32164)
02-13-2003 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-13-2003 6:03 PM


quote:
A consensual activity, crime or other, does not suddenly change to nonconsensual simply because the person was a victim of another crime in the past.
Though I usually agree with Shraf, that isn't the case this time. Your comment above conveys my thoughts when I read Shraf's message. She has her causality backwards.
Great post, by the way. Saved me a lot of effort.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-13-2003 6:03 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 54 (32267)
02-14-2003 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-13-2003 6:03 PM


quote:
You just lost all of your credibility with me schraf.
I find this statement most amusing. Like your "credibility" really matters on a forum where people post their opinions anonymously. You're just mad because another left-leaning person thought for themselves and didn't simply "tow the party line" like you.
quote:
The fact that Satcomm is in agreement should indicate how far astray you've gone, but pointing that out is not going to cut it with me (it's simply guilt by association, and adhominem).
Translation: Oh no! We can't agree with the "Religious Zealot"! That would make us bigoted hypocrites!
quote:
Prepare for a major spanking in logic.
LOL, sorry Mr. Spock, you haven't driven out your emotions sufficiently to understand logic.
quote:
A "victimless" crime is distinguished from other crimes, because all parties involved have consented to the activity in question. A consensual activity, crime or other, does not suddenly change to nonconsensual simply because the person was a victim of another crime in the past.
Psychology disagrees with you. There are plenty of cases where one or more of the "consenting" parties have had some sort of childhood trauma.
quote:
For example, if a large percentage of secretaries turned out to have been violated as children, that WOULD NOT make being a secretary a NONCONSENSUAL activity.
What does consensual activity have to do with a profession or career? Oh I'm sorry, the secretary has to consent to taking the job in the first place. Hmmm, that fits in with prostitution nicely. I doubt many prostitutes said when they were kids "Mommy, I want to be a prostitute when I grow up."
quote:
So, to answer your question, do I know how many X were victimized as children? Not exactly, no.
Therefore your argument is a baseless asertion based on your own political bias.
quote:
Does it matter? Not one bit.
And this holds true even if I were to accept your "do you know" insinuation, as if to suggest close to 90% of prostitutes had been abused.
So it may be that 9/10 prostitutes were abused and the other 1/10 simply needed cash to get by, and they knew some friends who were making a lot of money in the business. How does this support your claim?
quote:
Other than Dworkin's flawed "I asked my man-hating friends" studies, we both know such statistics are not likely. But by all means if you have some credible statistics, bring 'em on.
Before you do though, I should point out that it would be more important (statistically) to show how many people that were violated became X, than how many X were violated... that is if you want to make the charge that engaging in X is beyond the will of those who have been victimized (which means they are incapable of truly giving consent) and so becomes an extension of their victimization.
Then again, while you are compiling those statistics why not find out how many abused children become adults that drink. Or how about how many go to therapy? How about how many get rank and file jobs (like the secretary example above) instead of administrative level jobs?
So you are prefacing, in preparation for her response, the fact that you will not accept any statistical data because there are other nonsensical ideas of yours involved?
quote:
In general, do people with self-esteem issues stemming from childhood traumas (sexual or other), tend toward activities and occupations considered "lower" or "illicit" or indicative of "having problems"? Hmmmmmmm. Does that make all of those activities nonconsensual and so further parts of their victimization?
Occupations and actions that are "lower" or "illicit" or "indicative of having problems" are often cyclic from youth. There is a cycle of trauma that progresses and often strongly influences the actions of the person in adulthood. I think that was the simple point being made in the first place.
quote:
Should victims be the rule by which society measures allowable activity for people who have not been victimized?
Just because a person had childhood trauma does not equal them being innocent of the current crimes they commit. It is merely being pointed out that childhood trauma plays a role in their decisions. They are still guilty of the crimes they commit, regardless. It was always their choice to make.
quote:
I could have built a slippery-slope argument about where schraf's prudish ideas lead, but why build one when Satcomm provides a reallife example.
I can't tell if this is an attack on my character, or if you're referring to an example I have posted. Either way, you use the term ad hominem hypocritically.
quote:
Interestingly enough, Satcomm either left "rampant liberalism" off the list of disorders, or maybe that's the cause for child abuse in the first place?
I don't consider "rampant liberalism" a social disorder. At least not yet. I consider it a bad choice in mentality.
quote:
I would love to have your (Schraf's) comments on Satcomm's charges of homosexuality being caused by child abuse. What if the statistics favor abused children becoming homosexual over entering sexual careers, would that mean homosexuality is nonconsensual and so no longer a victimless crime? I guess I'm assuming (given the PC crap you just spouted) that you wouldn't have anything against homosexuality. And let's not forget the drinking problem I mentioned earlier. Should we bring back sodomy laws and prohibition?
This is a pointless argument. Schraf has demonstrated in the past that her and my views on homosexuality are totally different. So there we have it. Just because her and I agree on one issue, doesn't mean that we both agree on everything. That's a pretty narrow-minded assertion.
quote:
In a "turnaround is fair play" tactic, I'd love to have Satcomm's explanation regarding Xtian connections to childabuse, specifically those relating Xtian teachings to abuse of children (in the name of Xtianity)and/or the children who then become killers. How about the social disorders of war (crusades), religious and racial bigotry (take your pick), and imposed ignorance (the inquisition, and current laws altering definitions of science in favor of ID theory)? Start looking things up (even in the bible), I think you'll find the connections startling.
You'd love to hear my comments based on my faith in CHRISTianity so you can aptly criticize them?
You score no points by attacking the historical church in general.
quote:
Somehow though, I bet both of you guys turn your back on statistics or the conclusions you'd be forced to draw (given your stand on prostitution) on these particular issues.
Nah, I'd turn my back on statistical data that is either nonsensical or not pertainent to the issue at hand.
quote:
Or maybe the lesson will sink in? I hope so, especially for schraf. I've had a lot of respect for you (logically) up till now. Believe me this spanking hurt me much worse than it hurt you.
A man leading, correcting, and disciplining a woman goes against her philosophy.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-13-2003 6:03 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by John, posted 02-14-2003 2:54 PM Satcomm has replied
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2003 6:33 PM Satcomm has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 54 (32271)
02-14-2003 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Satcomm
02-14-2003 2:30 PM


quote:
Psychology disagrees with you. There are plenty of cases where one or more of the "consenting" parties have had some sort of childhood trauma.
So some people, even many people, who are prostitutes/frequent prostitutes have a history of abuse, you haven't said anything about consent. Does past abuse mean that a person is unable to consent? It would seem to follow from your statement. If the only criteria is "some sort of childhood trauma" then precious few people ought to be able the consent to anything.
The issue, at any rate, is whether prostition is a victimless crime. The argument given was that many prostitutes were abused as children. Sorry, but the casuality is backward. You can argue that abuse produces prostitution, but not that the prostitution produced the childhood abuse-- which, quite obviously, happened PRIOR to the prostitution. And it is this later case that must apply for this particular argument that prostitution is not a victimless crime to stand.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Satcomm, posted 02-14-2003 2:30 PM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Satcomm, posted 02-14-2003 7:17 PM John has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 5 of 54 (32276)
02-14-2003 3:14 PM


Interesting topic.
As has been suggested, I wonder how many non-prostitutes/strippers were sexually (or otherwise) abused as children?
It is odd that when we throw sex into the mix, suddenly we enter this odd twilight zone. And it comes from all sides.
On the right, we get Victorian minded infantilistic prudes like Ashcroft and pals, some of whom want to outlaw sodomy between conseting adults in their own homes - including heterosexual sodomy. Not to mention the covering of the breasts of the statue of "Justice"...
From the left we get this 'any woman who flaunts her sexuality must have been sexually abused' schtick.
Now, I certainly do not condone sexual abuse and am not trying to minimize its negative impact on its victims.
But not all prostitutes or strippers were sexually abused.
Many 'escorts' and such made damn good money (I'm not talking about the 'crack whore' here, that is a different story altogether).
Frankly, unless such activity is coerced or done against a participant's will, I see no problem with prostitution and other "nudy" activity at all.
Legalize and regulate.
I know it is 'PC' to try to find the 'pain' in the lives of such folk. Then, you can find 'pain' in the lives of accountants and even scientists.
I do think that many - left and right - confuse cause and effect in these cases.
I also agree that Dworkin's stuff borders on the fanciful.
Steinem, for whom I at one time had a great deal of respect, has fallen out of my favor for comments she had made on the research on the differenes between brain 'wiring' in males and females - she said such research should not even be done, as if pointing out the obvious somehow degraded women.
Balderdash!
Indeed, this research pointed out how women excel in many tasks that men do poorly in.
What is so terrible about recognizing the differenes? Sorry, Gloria, but men and women are, in fact, different. There is a biological vbasis for it.
it is neither good nor bad, it simply is.
well, there's my rant for the day...
Though I must say that I found the hard words direted against schraf to be a bit over the top...
------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2003 3:43 PM derwood has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 54 (32282)
02-14-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by derwood
02-14-2003 3:14 PM


[QUOTE] by SPLx++++++++++++++++
Though I must say that I found the hard words direted against schraf to be a bit over the top...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay, I apologize. I totally blew a gasket when I read schraf's post. It hit home in several personal ways:
1) I respect the opinions and logic I have seen schraf use up till now and it always troubles me to see someone who I know CAN use good logic, end up using the same bad logic they profess to fight against.
IOW, I am harder on friends when they make a mistake than with my enemies.
2) I am friends with some prostitutes (and escorts and porn actresses) and they are nothing like the stereotype schraf or Satcomm just painted. It is that demonizing which hurts their feelings and in turn, my own. Given that they were not abused as children, why abuse them now?
3) I loathe the use of children in arguments, especially when arguing why we should restrict activities between consenting adults. On top of it being bad logic (totally irrelevant), it is using children for your own ends. While not on the same level as physical child-abuse, it is a form of child abuse (to my mind). I find it totally offensive.
I thought I had made my post tongue-in cheek enough ("a spanking in logic?"), but obviously some of my knee-jerk rage must have shown through.
Once again, I apologize schraf. I stand by the arguments I made but there was no call for my demeanor.
For what it's worth, my apologies to Satcomm as well. You were mainly the butt of the jokes I was making, and that was rude of me... I don't really even know ya!
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by derwood, posted 02-14-2003 3:14 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jdean33442, posted 02-14-2003 6:42 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 54 (32293)
02-14-2003 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Satcomm
02-14-2003 2:30 PM


Okay Satcomm, while I apologized for being a little emotion-laden in my treatment of you, the gloves stay off as far as logic is concerned.
You were wrong about my being angry because schraf didn't "tow the party line." It was bad logic that offended me. There are much more credible arguments for regulating prostitution that she could have used which would not have offended me, even if I disagreed.
In fact, as splx pointed out, the far left and right gang up on prostitution (even if from different sides). Schraf was towing the party line. I am out of step with the "liberal left" and I know it.
And yes people can have/gain/lose credibility, even on an anonymous forum. Or at least I believe people can. If someone said I had lost credibility with them and pointed out a major mistake I had made I would care. If you don't feel this way, why come to a forum at all?
[QUOTE] by satcomm (responding to my "spanking in logic" wisecrack)++++++++++++++++++++++
LOL, sorry Mr. Spock, you haven't driven out your emotions sufficiently to understand logic.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Uhhhh, why are you critiquing a joke? By that line in my post I had already admitted everything I wrote so far (including my characterization of you as a religiously bigoted hypocrite) had been mere ad hominem and guilt by association. My "spanking" crack was a signal that the good logic was about to begin.
I might suggest that in the future you read through my posts before answering. My arguments tend to build and so some of your line by line refutations don't make sense given that the next line usually solves your problem.
[QUOTE] by satcomm (responding to mt statement regarding victimless crime)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Psychology disagrees with you. There are plenty of cases where one or more of the "consenting" parties have had some sort of childhood trauma.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please cite any psychological text which states that crimes involving the consent of all involved, become nonconsensual crimes simply because someone was a victimized as a child.
There are plenty of cases where ALL consenting parties have had some sort of childhood trauma, and I'm not just talking about therapy sessions.
Psychology often relates personal issues back to childhood trauma. Thus almost all of us are not consenting to what we do every day? Psychology NEVER SAYS THAT!
[QUOTE] by satcomm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What does consensual activity have to do with a profession or career? Oh I'm sorry, the secretary has to consent to taking the job in the first place. Hmmm, that fits in with prostitution nicely. I doubt many prostitutes said when they were kids "Mommy, I want to be a prostitute when I grow up."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
While prostitution may not have been some child's career goal, it may end up being a logical choice of an adult to help achieve a career goal (by gaining financial freedom), or be an easy job that someone ends up liking (if they are not "career oriented" toward something else).
I notice you conveniently left out my counter-examples to this very criticism. How many kids say "Mommy, I want to grow up to be a secretary"? Or how many kids said "Mommy, I want to grow up to clean toilets"?
[Quote] by satcomm (responding to a summation-redundant question)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore your argument is a baseless asertion based on your own political bias.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Uhhhhhhh, if all I said was the specific line you were responding to then yes, but it was preceded by clear reasoning. Check it out once again.
[Quote] by satcomm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So it may be that 9/10 prostitutes were abused and the other 1/10 simply needed cash to get by, and they knew some friends who were making a lot of money in the business. How does this support your claim?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It means that even if the above case you just stated were to true, it does not logically follow that prostitution is nonconsensual, or that it should be criminalized. Do you get it? The statistics are irrelevant, because the logic is bad.
[QUOTE]-----------------------------------------------------
by me=====================================
Other than Dworkin's flawed "I asked my man-hating friends" studies, we both know such statistics are not likely. But by all means if you have some credible statistics, bring 'em on.
Before you do though, I should point out that it would be more important (statistically) to show how many people that were violated became X, than how many X were violated... that is if you want to make the charge that engaging in X is beyond the will of those who have been victimized (which means they are incapable of truly giving consent) and so becomes an extension of their victimization.
Then again, while you are compiling those statistics why not find out how many abused children become adults that drink. Or how about how many go to therapy? How about how many get rank and file jobs (like the secretary example above) instead of administrative level jobs?
==========================================
response by satcomm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So you are prefacing, in preparation for her response, the fact that you will not accept any statistical data because there are other nonsensical ideas of yours involved?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I was not clear, because you clearly missed the point of what I said.
I started by commenting that her insinuated statistic was unlikely to be accurate, except in some known biased studies (they have already been debunked). But if she had some new (and more credible) stats she should "bring 'em on."
Then I was being helpful to her case (while at the same time pointing out a flaw in her logic). Given her intention, it is statistically more important to know how many X became Y, than how many Y happened to be X (which was her stated correlation).
And finally I was driving home my initial point that while she may find a correlation between child abuse and sexual careers, she was likely to find correlations between child abuse and many other things. These other things she might not want to call nonconsensual, but she'd be forced to if she were to hold her stated position on prostitution.
This is called a reductio ad absurdum.
Did anyone else come up with the same interpretation as Satcomm?
[QUOTE] by satcomm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Occupations and actions that are "lower" or "illicit" or "indicative of having problems" are often cyclic from youth. There is a cycle of trauma that progresses and often strongly influences the actions of the person in adulthood. I think that was the simple point being made in the first place.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree with this point, up to a point. Those with childhood issues that are in such occupations or involved in such activities have often been involved with them in a cyclical pattern from youth.
This does not mean that everyone involved with such occupations or activities are in such a pattern or were traumatized as children (at least not in a way relevant to those occupations and actions).
Nor does this mean that children who have been traumatized necessarily enter such cycles, or must continue within them.
The simple point, which is agreeable enough, becomes complex and disagreeable once it is used to support much grander statements and conclusions.
[QUOTE] by satcomm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just because a person had childhood trauma does not equal them being innocent of the current crimes they commit. It is merely being pointed out that childhood trauma plays a role in their decisions. They are still guilty of the crimes they commit, regardless. It was always their choice to make.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With the exception of completely deranged people (meaning they have ABSOLUTELY no concept of reality or control over their actions... very few of these) I completely agree with this statement. I believe the point being made by schraf was quite the opposite.
[QUOTE] by satcomm (responding to my hypocritical adhominem attack)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can't tell if this is an attack on my character, or if you're referring to an example I have posted. Either way, you use the term ad hominem hypocritically.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
While I was referring to your post it was done in a purely ad hominem, and hypocritical nature. I'm a big boy and can take my spankings where I deserve them.
Thank you sir, may I have another?
[QUOTE] by satcomm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't consider "rampant liberalism" a social disorder. At least not yet. I consider it a bad choice in mentality.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hmmmmm. Pot calls kettle black?
[QUOTE] by satcom (responding to my request schraf respond to satcomm's homosexual correlation)+++++++++++++++++
This is a pointless argument. Schraf has demonstrated in the past that her and my views on homosexuality are totally different. So there we have it. Just because her and I agree on one issue, doesn't mean that we both agree on everything. That's a pretty narrow-minded assertion.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You seem to not understand reductios.
IF you are right regarding a correlation between abuse and homosexuality, THEN schraf must logically hold YOUR POSITION on homosexuality. In other words if you're right then you're right, and schraf cannot just "disagree" with you.
That is to say, she cannot disagree with you, unless she gives up her original position.
Given that she will probably not like your position, she will likely reevaluate her original position.
I even pointed back to my original reductio (which you missed) regarding prohibition.
[QUOTE] by satcomm (responding to correlation between Xtianity and social disorders)++++++++++++++
You'd love to hear my comments based on my faith in CHRISTianity so you can aptly criticize them?
You score no points by attacking the historical church in general.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I said nothing about your faith. Nor was I necessarily interested in attacking just the "historical church" (as if that was somehow another faith).
You posited that social disorders are caused by child abuse. I merely asked you to look into statistics on abused children to see how many came from strict religious families who abused them in keeping with their "morality." It's particularly enlightening when you look at serial killers. I forget which lame-o evengelist tried to make a name tying porn to serial killers through Bundy. Research into this claim (both on Bundy and killers) backfired.
The bible itself urges parents to abuse their children, up to and including killing them when necessary. Several Baptist ministries have fallen afoul of the law recently for practicing these very tenets.
I then added some social orders you did not mention, which have very close ties to the bible (wars, racial bigotry, one might mention homophobia, etc etc...).
This is not to slam Xtianity, and say IT is the source of all social disorders and child abuse. It is merely to point out that people in glass churches shouldn't be casting the first stone.
Heheheh, is the irony that Satcomm is using the Xtian faith to throw stones at prostitution lost on anyone?
Anyhow, if the horribly mixed metaphor-parable doesn't work as a reminder that your position on prostitution is problematic, then your research into the statistics I mentioned will result in a reductio for you.
BTW, I write Xtianity or Xtian, because it is a good short-hand. If you feel this is demeaning and have a better shorthand way of saying it, I'll use it. Hell, I am using sonnikke's derogatory "evos" for evolutionary theorists because it is very handy.
[QUOTE] by satcomm (on my guess that they'll give up on statistics if inconvenient)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nah, I'd turn my back on statistical data that is either nonsensical or not pertainent to the issue at hand.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So we stand in agreement. Statistical data correlating child abuse and consensual activity between adults is nonsensical and not pertinent to the issue at hand.
[QUOTE] by satcomm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A man leading, correcting, and disciplining a woman goes against her philosophy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I certainly hope you are wrong. I never pegged her as sexist.
If so, I could have one of my female friends (particularly the ones she just insulted) argue the same position.
That said, it is certainly not against my philosophy for women to lead, correct, and discipline me. Let's see if she'll spank me back.
holmes
{Shortened yet more overlong lines of plus symbols - AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Satcomm, posted 02-14-2003 2:30 PM Satcomm has not replied

  
jdean33442
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 54 (32294)
02-14-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Silent H
02-14-2003 3:43 PM


quote:
2) I am friends with some prostitutes (and escorts and porn actresses) and they are nothing like the stereotype schraf or Satcomm just painted. It is that demonizing which hurts their feelings and in turn, my own. Given that they were not abused as children, why abuse them now?
Are they not whores? Do you really think men who watch porn are in it for the respect factor? They chose the profession, they can deal with the social stigma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2003 3:43 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2003 12:08 AM jdean33442 has not replied

  
Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 54 (32298)
02-14-2003 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John
02-14-2003 2:54 PM


quote:
Does past abuse mean that a person is unable to consent?
No. And this is a good point, John. However, I do think that past abuse will strongly influence the choices made by an adult.
quote:
The issue, at any rate, is whether prostition is a victimless crime. The argument given was that many prostitutes were abused as children. Sorry, but the casuality is backward. You can argue that abuse produces prostitution, but not that the prostitution produced the childhood abuse-- which, quite obviously, happened PRIOR to the prostitution. And it is this later case that must apply for this particular argument that prostitution is not a victimless crime to stand.
Hmmm. I've been doing some thinking about this. Childhood abuse is not the only argument I have for prostitution not being a victimless crime. I was merely pointing out that I agree with Schraf, in that, it influences the choices made by the adult in that situation. There are other factors involved. Prostitution is not a victimless crime, because it hurts both parties involved. Oh, we can debate this until we're blue in the face, however the fact remains. I've watched it hurt people, and not just the consenting parties. In places where prostitution is legal or widely present, discretion goes right out the window. It's degrading to the woman, and often plaguing to both parties, whether it be a disease or some sort of conscience issue.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?
[This message has been edited by Satcomm, 02-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John, posted 02-14-2003 2:54 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John, posted 02-15-2003 11:33 AM Satcomm has replied

  
Arachnid
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 54 (32299)
02-14-2003 7:24 PM


Though Im not a fan of prostitution for moral reasons, I find that Holmes orgininal statement in this thread to be thoughtful and logical. Excellent post.
Just to add a new twist to the debate, let's say that the reason for prostitution is not because of past sexual abuse, but to support a dangerous drug habit. Im not talking about your casual Mary Jane user, but your hard core, two dollar crack whore. Is prostitution still victimless when a crack baby is born? I don't need to paint any graphic pictures for all of us to agree that the details are pretty gruesome.
Now, before the hammer drops on me, I'm not saying that this is the case with every prostitute on the strip, but the odds are that there are more crack whores on the street than responsible, clean, money earning, republican prostitues that Holmes is talking about..Any thoughts?

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2003 11:51 PM Arachnid has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 54 (32307)
02-14-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Arachnid
02-14-2003 7:24 PM


[QUOTE] by arachnid+++++++++
Is prostitution still victimless when a crack baby is born?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes.
Women addicted to drugs have drug addicted babies. That is a problem. Only they have babies with regular boyfriends and husbands just as much as with Johns.
Would that make regular sex a "problem" we have to deal with?
I might also point out that even if I were to accept the "crack baby" argument, it would only apply to women as prostitutes. There are men in the prostitution trade as well as women (gigolos and "male prostitutes"), and many may have drug habits as well.
Thus I think the better argument here, and it is the first one you made, is the general connection between drug use and prostitution.
Unfortunately this is another red herring. Prostitution is often used by drug addicts because it is an easy way to make money fast, and with open hours which a drug habit tends to necessitate.
But eliminating prostitution will not end drug use, which is the real problem we are talking about. Prostitution neither increases drug use, nor does it make drug addiction easier to live with, and it is only one of countless ways that drug addicts can and do make money.
If anything, with legalized prostitution men are less likely to end up going to a "crack whore" as many clean, respectable alternatives are available. One doesn't have to duck into backalleys with whoever one can find.
If anyone's been to Amsterdam's redlight district you know it can be downright showy, cozy, and bright. If you end up with a stereotypical "crackwhore", it is because that is what you want.
While there are surely women with drug problems, even in the redlight district, legalization depresses such a market and helps drive out pimps which use addiction to control their prostitutes.
In short, there are more crackwhores on the streets where prostitution is illegal, and worse still it's illegality funnels men who seek prostitutes toward crackwhores.
I hope it didn't seem like I was jumping on you at all. And thanks for your compliments on my original post.
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Arachnid, posted 02-14-2003 7:24 PM Arachnid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Arachnid, posted 02-15-2003 12:25 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 12 of 54 (32308)
02-15-2003 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by jdean33442
02-14-2003 6:42 PM


[QUOTE] by jdean++++++++++++++++
Are they not whores? Do you really think men who watch porn are in it for the respect factor? They chose the profession, they can deal with the social stigma.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They may have chosen the profession, they may be able to deal with social stigma. But that does not mean they do not feel pain when people criticize them (especially with lies), nor does that make it right that ignorant people should criticize them.
I'm still finding it ironic to be defending prostitutes from stone throwing Xtians.
Have any of you read the Bible? This is the specific example used by God to explain how you should not judge others.
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jdean33442, posted 02-14-2003 6:42 PM jdean33442 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Satcomm, posted 02-15-2003 1:39 PM Silent H has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 54 (32326)
02-15-2003 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Satcomm
02-14-2003 7:17 PM


quote:
No. And this is a good point, John. However, I do think that past abuse will strongly influence the choices made by an adult.
No argument. Any event will influence future choices, and traumatic events should exert more influence. But I question linking this with a person's ability to consent.
quote:
Prostitution is not a victimless crime, because it hurts both parties involved.
So does football ( American ). Everyone I know who played football in high-school or college has some permanent injury from it. Yet know one talks about 'victims' of football. It is a somewhat glib response, but if you look around, a great many things people do for fun also cause injury. Most sports fit this category. Most jobs also tend to produce a particular set of physical/emotional problems. Secretaries get tendon diseases. Soldiers in combat tend to develop stress related illnesses, not to mention risk the occasional collision with a lead ball. Factory workers risk exposure to dangerous chemicals. Yet this same injury/consent argument is not applied to any of these things. The only difference is that prostition involves sex and sex has a stigma to it. To me, the 'prostitution injures both parties' argument is just a gloss covering the underlying prejudices against sex.
quote:
In places where prostitution is legal or widely present, discretion goes right out the window.
I believe this has been addressed by Holmes. What areas are you talking about? What countries? What time periods?
quote:
It's degrading to the woman
Why? This is a cultural prejudice, not an absolute.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Satcomm, posted 02-14-2003 7:17 PM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Satcomm, posted 02-15-2003 1:24 PM John has not replied

  
Arachnid
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 54 (32329)
02-15-2003 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Silent H
02-14-2003 11:51 PM


quote:
I might also point out that even if I were to accept the "crack baby" argument, it would only apply to women as prostitutes. There are men in the prostitution trade as well as women (gigolos and "male prostitutes"), and many may have drug habits as well.
I agree. My argument does only apply to women as prostitues. I suspected you might emphasize the drug use more than the prostitution as the source of the problem. I can agree that it's the drugs that made the CRACK baby, but it is the prostitution that made crack BABY, if you catch my meaning.
I thought you might concede that prostitution is not COMPLETELY victimless because in this particular scenario, the child is definitely a victim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2003 11:51 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 54 (32333)
02-15-2003 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
02-15-2003 11:33 AM


quote:
So does football ( American ). Everyone I know who played football in high-school or college has some permanent injury from it. Yet know one talks about 'victims' of football. It is a somewhat glib response, but if you look around, a great many things people do for fun also cause injury. Most sports fit this category. Most jobs also tend to produce a particular set of physical/emotional problems. Secretaries get tendon diseases. Soldiers in combat tend to develop stress related illnesses, not to mention risk the occasional collision with a lead ball. Factory workers risk exposure to dangerous chemicals. Yet this same injury/consent argument is not applied to any of these things.
The difference is purchased sex.
quote:
The only difference is that prostition involves sex and sex has a stigma to it. To me, the 'prostitution injures both parties' argument is just a gloss covering the underlying prejudices against sex.
Sex must not be that serious for you. I understand your position on the matter. Many people, especially in this country, would disagree with you. I'm sure you don't care.
quote:
I believe this has been addressed by Holmes. What areas are you talking about? What countries? What time periods?
Europe throughout the medieval period. Las Vegas (20th century+). Parts of Los Angeles (20th century+). Parts of New York (20th century+). Prostitution is definitely not a new thing and you know that. Also, I said "widely present", not just legal. It can be "widely present" and illegal. Why do you ask these questions when you already know the answer to them?
quote:
Satcomm: It's degrading to the woman.
John: Why? This is a cultural prejudice, not an absolute.
Oh, and I'm sure you're an expert on anthropology, John?
I'm sure a lot of women would disagree with you.
Btw, what's wrong with traditional American culture? Why is it so hard for liberal academics to embrace it? It's who we are as American citizens. To speak of it in a negative context like that sounds very anti-American to me.
I always say if you don't like it, then get out.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 02-15-2003 11:33 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 02-17-2003 1:58 AM Satcomm has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024