|
|
Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscribernunz:
NZ's moral stance on sex leaves us as a nation where we have huge incidences of STD's - in young folk / teenagers etc, high preganancy and high abortion. None of those are healthy. A condom is not the answer.
I think you are confusing NZ with the US.
nunz:
It is not legal in this country - it is decriminalised. There is a difference and just like TM, Seek and MSD wont advertise marijuana if it is decriminalized they wont advertise prostitution. Prostitution is not a legalised activity!
While the purpose of the Prostitution Reform Act was stated as to decriminalise, prostitution is not illegal.
The sections of the crimes act that made consensual prostitution between adults illegal were repealed. It's a restricted activity (locations, ages, advertising, safety, consent) and appropriately so. But it's legal (provided restrictions are complied with).
If marijuana was decriminalised that would mean a user could be fined but not convicted of a criminal offence. Like a minor traffic violation
jarledb:
nunz:
NZ's moral stance on sex leaves us as a nation where we have huge incidences of STD's - in young folk / teenagers etc, high preganancy and high abortion. None of those are healthy. A condom is not the answer.
I think you are confusing NZ with the US.
Nope - check out the stats
higher than Aus: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/10202541/High-rate-of-chlamydia-in-teens
or we rank number 4 in the world after USA and australia singapore
As for abortion. In 2010. USA 19.6 / 1000 NZ 18.6 per / 1000 very comparible.
JimmyH:
Not an industry I really know much about. But on balance I tend to be a libertarian, and providing that everyone is an adult doing so of their own free will, I tend to think that questions of morality are a personal matter rather than one for the state. Particularly in matters of sexuality - be a person gay, straight, limited to one partner, promiscuous or visiting a hooker.
Whether or not I approve or have an interest myself is irrelevant, fundamentally its neither my business nor that of the State.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I have never gone to a hooker, nor do I have any interest in doing so. But that is, and should be, my personal choice. Not a imposed on me by a politician or clergyman.
nunz:
There are a couple of points to make:
1 - It is not legal in this country - it is decriminalised. There is a difference and just like TM, Seek and MSD wont advertise marijuana if it is decriminalized they wont advertise prostitution. Prostitution is not a legalised activity!
It's as good as. In fact, I even know the former Department of Labour Employee who got the job of writing the health and safety regulations when the law changed. It's openly advertised, taxed and regulated by the government. The rest is just hair splitting.
And I suspect if marijuana was legal, MSD would happily place jobseekers into good jobs on hemp farms. Plus, they don't advertise other legal jobs. I know for a fact that they refused to take positions from some fruit picking contractors who had been prosecuted for exploitative practices onto their books. And apple picking is certainly legal.
nunz:
2 - It doesn't matter if it is the oldest profession in the world - human behaviour at the wrong end of the ethical scale has been around as long as humans have been around. It doesn't make it right. If the argument of longevity made things right then murder, rape, arson and mercenarys would also be okay. That's a null argument.
OK, that's a silly straw man argument. Presumably not everyone who is a party to murder, rape or arson is likely to be both an adult and being murdered, raped or having their house torched of their own free will. In fact definitionally it wouldn't be rape if all parties consented, and you can in fact commit arson of your own property (subject to fire permits).
And all of these things are vastly different to two consenting adults having a shag, for money or otherwise.
Plus mercenaries are kind of OK and always have been, you can join the French Foreign Legion if you want to (but probably have to reside in France when you leave, it's now kind of tricky to come back here if you do)
nunz:
3 - Prostitution - e.g. having sex with your non spouse is touching an area of human activity in a way that runs counter to what we hold most dear. Ask 1000 wives if it is alright for their husband to go bang another woman - even if they have paid for it and you'll probably find 99.99 percent say no way. turn that around to husbands asking if it is okay for their wives to bang other guys - and if they don't punch your lights out you'll probably find it is darn near 99.99% as well.
Yes, but so what? It's still a question of private morality, not one for the State.
nunz:
NZ's moral stance on sex leaves us as a nation where we have huge incidences of STD's - in young folk / teenagers etc, high preganancy and high abortion. None of those are healthy. A condom is not the answer.
I'm prepared to cry cobblers on that as well. According to Stats NZ our teen pregnancy rate has halved in the last ten years. That's a big fall. So how do you claim it is getting worse? And while I'm at it, our abortion rate is the lowest it's been in 17 years, so same question?
nunz:
Well run brothels may encourage contraception, make sure their staff have regular STD checks (why would you need that if the profession is a safe one?) but at the end of the day it is not a place your partner will want you going or working. Add in aids, hepatitus, herpes and what ever else is coming down the pipe towards us and prostitution is not a safe or wanted option.
Maybe, but regulated and above board is still vastly safer than illegal and on the street. Plus, whether or not someone's partner is comfortable with what they are doing is funadamentally a matter for the two of them, not the State.
nunz:
To claim it is something we do which therefore makes it right is also a null argument.
Irrelevant. The point isn't whether it's "right". The point is whether a private sexual matter should be criminalised and banned using the full resources of the State.
nunz:
Sure women may be getting paid to "do what they did on kinder for free" - but I bet at least on kinder they got to swipe no to the ugly, rude and smelly options. A brothel who had picky staff wouldn't last long and if I am forced to do things I don't want to for cash - I'd rather pack shelves, pick fruit, work under a cows tail milking or sitting in an office pushing meaningless paper than be used as waste container by some horny guy.
Then don't do it. You have free will don't you? Is it really your problem, or that of the State, if someone else makes a different decision?
State morality is based on what the majority agree is most beneficial or comfortable for the state (the people). If most people find something unacceptable then the state normally marginalizes that through making it illegal.
I personally am an anarchist by desire. True anarchy has the opportunity to be the most ideal expression of the good in humans - but is an impracticable ideal as we need to agree on conventions to make society work .(e.g which side of the road to ride on).
Your arguments as a libertine are that if it doesn't hurt others it is okay to do. The problem with that is that the individual is normally incapable of making decisions that they can see the long term result of and the gathered wisdom of the state protects us from doing things we cannot see the effects of.
My child saw no worries with putting things in power sockets - after all mum and dad do, but was disciplined by the mum / dad state not to - as they couldn't see the big picture. Long term morality , be it Judeo Christian, Greek ethics, philisophical thought over time, the golden rule, is wiser than the individual and should be messed with at our peril.
Look at the free love movement in the 60's and 70's. it spread aids, hepititus and other STDs in ways we never saw before - yet was two consenting adults doing what they felt good doing. society is still struggling with some of the fall out from that today.
prostitution - the only benefit i can see it is lets ugly people get laid without hassle and puts cash in a pros hands. The downsides in std, abuse of workers, degradation of the soul / self esteem, destruction of relationships (when spuse a catches spuse b out or worse catches std from spouse b) does not make it worth while.The harm is greater than the good - unless the good of a 10 second spasm is considered balancing of the more long term downsides.
You say decriminalisation is next to legaqlisation. it's not. it is the removal of criminal prohibtions. Legalisation is the addition of legal obligations. The reason NZ doesn't legalise it is possibly it is seen as thre state agreeing it is okay and also that it would harm the most vulnerable in the industry.
@nunz I have no doubt countries that prohibit prostitution would welcome you as a citizen if you really cannot stand ugly guys getting laid that much. :)
MikeAqua:
nunz:
It is not legal in this country - it is decriminalised. There is a difference and just like TM, Seek and MSD wont advertise marijuana if it is decriminalized they wont advertise prostitution. Prostitution is not a legalised activity!
While the purpose of the Prostitution Reform Act was stated as to decriminalise, prostitution is not illegal.
The sections of the crimes act that made consensual prostitution between adults illegal were repealed. It's a restricted activity (locations, ages, advertising, safety, consent) and appropriately so. But it's legal (provided restrictions are complied with).
If marijuana was decriminalised that would mean a user could be fined but not convicted of a criminal offence. Like a minor traffic violation
Sorry - I meant it is not legalised. differnce being that legal restrictions added in.
UHD:
@nunz I have no doubt countries that prohibit prostitution would welcome you as a citizen if you really cannot stand ugly guys getting laid that much. :)
Maybe its sour grapes - who knows i never made it with a pro. Maybe I'm too ugly for that. :)
kingdragonfly:nunz: I find it odd you quote a book on the topic of prostitution where the main premise can be summed up by
'Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness.
You have obvious strong feeling against prostitution, and I suspect you consider yourself a good Christian.
Leviticus is from the Old Testament. I always find it interesting when a Christian quotes from the Old Testament, because it's definitely R-18 material. King David was brutal by any definition, past or present. And God was frankly pretty petty, vengeful, and insecure, with a smite, smite here and a smite, smite there. There are 107 verses with "smite", usually a a heavy blow or stroke with a weapon or the hand, in the bible.
So onto the New testament, the four gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus' death, so they're not eye witness accounts of Jesus' with Mary Magdalen activities, such as her washing his feet.
The gospels are a written account of often repeated verbal accounts, shaded by time. There are many contradictions. Luke and Mathew stories, of Mary Magdalen at Jesus' feet are completely different accounts
However all gospels agree that Jesus hung out with the harlot Mary Magdalen. Luke identified her as a sinful woman, as well as the women "taken in adultery" that Jesus saved from stoning.
At the wedding feast of Cana, when Jesus famously turned the water into wine, John's wife became lonely and jealous and became a prostitute, and an infamous adulteress. However when Pharisees thrust the unnamed women before Jesus, Jesus refused to condemn her.
Jesus was cool that way. Maybe you should emulate him and be less judgmental.
This should probably go into another thread.
1 - my arguments were made not as a Christian but mostly from logical point of view. i didn't present a moral stand point - i presented incorrect arguments made by the poster. I did use the word moral but generally in a way that didn't shade it as right or wrong but as a standard used by society. I spoke not as a Christian but as a debater.
2 - I think prostituion hurts women. That doesn't make me Christian or moral - just my observation over many years of the degradation and harm it does - more obviously to the pro, but also to the purchaser. I've been in some of the worst places the world has in regards to prostitution, places where people lay on the streets dying of aids, children are drugged under beds to keep them quiet while mum is working and 5 years olds hook themselves out on the streets in broad day light. Trust me - those women are not winning in that transaction. They are surviving at a cost I personally am not sure i could stand.
Can you point out where i was judgemental? I think I was pretty balanced. I put my case - about what I thought - without beating pros over the head. Show me where I was judgemental. Stating my opinion is differnt to being judgemental - but saying I was judgemental is ironically -in itself judgemental.
Do you think prostitution is good? what benefits are there? Don't use money as an argument - as there are other ways to make it. People who make money from prostitution are statistically likely to be drug addicted, mentally unwell and abused. None of those things make being a pro for money a good thing but the end result of bad things.
Ironically - most of my arguments are for the benefit nad wellbeing of women, not against prostitution. I believe prostitution is a bad short cut to a better solution and has little of benefit to women nad is mostly beneficial to men.
Your arguments re the gospels show a mis-understanding of some of the precepts around information transmission, culture, the timings of what and how / when things were written. As for your reference to johns wife - not sure where that came from as it isn't in the bible.
As for not being eye witness accounts - you couldn't be further from the truth. Luke interviewed many eye witnesses,. john himself was there with Jesus, mathew was one of the 12 . That accounts for three gospels. Mark may be a bit more second hand but the process of information transmission in those days made things very accurate. If you were interested I would love to start a discussion on that. it is a fascinating topic.
I love prostitutes, drug addicts, trans sexuals, gays, lesbians, all flavours of the LGBQT*** rainbow. i don't agree with all that they do but as people I love them and have had good friendships with many in who fit that list. I also love Christians, despite the number of times they have ticked me off and hurt me but I don't always agree with them. My disagreement with them doesn't stop me loving them and neither does it mean I judge them. It means I disagree with them and am willing to respect their POV while not acting according to their POV but my own personal convictions.
One of my strongest memories of dealing with a LGBQT person was her telling me she was a lesbian - and was that a problem, and me replying I am a born again Christian who disagrees with homosexuality, but her being a lesbian wasn't a problem for me if i wasn't a problem for her. We got on famously after that - had some awesome respectful and inquiring conversations and i learnt more from her than i can remember. I trusted her as a friend, around my kids, as a worker and with personal information - and she did the same for me - while both of us continued to disagree on certain things. I am proud to be called her friend and proud she was mine - even if we don't agree on everything (what a boring world that would be)
If it is judgemental to stand for something then I am judgemental but I would rather stand for something than fall for everything.
Lifetime subscribernunz:Do you think prostitution is good? what benefits are there?
I see this thread becoming a bottomless rabbit hole that I don't really want to go down, but I need to respond to one of your observations and I want to add my admiration for the passion of your arguments and the logic with which you present them. I also find your biblical knowledge impressive. I don't have much patience with the proselytisers we get at the door but I would hate to argue theology with you.
The observation is the one that prostitution hurts women. There is no question that much prostitution hurts many women, but there are different kinds of prostitution and you are sweeping them all under one rug. Many women are enslaved through violence and drugs. Many also by financial desperation, in spite of your glib assertion that there are other ways to make money. But there are women in western countries (and probably elsewhere), and I have known some, who have made a free and conscious choice to live this way. Where prostitutes do not have to fear the law or corrupt authorities, where they are allowed to work in protected environments, where they have access to proper medical care, where they are treated by others with dignity and respect, there are certainly women who freely choose this type of work and do not seem to suffer as a result of it. Not all prostitutes are victims. Some are proud of what they do. I think you may be allowing your prejudices in this regard, no doubt based on your experiences, to colour your judgement.
I think the right kind of prostitution can be good for some people, both clients and workers. I think it does have benefits. The benefits can be (and have been) considerable for some severely disabled or disfigured clients who would otherwise be deprived of any kind of sexual contact. There have been documentaries on this. Money certainly is an argument. Much more money than could possibly be earned by any other means for the individual concerned. Some are quite happy with this trade-off. Not everyone thinks there is dignity in waiting on tables.
I said earlier in this thread that English speaking cultures seem to have real hang-ups about sex, while others are much more natural and relaxed. I think the anti-prostitution stance, whether coloured by religion or not, is part of this. Some people just seem to have a hard time conceiving that two people who don't already know each other can have a good time through sex, whether money changes hands or not. Of course sex slavery is evil and exploitation must be condemned, just as children and vulnerable adults must be protected. But the idea that casual sex is somehow sinful is a ridiculous, antiquated notion. It is the expression of someone not comfortable with their own sexuality. The notion that sex spreads disease is a twisted variation of this. With proper precautions and hygiene, there is nothing unhealthy about casual sex at all. This is just prudishness in a different disguise.
I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney
nunz:
If it is judgemental to stand for something then I am judgemental but I would rather stand for something than fall for everything.
I'm not religious in any way, but out of curiosity I've read several religious texts.
Perhaps you should havea read of what the new testament has to say about judgement.
MikeAqua:
nunz:
If it is judgemental to stand for something then I am judgemental but I would rather stand for something than fall for everything.
I'm not religious in any way, but out of curiosity I've read several religious texts.
Perhaps you should havea read of what the new testament has to say about judgement.
Like 1 corinthians for example?? - where it says we are to exercise judgement, " for do you not know that we will judge angels in the time to come. "
I think you are getting confused between Judgementalism / criticism / put downs versus dividing between one idea and another.
I am perfectly able to make a judgement, or decision based on my beliefs and am able to do that without being judgemental which is what i think you are accusing me of.
I will decide between one thing and another - to fail to do so makes it impossible to live - people who say don't judge or it is wrong to decide , if they follow their very logic down the rabbit hole will find themselves unable to do anything, with no ability to move, act, or even live.
In fact, your very accusation of me is a judgement that i have somehow failed to act in a way you feel is ethical or okay. ironic isn't it. Yet my arguments have not judged people in a way that belittles or puts them down, rather I've respectfully put out my decisions and beliefs about what i think is helpful, harmful, right and wrong.
As I wrote of my Lesbian friend, I disagreed with her stance on some things, she disagreed with my stance on some things - but despite that we were able to respectfully and lovingly form a strong friendship based on mutual respect.
Jesus came because of sin. Sin is in itself a word that divides between right and wrong, good and bad. BUT Jesus was often found amongst sinners - who loved and welcomed him. Why? Because they knew he cared for them, even if he didn't enter all that they did. Jesus entire life culminates in judgement - God does something about the evil / sinful human condition through Jesus but why? Love - for God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son. He displayed his love to us thus, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
Jesus understood judgement, dividing between right and wrong - but he also loved. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
Rikkitic:
nunz:Do you think prostitution is good? what benefits are there?
I see this thread becoming a bottomless rabbit hole that I don't really want to go down, but I need to respond to one of your observations and I want to add my admiration for the passion of your arguments and the logic with which you present them. I also find your biblical knowledge impressive. I don't have much patience with the proselytisers we get at the door but I would hate to argue theology with you.
The observation is the one that prostitution hurts women. There is no question that much prostitution hurts many women, but there are different kinds of prostitution and you are sweeping them all under one rug. Many women are enslaved through violence and drugs. Many also by financial desperation, in spite of your glib assertion that there are other ways to make money. But there are women in western countries (and probably elsewhere), and I have known some, who have made a free and conscious choice to live this way. Where prostitutes do not have to fear the law or corrupt authorities, where they are allowed to work in protected environments, where they have access to proper medical care, where they are treated by others with dignity and respect, there are certainly women who freely choose this type of work and do not seem to suffer as a result of it. Not all prostitutes are victims. Some are proud of what they do. I think you may be allowing your prejudices in this regard, no doubt based on your experiences, to colour your judgement.
I think the right kind of prostitution can be good for some people, both clients and workers. I think it does have benefits. The benefits can be (and have been) considerable for some severely disabled or disfigured clients who would otherwise be deprived of any kind of sexual contact. There have been documentaries on this. Money certainly is an argument. Much more money than could possibly be earned by any other means for the individual concerned. Some are quite happy with this trade-off. Not everyone thinks there is dignity in waiting on tables.
I said earlier in this thread that English speaking cultures seem to have real hang-ups about sex, while others are much more natural and relaxed. I think the anti-prostitution stance, whether coloured by religion or not, is part of this. Some people just seem to have a hard time conceiving that two people who don't already know each other can have a good time through sex, whether money changes hands or not. Of course sex slavery is evil and exploitation must be condemned, just as children and vulnerable adults must be protected. But the idea that casual sex is somehow sinful is a ridiculous, antiquated notion. It is the expression of someone not comfortable with their own sexuality. The notion that sex spreads disease is a twisted variation of this. With proper precautions and hygiene, there is nothing unhealthy about casual sex at all. This is just prudishness in a different disguise.
Thank you for your compliment.
Yes i am a Christian. I have no theological training but have read the bible log and hard and struggled to wrest what it says and how to apply that in a meaningful way.
My passion is to try to communicate the person of Jesus to others - which is quite hard as the American Jesus (to quote Bad Religion) is the model we see and often bears no resemblance to the bible or historical Jesus.
also much of what is put out about Christianity is so wrong - it is fictionalized ideas - based on a look at a couple of versus.
The real Jesus of the bible was so freaking awesome (dont I sound like a loony saying that) that I cannot help but be impressed. He was a game changer. Even if I wasn't convinced he was God in the flesh, i would want to follow his teachings. They are so outlandishly good. I've been a Christian 30 years - and am still learning so much that blows me away.
Re some prostitution. As uncomfortable as i am with that idea - yes - some seem too manage - seemingly - and for the disabled it brings opportunity they may not otherwise get. However I believe humans are more than flesh and chemical - but spiritual - and sex is a spiritual thing, not just a physical act. And as such see casual sex as a long term danger - even if the short term pleasure is wonderful.
Celebacy is painful, especially if enforced by disability. Having chosen that path for 14 years as a new Christian I know it sucks at one level - but the pain of celibacy also has some great rewards that make it worth while. (Happily married now - 4 kids. ) so still hold abstinence is the better, but more difficult way.
This thread could get endless, so this will probably be my last contribution. @nunz - clearly you have a view, and feel that you think the state should have the authority to impose what you feel is right in terms of morality and sexual relations on other adults, regardless of whether or not they agree with you. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one, as I doubt any amount of argument will shift you.
nunz:
State morality is based on what the majority agree is most beneficial or comfortable for the state (the people). If most people find something unacceptable then the state normally marginalizes that through making it illegal.
There is not really any such thing as "State morality". On moral questions, other than a few legislators with convictions on various parts of the spectrum, the State tends to legislate wherever and on whatever populist politicians think will garner votes are on most moral matters.
nunz:
Your arguments as a libertine are that if it doesn't hurt others it is okay to do.
Thank you, that gave me a good chuckle. I'm a libertarian not a libertine, and they mean very different things. But in the context of this thread (I suspect unintentionally) that was fairly funny.
nunz:
The problem with that is that the individual is normally incapable of making decisions that they can see the long term result of and the gathered wisdom of the state protects us from doing things we cannot see the effects of.
So your argument essentially boils down to the contention that I, along with other adults, am stupid and cannot possibly make sensible choices about matters of our own personal morality, sexuality or sleeping arrangements ourselves. So we need the all wise government to make those choices for us and, impose them on us if we disagree. No thanks.
nunz:
My child saw no worries with putting things in power sockets - after all mum and dad do, but was disciplined by the mum / dad state not to - as they couldn't see the big picture.
Again, a silly straw man argument. No one is talking about small children not being kept safe from things that could kill or maim them. We are talking about adults freely making decisions about which other consenting adults they shag, and on what basis.
nunz:
Long term morality , be it Judeo Christian, Greek ethics, philisophical thought over time, the golden rule, is wiser than the individual and should be messed with at our peril.
I don't even know what you mean here. Are you saying that the writings of Plato should decide who I can legally sleep with?
nunz:
prostitution - the only benefit i can see it is lets ugly people get laid without hassle and puts cash in a pros hands. The downsides in std, abuse of workers, degradation of the soul / self esteem, destruction of relationships (when spuse a catches spuse b out or worse catches std from spouse b) does not make it worth while.The harm is greater than the good - unless the good of a 10 second spasm is considered balancing of the more long term downsides.
Sigh. Another straw man rant.
nunz:
You say decriminalisation is next to legaqlisation. it's not. it is the removal of criminal prohibtions. Legalisation is the addition of legal obligations. The reason NZ doesn't legalise it is possibly it is seen as thre state agreeing it is okay and also that it would harm the most vulnerable in the industry.
The state has agreed that it's OK. Voluntary prostitution has been removed from criminal law so it's not illegal. Brothels now openly advertise, pay their taxes, comply with health and safety codes, and are pretty much regulated by any other business. I can't understand the point of your semantic hair splitting around decriminalisation and legalisation. Definitionally, if something isn't illegal then it is legal.
But for the avoidance of doubt, decriminalisation is the lessening of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply, or an administrative decision that legal penalties won't be enforced. Legalisation is removal of a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal. Voluntary prostitution involving most adults was removed from the criminal code. So it has been legalised.
Anyhow, my point remains. You are an adult. If you don't like prostitution, then don't participate.
Nunz: I personally am an anarchist by desire. True anarchy has the opportunity to be the most ideal expression of the good in humans - but is an impracticable ideal as we need to agree on conventions to make society work .(e.g which side of the road to ride on).
JimmyH:
This thread could get endless, so this will probably be my last contribution. @nunz - clearly you have a view, and feel that you think the state should have the authority to impose what you feel is right in terms of morality and sexual relations on other adults, regardless of whether or not they agree with you. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one, as I doubt any amount of argument will shift you.
nunz:
State morality is based on what the majority agree is most beneficial or comfortable for the state (the people). If most people find something unacceptable then the state normally marginalizes that through making it illegal.
There is not really any such thing as "State morality". On moral questions, other than a few legislators with convictions on various parts of the spectrum, the State tends to legislate wherever and on whatever populist politicians think will garner votes are on most moral matters.
nunz:
prostitution - the only benefit i can see it is lets ugly people get laid without hassle and puts cash in a pros hands. The downsides in std, abuse of workers, degradation of the soul / self esteem, destruction of relationships (when spuse a catches spuse b out or worse catches std from spouse b) does not make it worth while.The harm is greater than the good - unless the good of a 10 second spasm is considered balancing of the more long term downsides.
Sigh. Another straw man rant.
- One benefit is that people presumably enjoy themselves. Otherwise they wouldn't pay for the experience.
- Have you got any evidence that the STD consequences of sex in a legal well-regulated brothel are any worse than the alternatives, be they unlicensed street prostitution, or just a drunken shag after a few too many drinks at the pub?
- It also presumably lets some people make money. And being able to pay the rent, buy food, take a nice trip, or pay off a car loan isn't exactly of no benefit.
- In any event, I suspect that the restaurant and fruit picking industries are more abusive of their workers than licenced brothels.
nunz:
You say decriminalisation is next to legaqlisation. it's not. it is the removal of criminal prohibtions. Legalisation is the addition of legal obligations. The reason NZ doesn't legalise it is possibly it is seen as thre state agreeing it is okay and also that it would harm the most vulnerable in the industry.
The state has agreed that it's OK. Voluntary prostitution has been removed from criminal law so it's not illegal. Brothels now openly advertise, pay their taxes, comply with health and safety codes, and are pretty much regulated by any other business. I can't understand the point of your semantic hair splitting around decriminalisation and legalisation. Definitionally, if something isn't illegal then it is legal.
But for the avoidance of doubt, decriminalisation is the lessening of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply, or an administrative decision that legal penalties won't be enforced. Legalisation is removal of a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal. Voluntary prostitution involving most adults was removed from the criminal code. So it has been legalised.
Anyhow, my point remains. You are an adult. If you don't like prostitution, then don't participate.
Legal does not equal legalisation.
Criminalisation = creating laws banning and punishing something.
Decriminalisation = removal of the laws criminalising something. THis is what Nz, the only country in the world to decriminalise prostitution, has done.
Legalisation is to create laws regulating something. We haven't done that as it would hurt the most vulnerable in the industry who couldnt comply thus harming them and making them criminals by not complying. Prostitution is not regulated in this country.
---
State morality is basically another way of saying the beliefs and values we have enshrined into law. The law reflects the morals, beliefs and values of the society it represents - and if it doesnt it gets changed. 100s of years of thinking and experience are enshrined in law, philosophical thinking and societal values.
---
You say the benfit is enjoyment. I think you have struck the nail on the head. Enjoyment, pleasure, entertainment have become modern ideals .. and I do mean modern. Going back not so many decades ago self denial, responsibility, duty adn other words were the ideals of society but hedonism and self absorbtion have altered our outlook. Pleasure is not a benefit without consideration for long term consequences. THe ability to get your rocks off should not be a major consideration and is certainly not in any way a value to base decisions on - except in the last few years.
One of the values I teach our kids is the differnce between pleasure and satisfaction. Satisfaction often takes hard work, effort and self denial - but long term is far better for self esteem, the soul and society than a quick chasing after pleasure. Pleasure is candy floss, satisfaction is a four course steak meal - but we have forgotten this with our hollywood / mtv propoganda filled lives. A sweaty, pain filled slog up a mountain with the satisfaction of standing at the top is not pleaureable but is satisfying. It is great for the self esteem and is remembered and vlaued. One off the wrist is forgotten a couple of minutes after it is done.
THere is no doubt that prostitution degrades women, spreads diseases, makes a mess of relationships. Pleasure measured against this is not even on the same scale.
I chose celibacy - no dating, etc as a new christian. After 14 years I met the women I am now married to. We held hands and kissed but nothing more until the day we married. That was damn difficult as i would have happily thrown her over my shoulder , dragged her to my lair, ripped her clothes off and had happy joyful, consensual sex - but there were more important things than our pleasure.
Because we took the harder path we have benefits that others don't. She can trust me as I've proved my loyalty sexually - im not lead by the little head. We learnt to talk and relate without the short cut of sex, we learnt to value other parts of our relationship and grow them before sex got in the way. we built a relationship based on friendship, respect, trust - that is stronger as we didn't let sex get in the way. I'm not worried about her being faithful or her me. She knows I can keep it in my pants and be faithful.
That is satisfaction. However we took a lot of crap for our old fashioned stance. I should have test driven the car, how do we know we are sexuall compatible etc etc. That is modern pleasure seeking fluff compared to old fashioned commitment. I value her more than sex. AS we get older she isn't as sexy as the young beautiful bodies at the gym - but I would trade sex with all of them for my wife who has proven her worth in ways which are for more important. She is trustworthy, faithful, loyal, hard working, honest, caring etc. They dont hold a candle to her. 10 seconds of pleasure vs the wonders of what I have with Sarah arent even comparible.
Prostitution is the same. THere are real problems caused by it and saying pleasure is a reason to accept it is to value candy floss over steak. One builds muscles, thge other gives you cavities eventually.
Society values commitment, fidelity. We call people awful names when they cheat. We dont admire them. we think the girls are sluts and hope the guys will stay the heck away from our women as we dont trust them.
Sex is different to almost all other human physical contacts. Put a finger in some ones ear and its annoying, put it in their mouth and theyll be grossed out but put that finger in a womans bits and you'll go to jail. Sex is an order different to all other physical things we do.
>2 - Have you got any evidence that the STD consequences of sex in a legal well-regulated broel are any worse than the alternatives, be they unlicensed street prostitution, or just a drunken shag after a few too many drinks at the pub?
Bad argument. If I stab someone once, they are dead. If i stab them 100 times they are still dead. STDs are in well regulated brothels - just look at the requirements to get tested. Condoms fail. Herpes isnt stopped by condoms. An STD is an STD. Like russian roulette - one day the chamber will come around. Pub or brothel - the out come is the same. Your regulated russian pistol might have a chamber more or a bullet less but it is still loaded.
3 > making money. Why not sell drugs? That makes money. So does grand larceny, embezzlement, mugging, fraud. THe means does not justify the e - ends especially when there are alternatives. Prostitution causes harm. If I shagged a pro the harm to my marriage would be irreversable. If my son shags a pro and one day gets married and his wife finds out - there is harm. I wouldnt want my wife or daughter being a pro. it isn't a career option we aim for in our kids.
Harm - the more partners, the higher chance of cervical and other cancers. Thats caused by an immune reaction in a womans body reacting to many differing cells from others she is exposed to. THats without warts, clymidia, herpes, hepetitus and aids. Some of those cant be protecged against. Meningitus is also on that list.
I've worked as a fruit picker and in the food industries. I never got beaten for not forking over my tips, I didnt have to suck off some drunken prick who viewed me as a rubber doll and I wasn't used for someones personal pleasure with no regard to my own.
Maybe there is a case to be made for someone compassionately allowing the disabled to experience sex - but again, hugs, faithful friendship, talking, caring, being there, belonging - those are more valuable than someone who gets you off then leaves.
Just because we can doesnt mean we should.
|
|
|
