At 02:03 PM 8/14/97 -0700, Jim C. wrote: > > >Response (Jim C) I have a suggestion for all those males online--and >any females--who think that prostitution is just like any other job: >Try it for yourself. Try having a stranger's penis in you wherever he >wants it. Try going out with some freak in a car not knowing whether >or not you're coming back or what kind of freak scene awaits you. Try >going for regular check-ups (if you can afford it) wondering if you >have just contracted a fatal disease. Try having a pimp beat the shit >out of you because you didn't turn enough tricks. Try having cops >shake you down--for money or sex. etc. Jim: I read the response to your posting from Harry Cleaver, and I concur with most of what he said -- so I won't overburden this list with repeating it. I'd only like to add two points: 1. There is a certain tendency in the acdemia to consider the expert/researcher's point of view as the only valid/rational one. If an expert/researcher sees something as good, then everyone else is assumed to share that view and maximise that good. If, by contrast, an expert/researcher sees soemthing as bad (cf. your view of prostitution) then, it is assumed, everyone must share that view and minimise that bad. The possiblity that the people involved in the said behaviour may have a totally different view of that behaviour -- is not being considered at all. In that respect, neoclassical moralising and progressive moralising do not differ very much. What I was trying to allow the possibility that some people and I (as an academic) may look at the same reality and have totally different views. I would not consider nude dancing (who would want to hire me in that capacity anyway?) or doing cunnilingus to sleezy old women for money as a full time occupation (that does not mean that I would not do cunnilingus to such a woman -- but that's a different issue), but who am I to judge those who would? In the same vein, I would not consider many things -- being a police officer, debt collector, a WSJ journalist to name just a few -- but at the same time I would not project my feeling toward these occupations on those who decided to take jobs I consider reprehensible. 2. It is important to distinguish between a situation that people are forced to do things they would not do without coercion, and a situation when people choose to do things that others may find repulsive. I fully agree with you that a political-economic system that forces into prostitution women who otherwise would not consider that occupation is reprehensible and should be abolished by any means necessary. But abolishing such a system does NOT mean prohibiting people from selling sex for money, if they so choose without coercion. If I have a choice between farting in a chair in some office for 40 hours a week, or playing a gigolo for older women for half the time but twice the money, and I choose the latter because I don't mind playing a gigolo for older sleeze women but I like the free time and the money, or I like both, the gigolo and the money part -- then who is to judge me? Human sexuality is not limited to the missionary position and long term commitments. There are people who like long term relationships and those who like quickies; those who like S-M or B&D, not to mention sex that does not involve penetration (nude dancing, phone sex, masturbation, cross-dressing, etc). Sexual role playing with or outside the sex industry does not essentially differ -- a person who, say, likes playing the "sub" part in his/her "normal" sexual realtions, may also want to play that part for strangers and for money. Where is the exploitation? Or suppose, by contrast, that a person likes to be a "dom" -- is he/she also "exploited" by his/her client whom he/she "disciplines" for a pay (BTW, who was the "exploited" part in the infamous Dick Morris's liaison -- the lady whose toes Mr. Morris sucked and who leaked the story to the media, or Mr. Morris himself who lost his White House job, or perhaps nobody?) Or take "random" sexual intercourses with strangers once popular in the gay culture -- which clearly indicates that some people like being fucked by strangers, whether they are paid for that or not. Is that exploitation? The bottom line is that it is one thing to eliminate social-economic conditions forcing people to engage in sexual (or ANY) activities they would not voluntarily consider, and quite a different thing to judge (that includes pity) people who voluntarily choose an occupation we consider reprehensible from other occupations available to them. Your postings suggest that you seem to conflate those two different things. cheers, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
