Said Kate D’Adamo, a sex-worker rights advocate, quoted in "Ashley Judd’s Anti-Prostitution Crusade Angers Sex Workers: ‘You Are Harming People’/The actress and #MeToo trailblazer has come under fire from sex workers for her broad anti-prostitution platform" (HuffPo).
Quote from Judd: "I believe body invasion is indeed inherently harmful, and cash is the proof of coercion. Buying sexual access commodifies something that is beyond the realm of capitalism and entrepreneurship: girls and women’s orfices [sic]."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५८ टिप्पण्या:
So paying for a handjob is still ok? Asking for a friend.
Women have been trading access to their bodies for wealth, power and resources since before we climbed down from the trees in Africa.
Sex-worker rights advocate? Pimp?
Thank God that sex is a refuge from ideology and rationality.
Sex is the land of sacred (and profane) mysteries.
Ashley Judd likes to use big words to prove she is smart. Drives me insane. We get it, Ashley. You got good grades in college.
This argument is just silly. These women are selling what they have to offer. While I think it's sad that women, many of whom are drug addicts, resort to this livelihood, it has historical precedence and should probably be legalized, as it is in NV.
I imagine Judd would probably approve of that weird #thotaudit phenomenon.
"Girls and womens orifices"
That's some awesome sexism there
The now common argument that "you can't possibly understand" unless you are of identical rank on the intersectional identity status ladder seems to assume that human communication between tiers of the ladder is impossible and insulting.
So, why do we bother writing stuff and making movies?
Laslo's opinions on this blog post should be given as much time and space as the internet can accommodate..
I think this pope has already weighed in on period cramps- they're capitalism's fault!
Her transphobia is stunning! What about the women's penises? Can they be sold? SMDH.
Good for Judd. She makes some strong points. Pornography and prostitution aren’t good for the soul.
Absent men's wired-in interest, women's orifices would be as interesting as kneecaps are but with hygiene problems.
To women they ought to be no more interesting than what they can get for it thanks to men's wiring.
"I believe body invasion is indeed inherently harmful, and cash is the proof of coercion."
Translation: sex work is a shithole occupation.
The oldest profession has outlasted the Huns, the Jews, the Muslims, the Roman Catholic Church, the Communists, the Socialists, the Puritans, the Calvinists, Mormons, all other Christians, the Buddha, The Prophet, Jesus Himself, Lao Tzu, Gunsmoke, Marx (Karl & Groucho), Bette Midler, Bubonic Plague, China- then and now, Russia- then and now, Columbus, Pizarro, Suleiman, and Nordstrom's.
It'll handle vox.com and today's SJWs including Ashley.
So which choices are choices? Abortion - choice. Screw - not choice. Have I got that right?
Judd is doing a good job of keeping in the public, since her acting career seems to be suffering. Some might call that prostitution, but it's not a good analogy. With prostitution, there is something more than rhetoric exchanged for money.
Words I never thought I would utter, "I agree with Ashley Judd."
Free Willy!! Save the orfices!!
Ron W
Oh,we had faith in you.
I guess women should not be allowed to taste test. Invasion of orifices and all.
Softcore porn queen crusades against women who are paid to do what she got rich simulating on the big screen. So much for the little people.
Judd is just a nasty woman. She said do herself.
2nd and 3rd wave feminists getting into it with 1st and 4th wave feminists is better than baseball. My favorite past-time.
Judd’s career, like most Hollywood women and men, declined when she got older. Movie stars are like athletes. Their careers have relatively short windows.
Julia Roberts was a huge star but is doing Netflix shows now.
I give Sandra Bullock a lot of credit. She was never as big a star as Roberts but has had more staying power. She doesn’t have to do Netflix.
There are some who choose such clothes of their own free will, but when you see women wearing uncomfortable and unflattering religious garb, there's a good chance that they've been bullied into wearing such apparel. Thus so with sex work. I'm sure that there are some women who have rationally decided that this vocation offers the best chance of prosperity and happinesss, but my guess is that they're the exception rather than the rule.......Poverty has destroyed more souls than prostitution, but prostitution is not a sure fire way out of poverty. Rather the reverse.
"I believe body invasion is indeed inherently harmful, and cash is the proof of coercion. Buying sexual access commodifies something that is beyond the realm of capitalism and entrepreneurship: girls and women’s orfices "
This is exactly the sort of vile garbage spewed by sex-worker exclusionary feminists like Judd. If you follow debate over decriminalization, you'll see it usually is a matter of seconds before so-called "feminists" start calling sex workers "toilets" and "whores" and tell them to shut up and go back to "selling their orifices" or "selling their holes". "Orifice" is a big word for these people; they really like using it to belittle other women.
Judd's also been one of those pushing various myths about sex work (e.g., their are 300k sex slaves in the US, the Super Bowl draws sex slaves, average age of entry is 13, etc., etc. -- all easily debunked lies). I'm disinclined to pay her any attention.
About twenty-five years ago I started an (unserious) argument with my husband on the way to Thanksgiving at his aunt's house. Why is football legal and prostitution illegal? They both involve selling the use of your body for the enjoyment of others. My husband didn't think it was funny and neither did his brother and one of his cousins. His other male cousin didn't participate in the argument because he broke his clavicle playing football with friends that morning and spent the day at the emergency room.
I thought the “[sic]” had been added by our hostess, until I clicked on the article.
Sure, prostitution can be coercive, but cash is more often the mark of a voluntary transaction.
Don't normalize, tolerate (as with most voluntary behaviors), and strive for an alternative.
Sandra Bullock is great but you begin to notice some acting tics that start to annoy. Same tic regardless of role. (Same particularly with Pierce Brosnan.)
Julia Roberts can't be forgiven for Eat, Play, Love. What a stinker. Crazy has to be limited. She went a long way on a broad smile before that though.
Neither one as far as I know ever displayed tits, a good policy. Meg Ryan's mistake.
”Why is football legal and prostitution illegal? They both involve selling the use of your body for the enjoyment of others.”
Somebody should tell Ashley basketball season has started.
Not to belabor the obvious, cash is evidence of the absence of coercion.
Or else Judd thinks car buying is coercive and carjacking is not.
Or else Judd is incapable of rational thought.
Before feminism: women seek to temper and control the male libido.
After feminism: women seek to temper and control the male libido.
Pretty woman. Doesn't kiss on the lips because it's too intimate. (Julia Roberts)
But it gets what's sacred and what's not right.
Ignorance is Bliss asserts: Laslo's opinions on this blog post should be given as much time and space as the internet can accommodate..
Agreed! Laslo has amazingly acute insight and his hypocrisy detector is finely tuned.
some reader asked "Why is football legal and prostitution illegal?"
a far Far FAR better question is: Why is pornography legal and prostitution illegal?
If i pay a woman to lower her standards and have sex with me: it's illegal?
If i pay a woman to lower her standards and have sex with me, ON FILM: it's perfectly legal?
How does this make sense?
"cash is the proof of coercion" -- so if I use a credit card you're cool with that Ashley?
If cash is proof of coercion then wages are proof of slavery. We must end it. But we shouldn’t punish the victim, we should punish the perp. We should criminalize paying wages. Lock'em up. Hire a clerk, 5 years; leave a tip, 3 years. Bastards.
rhhardin said... Pretty woman. Doesn't kiss on the lips because it's too intimate.
But, of COURSE, if an Actress is doing a sex scene: kissing is mandatory
gilbar said...
some reader asked "Why is football legal and prostitution illegal?"
a far Far FAR better question is: Why is pornography legal and prostitution illegal?
Better lobbyists.
"This argument is just silly. These women are selling what they have to offer. While I think it's sad that women, many of whom are drug addicts, resort to this livelihood, it has historical precedence and should probably be legalized, as it is in NV."
Judd doesn't want it to be criminal for the seller, only the buyer. Go after the men.
It's not a silly argument to say that a transaction shouldn't be permitted. There's an inquiry into the meaning of coercion. If a man held a gun to a woman's head and demanded sex, you'd say she was giving what she had to give, but it would still be a crime for the man to do it. He couldn't say she consented. Judd is saying that money is coercive and some things you can't be permitted to sell. The fact that money is used doesn't take a transaction out of the purview of government. We don't let people sell their children. We don't even let them sell one kidney.
Man, the left is making Pence look like a party animal. What happened to Do Your Own Thing, Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll? The left was a lot more tolerant when they were Liberals.
An acted kiss is taken as not meant, not a real kiss. That's a very old standard.
The modern convention to be formed is whether acted but actual sex is taken as not meant or as real.
The question disappears if hooking up is casual all around anyway. It doesn't matter how it's taken then.
Professor Althouse?
How does this tie in to (my impression of) your belief that anyone that has sex with anyone they aren't attracted to is whoring themselves? (money, flowers, yard mowing, etc)
my appologies if i've misrepresented your belief
Althouse has a penetration hot button.
Strictly speaking it's not penetration. The vagina is on the outside of a woman, topologically speaking.
Coincident with this post the Ashley Madison ads have reappeared. Is that still a thing?
”The fact that money is used doesn't take a transaction out of the purview of government.”
It should (IMO).
”We don't let people sell their children.”<
Yes, slavery is illegal.
”We don't even let them sell one kidney.”
We should.
Judd is saying that money is coercive and some things you can't be permitted to sell. The fact that money is used doesn't take a transaction out of the purview of government. We don't let people sell their children. We don't even let them sell one kidney.
So selling one's own body [and we're not talking only about women here] as an adult is like to selling one's children? Judd's coercion argument is, as is yours, illogical. Pimps may be coercive but 'Johns' are not. Legalized and regulated prostitution might put an end to the coercive pimping, especially to drug-addicted women. I do not condone prostitution. It is a very degrading occupation and I should imagine these women are not, for the most part, happy with their lot. But there will always be a market for sex and a transaction between consenting adults should be legal, IMO.
I have eleven DVDs with Ashley Judd in them and don't remember any of them.
”We don't even let them sell one kidney.”
We should.
Hell, yes!
But you remember that you have exactly 11?
If the woman offers to have sex with a man in exchange for money, how is it that the man has coerced her? Does she set the price? Does she set the time and place for the offering?
I'm not asking to be a wise ass, just don't understand why the man is the bad actor in these arrangements.
We don’t allow people to sell children, but we don’t allow them to give them away either. Let's stick to analogies that don’t involve other people.
We do not indeed allow people to sell kidneys. But we should. The arguments are compelling, but even better is the evidence. Some countries DO allow such sales. You should do some research. At least you should if you want to cite that ban as a success. We used to ban abortion.
But there are better analogies than surgery aren’t there? Providing a service. Massage therapy. Hair cuts. Judo lessons. Chiropracty. Dentistry. All involve bodily contact, for cash, and all are provided by women.
I think your cruelty is showing again. Punish lonely men and desperate women, because you think they are ucky.
Raise your hand if you agree, "I would be perfectly OK with it if my daughter took up "sex work" as a career and I think my wife should get a part time "sex work" job."
"Judd is saying that money is coercive and some things you can't be permitted to sell."
Yes, she is saying both things. The first is utterly stupid. The second--rewritten as "shouldn't be permitted" in order to make some sense as a moral proposition--does not rely on the first statement as a logical premise.
The possible moral bases for prohibiting certain transactions are variations on a belief that there are certain actions no sensible, fully informed person would take. So the state uses coercion to prevent people from making big mistakes. A debatable proposition, but plausible. It has nothing whatsoever to do with monetary transactions being coercive, however.
Mockturtle,
Ann's bolded response to you is even worse than it seems. You are arguing that since sex is legal selling it should be legal. Her rebuttal turns that around: just because money is involved does not exempt the underlying conduct. That would be a good counter if you had argued sex should be legal because prostitution is. Then she abandons that for the kidney bit, so the whole thing is a logical mess.
The claim that transactions you think are bad for one of the participants are "coercive"--and therefore justifiably banned--seems to be intended to maintain the pretense of being liberal when in fact you're being paternalistic.
All you have to do to make your prostitution legal is to take a video of the act. Now it's perfectly legal porn! Good luck finding a coherent principle in that.
Ron W
Doubling down on stupid. I would be appalled if my daughter — or son — married you. But I think it should be legal.
Sex work is one of the more vexing public policy issues. The sex workers do seem to have a better grasp on economic analysis than Judd, based on their real-world experiences.
Judd continued. “Decriminalize girls and women, Criminalize men who purchase sexual access (which is different from sex, which is mutual and consensual. And btw, the presence of cash is the proof of coercion).”
Judd seems focused on a demand-side enforcement approach, the unintended consequences of which D’Adamo critiques.
D’Adamo countered: “We have the data—in places where they increased policing of only clients/johns, violence increased, the level of violence people were willing to endure before they reported it to police increased, and people end up seeing more clients for less money. It’s not a question mark anymore. This is willfully valuing an opinion over someone’s life.”
[BrookeBrou]: What is apparent is that Ashley Judd is not only misguided, but also simple-minded. Her posts mix up a few different anti-SW perspectives—in some posts/events she’s staunchly abolitionist, and in her last Instagram post she mentions the Nordic model and hashtags decriminalization. Both of these stances are pretty different, so from my POV it looks like Ashley lacks the cognitive ability to fully grasp the complexity of both of these perspectives…Or she’s just too lazy to fully educate herself and listen to the vast number of SW voices and experiences.”
Judd needs a supply-side strategy beyond decriminalization of sex workers, preferably a voluntary diversionary approach.
We do not indeed allow people to sell kidneys.
what about hair? should women be allowed to sell their hair?
what if they're going to use that money to buy a watch fob?
what if they're going to do it so that Greensboro NC will have something to be proud of?
Qwinn said...
All you have to do to make your prostitution legal is to take a video of the act. Now it's perfectly legal porn! Good luck finding a coherent principle in that.
what Qwinn said! The only part of it that makes any sense, is that it means that if/when i win the lottery, i'll be buying a film company
Buying sexual access commodifies something that is beyond the realm of capitalism and entrepreneurship: girls and women’s orfices
It's amazing how many post-Christian feminists wax sacramental when it comes to female sexuality: This is My Body...
@Not Sure
Judds' problem is that she has bought into the "whatever people mutually consent to is OK" ethos. Therefore, in order to be against sex work she has to argue that it isn't consensual. I, on the other hand, leaving aside the spiritual side of the argument, which most of the materialist in this thread will discount, think that there are acts that are harmful to society at large and therefore are outlawed to protect society from there corrosive effects. If we are looking for examples, you cannot sale yourself into slavery. If you attempted to do so by drawing up a contract, no court would enforce it. Slavery is considered to be both abhorrent and harmful to society at large, therefore it is not legally enforceable, even if freely entered into.
Judd is saying that money is coercive and some things you can't be permitted to sell.
I was coerced by money to labor as a psychologist for over 30 years because I needed the money. Some people are coerced to tax their bodies more than their minds and work in dangerous professions. Such strains on mind and body are permitted, even encouraged by society.
Prostitution taxes the mind, body and soul as much as most jobs. (If you think being a psychologist is easy, try traveling around the country with 80 hour work weeks and listening to some of the garbage I chose to listen to). By what rules do we decide that it is OK to be a psychologist or football player and not a sex worker?
I'll go ahead and drop the other stiletto: The gov't should pay prostitutes not to have sex, in the same amount for each non-performance.
Ashley Judd is a leftwing nut job.
We don’t allow people to sell children, but we don’t allow them to give them away either
The Hell we don't. Most states have laws that allow mothers to give up newborns and adoption is a long standing institution.
@gilbar/Qwinn,
All you have to do to make your prostitution legal is to take a video of the act. Now it's perfectly legal porn! Good luck finding a coherent principle in that.
what Qwinn said! The only part of it that makes any sense, is that it means that if/when i win the lottery, i'll be buying a film company
Oh, and it gets wackier than that. You can go online with a credit card & in minutes find a cam-girl who will "abuse herself" for your enjoyment.
And it's all perfectly legal.
Meet her in person to do that & if the cops find out, they'll bust yer ass! Because, it's illegal, ya know?
I'm not asking to be a wise ass, just don't understand why the man is the bad actor in these arrangements.
No women must be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything , ever.
They Came From Beyond the Realm of Capitalism and Entrepreneurship:
The Invasion of the Orifices!
Doubling down on stupid. I would be appalled if my daughter — or son — married you. But I think it should be legal.
I don't know why you consider that doubling down on stupid. We have established that you think prostitution is appalling, but should not be illegal. OK, why do you think prostitution is appalling? Why would you feel appalled if your daughter became a prostitute? Its just "sex work?" Two people freely consenting to sex and one of them gets monetary remuneration. Its a win-win, correct?"
I'd posit that the problem with prostitution is that it (allegedly) removes the emotional attachment associated with sex. This undermines the responsibilities that we associate with sex, and weakens society from it.
make your prostitution legal is to take a video of the act. Now it's perfectly legal porn!
Freedom of speech, expression. The advantage held by prostitution is that it is a voluntary activity by all parties, and it is not distributed (e.g. normalization), or redistributed (i.e. progressive), less infectious vectors (e.g. the "burden" cannot be mitigated with the first choice, but rather with the second). Perhaps a veil of privacy to cover the exposed parts.
Immediately followed by the direct-to-TV sequels:
The Invasion of the Orifice Snatchers.
The Revenge of the Snatch Snatchers.
Does Judd believe the tired mantra "My body my choice?
Or only for some things?
John Henry
some youngster said "Meet her in person to do that & if the cops find out, they'll bust yer ass! Because, it's illegal, ya know?"
which raises this interesting scenario:
You know those build a bear workshops? where you can pay money to create sculptures (bears)
There is (in Ames, at least) a build a pottery workshop, where you can pay money to create pots.
NOW...
what if:
I have a Build a Movie workshop? Where you can pay money to use their materials/staff to make your own cinema Art? The workshop provides (for a modest and reasonable fee,) sets (beds, office desks, etc) and also independent contractor costars... so you can...
STAR IN YOUR OWN PORNO MOVIE!!! Take it home! impress your friends! (send to cutting room floor)
obviously, i'm just saying hang a camera up in the bordello; but then it's all legal, right?
RIGHT?
Dr. Commerciallove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Orifice.
Blogger Qwinn said...
All you have to do to make your prostitution legal is to take a video of the act. Now it's perfectly legal porn! Good luck finding a coherent principle in that.
Popehat did a lengthy explanation of why, legally, filming a paid sex act and calling it movie making makes it non-prostitution.
I forget the legal reasoning but he cited case law and sounded all lawyerly and such so I suspect he is right.
John HEnry
How does Judd's critique of prostitution harm anyone?
It is pretty accepted in our family that I'm essentially an old prude with a stick up her... you get the idea. But why should I control what other people are allowed to do with their bodies especially if it isn't harming anyone. Is the act of sex without emotion or desire inherently harmful? Is it really horrendous enough to necessitate criminality if it's voluntary?
Men go out and participate in pretend territorial disputes displaying rampant aggression and are lauded by society. They suffer immediate and long term injury and society throws large amounts of money at them. Why is this ok? Is it because they're men? Is it because it isn't as embarrassing as sex? Is prostitution bad because it doesn't require as much training as football? It is true a person standing on the street faced with the choice of going without food or shelter can't decide to play a game that night for immediate money.
Right now there is a segment of society (drug addicts/mentally ill) that are forced into this profession either due to circumstance or actual coercion. Would this be more likely to improve or worsen if prostitution were legal?
Slavery is considered to be both abhorrent and harmful to society at large, therefore it is not legally enforceable, even if freely entered into.
Uh, if it's 'freely entered into', it's not slavery.
If there's a camera up, it's taken as acting.
”Uh, if it's 'freely entered into', it's not slavery.”
I was going to inquire about the “slavery contract” but decided it probably wouldn’t be illuminating.
We have established that you think prostitution is appalling, but should not be illegal.
If everything 'appalling' were illegal, our courtrooms would be even more overwhelmed than they are now.
Oops,
Popehat explained why you CANNOT film a paid sex act and get away with calling it a movie instead of prostitution.
TO qualify as a movie, and be protected, there are a number of hurdles you have to meet.
The presence of a camera, by itself, does not make it non-prostitution.
Sorry for the unclarity.
John Henry
The left in the 60s and early 70s:
If you believe in justice,
And if you believe in freedom,
Let a man live his own life!
Rules and regulations, who needs them.
Open up the door.
(Graham Nash, "Chicago")
Do they even recognize themselves today?
Wait a minute. I thought that women had an absolute right to choose. If they choose to provide sex for money, this is wrong because ... reasons.
OK, instead of slavery lets say your civil rights. You can't voluntarily surrender your civil rights. And nobody answered my question, which wasn't, "should all abhorrent things be illegal?" It was, "why, if "sex work" is just another type of work, indistinguishable and no less dignified than being a fireman, or linebacker, or computer programmer, then why would anyone be appalled if their daughter or wife took it up?"
though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery
Unless a pimp is forcing it, the cash exchange proves consent. Will she believe the women?
I wonder how finances were managed between she and her ex, Franchitti.
The word "invasion" seems to be getting a workout lately...
We don't allow the big banks to enslave people to settle their debts, voluntarily or otherwise, because we know they would.
Whats more, how would you feel about someone who encouraged his wife or daughter to be a prostitute?
RW asks: It was, "why, if "sex work" is just another type of work, indistinguishable and no less dignified than being a fireman, or linebacker, or computer programmer, then why would anyone be appalled if their daughter or wife took it up?"
Did anyone here suggest that prostitution is 'no less dignified' than other careers? What about strippers? Showgirls? Nothing dignified about it.
Who tried to sell your wife or daughter on the benefits of taking up "sex work?"
”Did anyone here suggest that prostitution is 'no less dignified' than other careers?”
Good question.
Can I make the suggestion that the question of what sex workers think about their lives is an empirical question? I mean, that doesn't invalidate concerns about the morality of the activity, but it seems to me that the first place to start is to ask them. That's not my bailiwick, but it seems that it's a good place to start for any sociological question.
@Ron W,
It was, "why, if "sex work" is just another type of work, indistinguishable and no less dignified than being a fireman, or linebacker, or computer programmer, then why would anyone be appalled if their daughter or wife took it up?"
So, I guess we can assume that you'd be opposed to your wife or daughter being a sex worker. Would you be more sympathetic to your wife or daughter if they just had sex with a lot of men for free?
I know I wouldn't. I'd probably be more sympathetic to know that they were at least getting something out of it other than sexual enjoyment.
And, while we're posing moral quandaries to each other --- do you feel the same moral opprobrium towards a male porn star or a gigolo? I mean, theologically speaking, they, too, are mired in the fomes of sin as well as the chicks.
Did anyone here suggest that prostitution is 'no less dignified' than other careers?
Why is it undignified? Isn't it just a job? A monetary transaction? The consensual exchange of one good for another? The fact of the matter is that sex isn't just a "good." Its not a croissant or a pie. In a very real way a human being is being consumed.
There’s your answer mockturtle. Nobody said it.
do you feel the same moral opprobrium towards a male porn star or a gigolo?
Yes, of course.
Would you be more sympathetic to your wife or daughter if they just had sex with a lot of men for free?
Yes, I think I would.
I would be appalled if my son or daughter became a lawyer or a politician, or a salesman. So what?
So, prostitution is undignified and appalling, no one wants their wife and daughter to engage in it, if someone tried to entice their wife or daughter into it they would (I assume, if you have a soul) think that person is a scum bag.
Wow, you might think that you guys believe that prostitution is degrading or something. Harmful to the human psyche maybe? But you know what, the advocates for sex work don't say that. The ones quoted in the linked article think its great. Just another career path.
In a very real way a human being is being consumed..
I think you've watched too many zombie movies.
I would be appalled if my son or daughter became a lawyer or a politician, or a salesman. So what?
We are in agreement that a politician is pretty much the same thing as a prostitute.
Buddha is everywhere on everything in Thailand.
a group puts up signs "Buddha is not for decoration".
Pussy is part of nearly every transaction, and much entertainment and politics these days.
But not for sale!
We don't want to know the true market value of pussy so we also deny the obvious.
We don't want to know the true market value of pussy
This is also true.
Gahrie
Give away your child to a random guy in a car and see what happens. You are playing dumb. We do not allow people to give away their babies. We have adoption processes which are tightly regulated.
Dusk to Dawn - we got pussy!
"cash is the proof of coercion." Harvey Weinstein is going to use that remark against her in defending against her lawsuit.
The wife or daughter argument is the father instinct; in turn what a woman wants to attract with her vagina. The father gives responsibility for the bride away to the the new husband, when he gives the bride away.
But a woman can attract other things too, say unattached money; a second best. Not the father's choice but the father at that point has had his right to say.
Ron Winkleheimer said...
Raise your hand if you agree, "I would be perfectly OK with it if my daughter took up "sex work" as a career and I think my wife should get a part time "sex work" job."
I would not be okay with my daughter taking up sex work as a career. I'd be pretty much equally not okay with my daughter engaging in meaningless sex multiple times a day, even if done as a hobby.
I'd be okay with my wife engaging in meaningless sex multiple times a day, as long as she still adhered to the forsaking all others thing. In fact, I'd be more than okay with that...
The Escort (2016), whose plot I have mostly forgotten, a journalist tags along with a prostitute and they find mutual advantage and protection in the arrangement.
Once again, the leftist high-ground extends to telling other people what, or what not, to do.
Mockturtle,
Funny isn’t it? You talk about desperate women and that gets turned into “it's as dignified as being a heart surgeon”. This is what Scott Adams calls the ridiculous absolute. “So you're saying there's no difference between running a hospital and tea bagging hobos for dimes?”
Ken B says: We do not allow people to give away their babies.
No, but we do allow for killing them.
I wouldn't want my son to be a prize fighter, either.
Or work in Hollywood.
My cousin was an “injury lawyer” for awhile (he’s doing some other kind of law, now). My uncle, an architectural engineer who owned his own firm, was unable to hide his disgust.
Everybody's talking at me.
I don't hear a word they're saying.
Will no one here speak up for the gay sex workers?
It is Althouse, after all.
Whats more, how would you feel about someone who encouraged his wife or daughter to be a prostitute?
I would not think well of that person, just as I do not think well of people who encourage their kids to become lawyers.
Some kids do not have the skills or the motivation to become "respected" professionals. Hopefully, they find some way to contribute to society.
You are playing dumb. We do not allow people to give away their babies.
https://safehavenlaws.uslegal.com/
NPR fires critic David Edelstein after ‘Last Tango’ joke
Also no power tools in touching.
Or else Judd is incapable of rational thought.
Ding!
" cash is the proof of coercion" would make Ayn Rand puke .
My thoughts, in no particular order.
Society has always looked down upon women who exchanged sex for money, or for food (e.g., Venezuela), or for whatever. But not always. Concubines for powerful lords in Muslim and Asian societies have exchanged sex for power.
And one of the things I learned from the case of Eliot Spitzer is that call girls can earn a LOT of money. Not much prestige, but lots of bucks.
Shouldn't a woman's right to choose extend to a woman's right to choose something that other women would rather she hadn't? Women are awfully judgemental. (Yes, Althouse, you too)
Ashley Judd is full of it.
If I buy a woman flowers and take her to dinner and we have consensual sex afterwards, it's no different than me calling up the neighborhood thot and paying her $40 for a consensual blowjob. One happens to be illegal now, but shouldn't be. Both are pay-for-play. Coercion? I don't think so.
I'd rather my daughter be a sex worker than a politician, most lawyering specialties and anyone in the MSM. Funny how used car salesmen are now considered more respectable than the aforementioned professions.
And I knew a drug addict who had all her medical expenses covered as well as a VERY generous "living expenses" allowance so she could sell -- oops, give her baby up for adoption after birth....then more $$ for counseling sessions to deal with it. All those living expenses went to heroin and crack and menthol cigarettes. We do allow the sale of children....heavily regulated my ass.
Per Big Mike: Concubines for powerful lords in Muslim and Asian societies have exchanged sex for power.
Concubine was a respected status, e.g, her children were considered legal offspring of the male. She was also part of 'society', whereas prostitutes, though often well mannered and well off, were not.
I'd rather my daughter be a sex worker than a politician, most lawyering specialties and anyone in the MSM.
@Marcus, "most lawyering specialities," but surely you didn't mean to include "law professor" as one of the lawyering specialities?
;-)
Back in the Byzantine Day, Theodora whored herself silly. Sorry, she was an 'actress'. Did things with swans that would be illegal today.
Until she met Justinian. Then she became a born again virgin.
Even more: she cracked down on whore mercilessly.
I remember Ashley Judds films. She got a lot of naked. She sold her orifices to Weinstein and others for money.
Obviously she feels bad for the trade she made.
But she, like Theodora, does not get to tell me it was okay when she did it but it's bad now that she made her money.
There’s a straight line that runs from Ashley Judd and Elizabeth Warren, to Carrie Nation and Margaret Sanger, to Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards. A thread of totalitarian New England Puritanism that cannot stop minding other peoples’ business and claiming the moral high ground while doing so.
I once worked at a tennis center adjoining a public park in the San Francisco Bay Area. One of the things I had to do was to put on the rubber gloves, grab a trash bag and take care of the feces left by homeless people.
It was not only legal. It was necessary. But it sure as hell wasn't uplifting or life-affirming. I'm sure that was a piece of cake compared to cleaning up crime scenes, though.
The dignity of work comes not from the activity, but from the ability to support yourself. Prostitution seems pretty horrible to me and I wouldn't recommend it but it's hardly the only awful thing people do to support themselves.
Uh, if it's 'freely entered into', it's not slavery
But the agreement isn't enforceable. And cops won't fetch your runaway slave.
"The fact that money is used doesn't take a transaction out of the purview of government. We don't let people sell their children. We don't even let them sell one kidney."
Ding ding. But we don't outlaw prostitution merely because kidney selling is wrong. Sexual reproduction literally deals with the powers of life itself. Like abortion, misuse is terribly wrong.
Ashley Judd and I disagree on a lot I think. But the fact is you can never escape the scientific reality that sexual activity is linked with bringing life into the world. Even if the two people in question are sterile, the rest of us aren't. A society that degrades sex at the margins shifts the distribution curve and the rest of the population IS affected.
You can push back against this idea because you think it's prudish, anti-liberty, or old fashioned. But the reality is our society is created from sex. It's prudent to have some norms and safeguards around the very means of creating society. We have safeguards for the construction of our houses, cars, roads, power plants, and so on.
But we have no concern whatsoever for how society itself is created it seems. Smart.
That concern must absolutely be balanced with a preference with individual liberty. So our laws should not be too invasive. But laws against prostitution and other laws that strengthen marriage in the best possible outcome for children are not invasive to the vast majority of people.
Indeed, we are all worse off when more children are raised in non-existent families, when more children are raised without a mother and father, and when more people are destroying their own lives and by extension their families by engaging in prostitution.
These aren't Orwellian level bedroom regulations. But any talk of them, and suddenly it's entirely unacceptable because we want to be as free as a polygamous chimp in the wild.
What a terrible existence.
Wait...I thought it was a woman's choice what she did or didn't do with her orifices.
Modern family: 60 minutes... 60 second marriage. The first choice is moot. The second choice is the customer's privilege. The third choice is a VIP pass to the friendly neighborhood Planned Parenthood chamber of lost "burdens".
A society that degrades sex at the margins shifts the distribution curve and the rest of the population IS affected.
Which is worse, Chris, prostitution or adultery? Should adultery be illegal? It was punishable by death in biblical times.
BTW, I do agree with your moral stand. But morality and illegality are not interchangeable.
Ashley’s Judds are spectacular.
And one of the things I learned from the case of Eliot Spitzer is that call girls can earn a LOT of money. Not much prestige, but lots of bucks
For the big buck you don’t have to be everyone’s cuppa but you need to be in demand for the big money. A Madison four aint gonna cut it.
Maybe so, maybe not - but I'm interested in what makes people think it's someone else's decision to make.
The now common argument that "you can't possibly understand" unless you are of identical rank on the intersectional identity status ladder seems to assume that human communication between tiers of the ladder is impossible and insulting.
I think they allow for communication, but just believe in maintaining deference between the order of the rungs nonetheless. Just like the right-wing stupidly believes in deference of the lower socioeconomic rungs of their own hierarchy ladder to those at the top of that one.
Prostitution is shunned because - let's face it, it can get real gross I'm sure - but also because men (and women) want to believe that the sex their wives might be inclined to indulge them with is non-financial/transactional in value. Of course, the marriage itself is NOT - and the existence of prostitution proves that the sex might not be either.
Like men, women can be against it because of the icky/health/disease factor as well as concern for the well-being and pride of those who have a weaker economic voice in the matter. But the third factor is that one woman's promiscuity lowers the "value" of another woman's chastity. Hence slut-shaming. And one of the things I believe women fear most in relationships is that a guy will realize how boring most of them are once the "game" of sexual tension/conquest is played out. Decreasing the "work" (or status) required of the conquest decreases a woman's "social-sexual leverage", and the vast majority of women are just boring, self-aware and relationship-minded enough to fear this most.
And that's why sluts are so fun. That's why Cosmo's monthly article feature is always about "ways" to make her sex life more interesting and exciting and drive her man wild in bed. As if she doesn't either have what it takes or lacks it on her own.
Ashley Judd is not wrong just because she is Ashley Judd. The commodification of sex is wrong. I feel sorry for those among you who apparently are dependent on it.
Is the commodification of love wrong, Mike? Because there's plenty of that to go around.
Geez Gahrie, it says right at the top of your link “at locations authorized by the state”. As I said, tightly regulated. It’s not remotely like how yo7 can have sex.
Give it up.
One does not get to rail against 'traditional values' ala Ashley Judd, laud free love, and rejoice in libertinism...but then go back to 'the sacred orifice' as support for a personal distaste for male aspects of libertinism.
That orifice is only sacred because it begats life and if you obnoxiously support flushing that life down a toilet because of personal convenience, fuck you! You don't get to make that argument. You've already defiled the sacred, but still want the special consideration.
"The commodification of sex is wrong"
Yes, but that boat sailed when promiscuity became morally acceptable. Unless Ashley Judd lived a virtuous life, she is being a hypocrite.
...but apparently commercializing men's orfices is just fine?
Only women's orfices are off-limits?
For transgenders, what is the cutoff (heh) where the concern begins?
I think Judd's right for the right situation. IOW normal, real relations.
But, if yur lookin' to make dough I guess more Judd's the best way ta go w/ tatas.
Re Si v NaCl, we'd need to ask the expert Inhofe about the science re using orbs re whoring fer dough.
Judd is, like many feminists, against anything where a man might have a good time. Like many feminists, she thinks women are *always* the victim, so it's men's fault when they make bad decisions. More proof that feminism isn't about equality, but rather insulating women from accountability, and hating on men at every opportunity.
The idea that women are *that* delicate should be taken as an insult, the same way that men are portrayed that evil and predatory.
I doubt anyone thinks sex work is ideal. That being said, 'working' an hour for $200 is more cost effective than working all day for less at something far more physically demanding.
I wouldn't want my kid or my spouse working in a meat packing plant, working on a farm, or going door to door, or driving cross country. Then again, I wouldn't want my kid to stay at the cashiering job she has now until she retires. Somewhere along the line, I expect that she'll get job skills that let her do something more lucrative, safer, and something she'd be proud of.
At the least, I'd provide the stability to establish herself doing something else, even training her to do what I do. But absent someone to fall back on, I'd hope that some pious jackass wasn't so busy proclaiming their own virtue that they'd rule out the possibility.
Her mother used to do sex work, in between gigs cleaning apartments. She did it on her own terms (actually in both lines of work). Arranged her advertizing, screened clients, set limits. The people she had as regular clients were respectful. Like Uber/Lyft, she worked when she pleased. If she needed more money, she sought more clients. She had other issues that made a regular job for any length of time impossible. She intended, and took several steps toward, a different line of work where she'd be her own boss, or at least a professional.
If I had to say, the bigger risk is that the money and free time lead to drug addiction, something not helped by the variable hours and relative windfall-like wages.
It's not for everyone, for various reasons, but few people working in it are helpless victims, unlike what pious advocates like Judd and Dworkin say, but modern feminism's success is undermining women and making them wards of the state.
Even though it's less than ideal, to take away that option for someone to get themselves out of a financial bind is worse than say, mandating a minimum wage so high that any job doing unskilled labor is impractical.
"Which is worse, Chris, prostitution or adultery? Should adultery be illegal? It was punishable by death in biblical times."
Because there was some understanding of the gravity of the issue. It doesn't make it the right punishment though. And clearly even then it was regarded (by many, but not all) as extreme boundary maintenance that wasn't intent to be practiced as evidence by the cast the first stone story.
We don't need to play the game that because X should be outlawed by society what about Y, and why don't we kill them to boot. We humans sure are great at gradually enlarging the eye of a needle so camels can one day fit through them.
Adultery should have some consequences, probably civil and not criminal, but it's not the same thing as an organized business or even seemingly informal exchange of money at the fringe.
A society which can develop sophisticated arguments for why all kinds of immortality is permissive has gone too far. Rhetoric can't escape biology and reality. The biological and sociological reality is our cute comments and short sighted sophisticated arguments to excuse destructive human desires is making hell on Earth for individuals and families. All that in the midst of heavenly technological progress.
Debauchery and prostitution aren't necessary for our success. We tolerate and permit them at our peril. These things aren't just fun, enjoyment and pleasure seeking entertainment.
It's the mechanism for creating life, and even if your not actually creating life every time, our biology and social connectedness is all affected. Diseases. Addiction. Broken families. Abuse. Generations affected. None of this is worth the desire to have an orgasm or get a thrill.
We're letting the biology that resigns chimps to trees define our nature rather than the self control and compassion that builds and protects family and civilization.
Yes, that's mortality. All laws are moral at the foundation.
Morality..
Morality, yes. But should it be imposed by law? The Apostle Paul was right to admonish Christians against sex with prostitutes. Clearly, for Christians, sex belongs between a man and a woman united in marriage--a spiritual as well as a physical union. But morality cannot be imputed by civil or criminal law. Though the intent behind prohibition was sound, the understanding of human nature was not.
Women are scared that their control over sex is being eroded. With legal prostitution the true value of sex becomes apparent. Better to pay for it once than paying for the rest of your life. Sex robots will do for men what dildos do for woman.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा