In France it is morally acceptable to have mistresses, yes - but it'll still get you in trouble if your wife wants to divorce you over it. The difference is France won't get high and mighty over who people choose to sleep with. France doesn't point a moralizing finger. She doesn't throw rocks in glass houses, in other words: because the fact is that we're all human and whilst we have every right to resent those who hurt us, we don't have a right to judge them morally for wanting to love someone.
Depends on the individual, but on the whole you may have a point. Although I don't think many guys are comfortable with the thought that their wife has at some point in her past been extremely sexually promiscuous. That feels equally seedy for most men (me included).Also you have a male perspective. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that females are far less tolerant and more judgmental of prostitution for obvious reasons. No woman wants to think her man has ever been to, will go to, or can go to a hooker.
Lets also remember that because the differences between the sexes, it is easier for a woman who wants to scratch an itch without paying for it, than it is for a man. As such one could say that you are coming at this from a female perspective: if there ever came a time in your life where you craved physical intimacy with a stranger, you would have more options open to you besides paying than the average man does.
Seedy, often. Immoral? Not necessarily. It completely depends how it is carried out. I'll concede that it mostly takes a seedy form. But it actually warms my heart to know that physically and mentally challenged people who otherwise would lead desolate sex lives, can be with prostitutes (this goes for either sex mind you). There is nothing seedy about that at all to me, quite the opposite - it takes on an almost sacred aura in those cases.With some of the US puritan values, legalizing prostitution here would never fly - and some of the puritan values are not all bad. Personally I find prostitution is immoral and seedy - so I don't think it should be made easy and accessible.
What consenting adults do behind closed doors should not be the business of employers. So if en employee sees a prostitute and gets booked for it - sure, if that causes a problem for the image of the firm, firing makes sense. But really, only a minority of jobs should require that degree of image sensitivity. Even in a somewhat puritan country like the USA.There are a lot of lesser offenses that people can and do get fired over... ie. racy pictures on facebook, saying something stupid or off color, tardiness, honest mistakes in their work, etc. so getting fired for going to a hooker seems reasonable to me in most cases.
I also disagree on the benefits of puritanism. For me, there's nothing positive there. Puritanism is not simply the desire for a moral life - it is the imposition of a judgement system on the way others lead their lives. One can strive to live a healthy and sound life without the need to judge the ways of others.
I mean reacting in shock to a little bit of titty showing at the Superbowl, while gore and violence goes virtually unnoticed? That's a pretty sick choice of focus for one's disgust, and whatever mind set causes such a reaction needs rethinking.
Concretely, if as a woman, prostitution is revolting to you, all you have to do is be clear about that with the men you meet. Then you must trust - which remains the case regardless: we always have to trust, whether temptations is legal or not.
As a man, the idea of intimacy with a woman who sleeps around is unappealing. So all I have to do is be clear about this in my choice of a life partner. Then I must trust.
Wanting the state to condemn temptation seems childish to me, and I think consensual sexual activity is an area the state should never be involved in.
Last edited by Malcolm Wright; 04-21-2012 at 11:50 AM.
I've spent most of my life in an environment where prostitution is legal and accepted. It doesn't jibe with my personal moral code (and I also don't approve of artificially induced abortion) but as long as practices such as these are legal I'm quick to defend the right of people to have access to these services. To me, the law supersedes personal preference. If I dislike a law enough (like our rat-inside-a-snake income tax code) I'll honor it until I'm able to get enough support to change it.
Truth Teller (04-21-2012)
The ambassador died, Obama lied.
When the law criminalizes people's sex lives or the substances they choose to use, I think it fully deserves to be ignored. Personally I have never partaken in prostitution and don't imagine a future in which I would, but I don't see those who do as criminals, no matter what the law says about it. Same with pot smokers - I don't do it myself, but if I knew someone who wanted to smoke the odd joint, but held back only because the law is against it, I'd think he was unnecessarily constricting his life based on the foolish opinions of the land he happens to be standing in.
The law might one day ask you to surrender your first born for ritual slaughter... Some laws are best treated with all the respect they deserve, even when that amount of respect is ... none.
My route of choice is to obey the law until I can change the law, subject to the degree of enforcement. If there is a law I don't agree with and it's generally not enforced, then I may engage in that activity, but if it is enforced there's a reason for it and at that point the activity becomes criminal, IMO.
Where I live we're zoned for horses but not chickens. That makes no sense to me. Horses have no particular value other than entertainment and they create a neighborhood problem with flies. Chickens are relatively clean, their manure is rich in nitrogen and great in the gardens, and of course their eggs are ten times better than the factory eggs one buys at the market. Consequently, we used to keep chickens in violation of the law because the city didn't care. They didn't enforce the code unless someone complained, and nobody around here had a problem with it.
The law of the draft to fight in Vietnam was enforced. Would you have gone if you had been drafted? Chances are you would have left a limb, or your life there... and killed people you had no business killing... in a war started with a lie.
The law against providing African Americans with access to libraries was once enforced: would you have respected that law? Or would you have got books out for an African American friend of yours so he could educate himself?
1) I left college in 1966 to go to war. I wouldn't do that again, knowing what I know now, but I don't regret the decision. What I gained from that very concentrated, intense experience shaped who I am today.
2) African-Americans practiced civil disobedience to get laws like that changed, and it worked. They also paid the penalty for disobeying those laws until that change took place. I lived in Mississippi in the mid-''60s. I remember the Shell gas stations with three restrooms (MEN, WOMEN, COLORED) and the Mississippi Highway Patrol vehicles with a confederate flag plate in front where the license plate would go. I was not aware of any laws preventing me from checking out books and letting someone else read them. Are you sure about that?
The laws in question were enforced in at least the first couple of decades of the 20th century, in Mississippi specifically - I don't know about other states. If you read my grand father's autobiography, Black Boy, you'll know as much as I do about it - which is not much more than what I've said here.2) African-Americans practiced civil disobedience to get laws like that changed, and it worked. They also paid the penalty for disobeying those laws until that change took place. I lived in Mississippi in the mid-''60s. I remember the Shell gas stations with three restrooms (MEN, WOMEN, COLORED) and the Mississippi Highway Patrol vehicles with a confederate flag plate in front where the license plate would go. I was not aware of any laws preventing me from checking out books and letting someone else read them. Are you sure about that?
So would you have got the books out for your friend?
Richard Wright was your grandfather? I loved that book. I read my mother's copy when I was quite young. It may have been what got me interested in sociology. I couldn't read enough about big city ghettos - black, Jewish and Mexican, about people's lives and how they differed even though we were living in "the same" society. I recall "Native Son", "The Children of Sanchez", "Down These Mean Streets", all of Jerome Weidman's books, you name it. That's why "Westside Story" looked so silly to me when it came out.The laws in question were enforced in at least the first couple of decades of the 20th century, in Mississippi specifically - I don't know about other states. If you read my grand father's autobiography, Black Boy, you'll know as much as I do about it - which is not much more than what I've said here.
I suppose I would have. Friendship is a bond that doesn't always follow the rules.So would you have got the books out for your friend?
It is difficult for any decent person to sit back and not comment on the anti-Semitism,racism ,sexism ,and all-around ignorance espoused on the majority of DA's posts,it's fucking sad when one gets a warning for simply being a decent person.
I'm glad you enjoyed it - I did too!Richard Wright was your grandfather? I loved that book. I read my mother's copy when I was quite young. It may have been what got me interested in sociology. I couldn't read enough about big city ghettos - black, Jewish and Mexican, about people's lives and how they differed even though we were living in "the same" society. I recall "Native Son", "The Children of Sanchez", "Down These Mean Streets", all of Jerome Weidman's books, you name it. That's why "Westside Story" looked so silly to me when it came out.
I suppose I would have. Friendship is a bond that doesn't always follow the rules.
I've been lucky in three areas in my life and the last of those is that I wasn't killed in Vietnam. I can't take credit for that; it was just the way things turned out. Yet I almost always come out on top when dealing with adverse situations so I suspect I'm handling them wisely. It's a hard thing to speculate about - it just is what it is.
I'm not so concerned with the question of whether you would come out the other end unscathed if you made the same decision again. I'm concerned with the moral implications of voluntarily accepting to fight a war you know is started on a lie by your side, and that will amount to a defeat for your side... only to find that what follows wasn't even the nightmare scenario the fear-mongers based their war cries on. I can't find a sane reason to go and kill people and risk my life and limb in that sort of scenario, and any law that tells me I must is not a law that should be respected, in my view.
Malcolm Wright (04-21-2012)
The thing is I tend to feel drafts are not to be respected in general for anything beyond protecting the homeland. If the homeland is being attacked, sure, everyone has to pitch in - that's fair enough and I would do so willingly in the nation I have decided to call home, in most scenarios.
Anyway - I'm glad to have had this discussion with you. These are important considerations.
Who gives away free alcohol? Even moonshine costs money.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
But it's not a crime to do so. That's the point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)