Am I Being A Prude, Or Overly Sensitive?

[Dana1010]

Is that valid?

Well, it's faith based. It lacks the rational certainty of the sciences.

 

[Anarchy]

If you can use biology and natural science to predict the migration patterns of seagulls, why not the behavior of humans?

There lies the fatal conceit (and inevitable failure) of all attempts that have been made so far at central planning.

unfortunately for those who try to apply such determinism (or are subjected to it (the population of Venezuela would be a current example)), human choices and human action are far from predictable.

Yes, logic can be used to deduce some general laws of human actions and human choices. Those laws are incredibly vague and generalized, and always require a ceteris paribus qualification. In human action, the ceteris is never paribus.

@scout has cut to the heart of the matter again; knowing the location of a mean and a standard deviation for a distribution, tells you absolutely nothing at all about the individual who is stood in front of you.

 

[Dana1010]

@shimmerz, I think you raised good points. But I think it's mostly social with women, whereas with men there is that gut feeling that she's damaged goods--and that applies not just to sex workers but any woman with too high a number.

 

[scout86]

I'm a little confused. @Dana1010 I thought you were saying that everything pertaining to biological entities (people in this case) was related to biology. But now I guess some things aren't? You don't think "society" is the product of "evolutionary biology? And, if color preference isn't biologically driven somehow, where DOES it come from?

 

[Anarchy]

It lacks the rational certainty of the sciences.

can I suggest that you read Kuhn's "nature of scientific revolutions".

The deeper you get into any aspect of any of the sciences, the more uncertainty you will find.

The nature of scientific knowledge is not necessarily onwards and upwards (the "Whig" view), in practice, the mainstream often looses the path, and knowledge is often lost.

 

[shimmerz]

and that applies not just to sex workers but any woman with too high a number

I will agree with that. I try not to say 'every' in 'any' case, but I have to say I have found the general consensus to be, the less experienced a woman is, the more desirable she may be. Kind of like being able to dominantly 'pee on her fire hydrant', so to speak. I can see that as being a 'nature' thing. This is much clearer to me, thank you.

 

[Pencil]

It lacks the rational certainty of the sciences

It does have moral certainty, and somehow we are here dealing with morality.

 

[Friday]

Once they've already done it, and the albatross is around their neck, then of course they should try to heal, live the best life they can, and be optimistic just like all survivors of trauma, mistakes, etc. But an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I don't think hammering home that sex work is a bad idea is harming anyone.

So anyone considering the industry should have one thing straight from the beginning: Someone. Will. Notice. You.

The rule is that sex workers are made pariahs, marked with a scarlet letter, and have extreme problems being taken seriously by men who see them as damaged goods, and not fit for relationships. Some among you will clamor to say, "Not all!" to which I reply, "Happy unicorn hunting to you."

I've been trying to stay out of this debate, having said pretty much everything I needed to say earlier...

But this simply isn't true.

Modeling, sex-work in various types, stripping, etc... Millions do it of their own volition. Most for relatively short periods of time. As pointed out earlier (I forget by whom?), it's largely a young person's game... Although there are both niches & rare exceptions, as well as managerial & ancillary positions in all aspects of the field.

The vast majority of sex workers, strippers, and models go on to marriage, kids, and normal suburban lives. Look around you the next time you're at a PTA function, or kids soccer game. The Volvo-driving-soccer-moms there include present and past sex workers, models, strippers. Most of whom would be easier to recognize from their middle school photos covered in pimples and unfortunate haircuts than their professional work or photos. Age is unkind to most, and all 3 branches of industry are known for costuming & artistry. Even current workers are often unidentifiable in their street wear. Male & female. Both with spouses who they either met during, or whom are well aware of their past employment. It's almost like we're (gasp!) normal people. There is no scarlet letter on their foreheads, no albatross around their necks, no way to tell Jane or Mike who did photoshoots 10 years ago, or stripped, or hooked ...from Debbie from accounting or Steve from accounts receivable.

You're taking an extremely narrow view, based off of an even more narrow misconception of several industries, and extrapolating answers that make no sense.

_________________

* Some good starting off resources for anyone wanting to take a better look into sex work as a whole.

https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/resources/frequently-told-lies/ In addition to the links on the article itself (and other linked articles) look to the right of the pages for dozens of links to experts in the field, statistics, solid science, etc. in Friends of Whores, Organizations & Allies, Resources, & Whorish media. Maggie is pretty damn awesome... The whole blog is worth a read, but one of its best values is as a collection point of literally hundreds of references; current workers, scientific, scholarly, & legal.

_________________
And since we've started citing sources:

- I've modeled. Mostly runway work. Off and on for about 5 years. I'm wicked tall, but not pretty. Which is fine for that side of the industry, it leans more towards the outré, anyway. A little print work. The worst kept secret on one base I was stationed at is that many of us made our play-money by having sand spray glued to our bums for Reef. :D My ass is nothing to brag about these days, but I was young, once. The rash guards covered up service-ink, and our faces never showed, so we weren't at risk for getting recognized or sanctioned (you're not supposed to moonlight whilst serving).

- One of my dearest & oldest friends has been a (mostly legal) prostitute outside of Vegas for almost 20 years, now. She got into it because she loves sex, adores people (which is the most important aspect of the job), and her son needed eye surgery. Made over 100k in a few months, got her son his surgery, and found her calling. I know a helluva lot of people on that side of the industry through her. I've thought, very seriously, about joining her for some time. The attorneys I would be able to afford in my divorce would far make up for any possible stigma associated. I haven't, but not because I don't respect the work.

- I've also dated 2 pros in my life. Did we eventually break up? Yep. Because of their work? Nope.

- Conversely, I've known a helluva lot of homeless kids & others over the years who work the streets. Largely not by their own choosing. This isn't an idealized 'everyone is Dr. Brooke Magnati (aka Belle du Jour) putting themselves through grad school' kind of idealized image of sex workers. I've also served in the military, which has meant close exposure to a lot of pros all over the spectrum, in various different countries. Lastly, my former mother-in-law is the stereotypical crackwhore selling her own children to pedophiles for drugs.

- I have a number of friends (including both actors & and a few directors/producers in the porn industry).

- I lived with strippers in New Orleans for some time. Which is one of the most lucrative places to strip in the country. Mardi Gras & Jazz Fest are 10k minimum nights for those weeks. Average nights bring in anywhere between $500 & $5,000. I usually made better money than they did, but they definitely had better hours & working conditions! (I was private contracting). While I've spent tons of time in their clubs waiting for them to get off work or just hanging out between sets, I've also spent a ton of time in strip clubs back when I was active duty military. N.O. May be a super lucrative city to strip in, but any club near a base on the 1st or 15th is usually a pretty decent place to work. The city I live in at present doesn't have that kind of steady clientele, and no one I know would work under the conditions at any of these clubs. Skeezy only barely begins to apply. But less than half an hour away in the next county over are decent clubs. That's where anyone with any sense heads. And a few hours away are even better places to work.

 

[Eleanor]

implicit within that line of reasoning is the idea that it is up to some central planning body or other, to grant permission or to create "rights".

Not so, actually. My own position is that social norms are emergent properties. Social life demands inter-personal coordination - interpersonal coordination, to be efficient at all, needs conventions. Conventions emerge necessarily from social life. I didn't say anything about rights precisely because I didn't have in mind a 'central planning body' or any other legalistic construct. "Rights" means many things in various discourses/contexts, what I had in mind was a less legalistic and more cultural idea about the kinds of things we accept as a matter of course, and where we draw the lines (socially) about what is acceptable and what is not, and how wide the buffer zone between them is. What in some circles might be called "manners" (understood as the range between absolute latitude to do as we like, and legal requirements).

A much safer (but currently derided by the mainstream) system is the position that we each have self agency, and the right to do whatever we please - so long as that freedom does not infringe on the equal right of any other individual to do likewise.

Sounds pretty much like J.S. Mill to me! or even Rawls for that matter. :bookworm::whistling: There is a view of classical liberalism plus a slightly sunny view of human nature that inexorably leads to anarchism. Are you that variety of anarchist? My older brother likes that view. I admire it, but I'm not really trusting enough to buy in I'm afraid.:shifty::cautious::nailbiting::photogenic:

The premise of my argument is that in the final analysis, when you tally the pros and cons, doing sex work is always, categorically a negative thing. I also contend that most if not all people who consume sex work wouldn't want anything to do with the providers in real life.

Actually, these are the conclusions of your argument. The premises are the assumptions you are using to demonstrate the truth of the claims. And it is not clear to me how your premises are not fatalistic.

The gray matter you're referring to evolved because it conferred a reproductive advantage in challenging environments. Rational thought, provisioning, delaying gratification, all evolved because they conferred a reproductive advantage.

This is too strong. Not all mutations that persist confer advantage individual or group. It would be more accurate to say that they at least don't (or don't always) confer a disadvantage. Mutation is random.

By contrast, reason, properly speaking, is purpose driven. It is true that it is slow, and it is true that it takes time to recondition our 'gut reactions,' but recondition them we can and do. It is "expensive" to do so, hence the premium on getting it "right" as children. People in my grandparents generation were commonly genuinely flipped out by homosexuality. People in my children's generation, not so much. ("Gay marriage? No big deal." :meh::singing:) My grandparents generation held a lot of really really mistaken views about homosexuality (and divorce, and dolphins and economics and lots of other things too.) They took it to be basic. I think it is becoming clear they were mistaken. Oh well. Freedom is prospective. Always and everywhere. Agency is about what we will do, how we will chart our courses in the future, not about what was already done in the past. Just because everyone has always done it one way in the past doesn't mean it has to be done that way in the future. Offering a story (even a well supported one!) about how something came to be doesn't, by itself, tell us much of anything about whether or how or it will go in the future.

"But sex work (heterosexual) is different!" One might argue. One might. And one might be wrong. In order to have a coherent argument about it one needs not only strongly held principles and a coherent theory but evidence. And even then one might be wrong if it turns out there is a clever enough workaround to nature's limitations (ridden in an airplane lately? hard to get less natural than that.)

 

[Dana1010]

@scout86, good point. It probably all is biological deep down. The social stigma for a man in sex work would come from the low prestige of the job, which comes from the fact that the impression is that all he has to offer is his body and therefore is too dumb to do anything that requires thought. It would not be a s squarely sexual with a man, more social, but that doesn't mean the social world isn't rooted in biology.

@shimmerz, it's all really disgusting. Just because it's natural doesn't mean I like it or celebrate it.

can I suggest that you read Kuhn's "nature of scientific revolutions".

The deeper you get into any aspect of any of the sciences, the more uncertainty you will find.

Jaysus Christ. Now we're throwing out science. It's getting clearer that people here just don't like what I'm saying and will go to any lengths to get it out of their brains.

 

[Pencil]

1. Oscar Wilde wrote De Profundis while in jail. It is the saddest text I've ever read, for the simple reason that he was regurgitating the horrifying views of homosexuality he had assimilated. The whole text is grovelling and self-flagellating.
2. When I was a kid I saw a movie called 'White Like Me' (if I remember the title correctly). The message of the movie was that all blacks want to be white because being white is right and admirable and superior and so on, and that any black person in his or her right mind would 'try for white'.

If porn actresses are damaged: Homosexuals were deeply damaged people in a world that rejected homosexuality (on the basis of religion - i.e. if God /Allah detests you ... ). Blacks were deeply damaged in a world that hated blacks (the inferior offspring of Ham). I agree, the majority of porn actresses are damaged due to childhood abuse and further damaged by exploitation and societal attitudes.

Historically we're at an interesting point with regards to women's rights, their bodies, empowerment, 'permission', etc - and porn. In the same way that the 80s feminists claimed the words 'bitch' 'dyke' and 'c*nt' and USED these words to refer to themselves to strip those words of their derogatory impact when used by others, and gays started using the word 'queer' (so effectively that Queer Studies is the official term used in academe), in the same way I believe women will start using porn as a weapon for real liberation.



Let's talk again in 20 years' time.

 

[Pencil]

Nobody is throwing out science. They're looking scientifically at science.