ARealConservative

No, I don't realize it. If you feel I did, explain. More likely, you lost something in the translation. I wouldn't know because your drive by response was lacking any clarification.

ah, the rock solid if's and but's defense.

But again, you will have to clarify. Is it 8 hours of prostituting is paid the same as 8 hours of fry cooking? Does the prostitute answer to a boss, or just to the customers? Benefits the same?

OKgrannie

I do not think that this "horrible simply horrible" quote was meant to say that ALL women are whorr..., but simply to show that a thin line divides us. For all of us only slightly different circumstances could have led to drastically different life scenarios. After all, "for the Colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady are sisters under the skin". (Rudyard Kipling)

__________________
The greatest danger to liberty lurks in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.---Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

talloulou

Well I'd have preferred her arguments without the ridiculous quotes.

Claiming all girls have decided to be prostitutes in one form or another by 12 is a statement I personally find horribly degrading and in my opinion asserting that by 12 all females have decided to let men do "all the work" is the completely wrong argument to use. In fact I'm not sure many sex workers would even support the sentiment brought forth in that quote as it makes women in general appear weak and useless. I don't think most sex workers would agree that selling their vaginas or penis is their only option in life.

1069

I think "all girls" (or at least, the vast majority of girls) realize at puberty (which could be around age twelve, or could be later) that they have come into a new power; that they have power over men. That their sexuality invests them with a form of power (wanted or unwanted) over boys and men.
And I think, at the point when this realization dawns, all girls must then decide what to do with- or about- this power, which is there whether they want it or not.
Some may attempt to suppress it (anorexia comes to mind). Some may turn their minds to considering how it can be used to their benefit, how it can be turned to their advantage (ie, "Now I can make so-and-so notice me").
Few twelve-year-olds in our society, I would think, immediately begin to consider ways to parlay their emergent sexuality into commercial gain, but that's only because few twelve-year-olds in our society suffer from any extreme deprivation of material goods or basic necessities.
That is not the case in many developing nations.

Regardless, it is a rare individual- of either gender- who willingly repudiates or renounces power.
And sexuality is not, in any event, something one can repudiate without negative repercussions. Once you have this power- whether or not you ever wanted it- it is part of you, until such time as you grow old and lose it; if you do not take the reins and wield it yourself, it will be wielded against you, by others.

Would you agree with this?

(because that is my interpretation of the aforementioned quote).

__________________
"I do love this idea that one can scream and scream and scream, with that utopia just one more scream away."
~ Scucca

talloulou

I agree. Young girls do come to realize their "sexual power" and their ability to use it to manipulate but part of growing into a decent adult is learning how to not misuse or abuse that power just as most boys at some point learn that in general their physical strength will often be more powerful than that of their female peers. In both instances those "powers" can be put to good use, bad use, or left benign. Girls should be taught not to "abuse" any sexual power they may have just as boys should be taught not to abuse their physical strength.

However any suggestion that "the vagina" is the most powerful thing girls have going for them is absurd and ridiculous. They do not have to use their sexuality in order for it not to be used against them, that too (in my mind) is rather ridiculous. I would no more want my daughter using her vagina as some manipulative tool than I would want my son using his brute physical strength as a means to enforce his will on others.

Jerry

The topic of this True Debate was not about general sexuality or any "new power".

The topic of this True Debate was of the commercial sale of sex.

Therefore "prostitution" within this True Debate only meant the commercial sale of sex.

Given the context of "prostitution", the assertion that nearly every 12 year old girl has decided to commercially sell sex is absurd.

***
So often is it argued that if a thing is hurting no one, then that thing should be legal.

Given the wealth of references I gave in making the case that legalizing prostitution does not solve any of the problems that such legalization is meant to solve, and given my opponent’s inability to source even one credible reference asserting that legalizing prostitution does solve such problems, I'm simply at a complete loss as to how someone can view my argument as the weaker argument.

In fact some may be interested to know that I got material against prostitution from COYOTE and Penet.

I have shown how prostitution hurts both the individual prostitute and the society as a whole, and I have shown how legalizing prostitution only makes the problems worse.

Therefore since prostitution harms many, many people, prostitution should remain illegal.

***
You will also note that in my argument's solution, the person selling the sex is never guilty of any crime; a fact that my opponent ignored to the very end.

talloulou

People tend to argue for the person arguing their side vs. the one who made the better argument.

CaptainCourtesy

Jerry's argument was concise, well documented, consistent, and offers a solution that doesn't punish the prostitute, doing a good job of making the victimless crime position irrelevant. The only logical fallacy I picked up on were a few correlation not causation fallacies that could have been cleaned up with a broader base of statistics. His variety of sources were excellent, including some from diverse sites, and his refuting of the standard 'it works in the Netherlands' was well done.

Rivrat relied to heavily on anectodal evidence rather than using it to strengthen her substantiated evidence. She lost points on her inability to refute or address much of Jerry's evidence, and was unable to capitalize on the strength of 'the Netherlands' argument. More seriously, she committed several logical fallacies, the most severe of which was the Volvo Fallacy, which Jerry was able to recognize, point out, and avoid. This particular fallacy is particularly damaging as it gives an emotional bent to the argument.

I enjoyed reading the debate, and wished it had continued. To me Jerry was the clear winner.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

Gardener

AS far as the Esther Vilar quote, I would say that our culture has changed quite a bit since 1972 (the date of her book The Manipulated Man), and that she wasn't really addressing prostitution so much as she was women's roles. Maybe it's just that I am of the age when I can recal her as being current, but as part of the feminist movement of that era, I think her words were intended to challenge the notion that women's lives involved nothing more than just traditional roles as wife. I interpret her as saying *IF* a woman sees her role as just using her sexuality to guarantee her a mate who will provide for her, *THEN* she is acting the role of prostitute.

Remember, this was 1972. A good many women DID see their role according to that which she described at the time, and although some still do in this day and age, rather than such being a general assumption, it has become a bit of an anachronism.