• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feminism and sexy female careers

Henrin said:
I honestly just don't like the rhetoric. It's used as encouragement tool for young women, which is fine and I'm 100% behind that, but it is not used in an honest and universal way. For one thing, it's not about the woman's feelings at all or really about empowering women, but about what feminists want women to do. For example, they will never call a stay at home mother empowered, or a nurse or even a teacher, but if the woman wants to be a ceo, a fighter, politician, or scientist then feminists will encourage those women by calling such things empowering. For another, empowerment is subjective and most people don't really think of things in that kind of frame of mind, nor is it likely a healthy thing to really focus on. Telling women to do those things that make them happy is in my mind a far better approach because then women are looking towards their interests and their own desires for their life and not focused on trying to do what other people want of them.

Of course, many of the fields that feminists don't consider empowering were once male dominated just like the fields they today consider empowering, like for example, nursing, that at one time was a male dominated field. They could in fact expand the argument into a patriarchy argument by looking at trends of male behavior when women start doing what men are doing. When women enter a field men leave at a two to one ratio to women. Meaning, that men start flooding out of the field like someone farted. This is really how fields have traditionally switched like nursing did and what is still happening today in fields all over the economy. Men have a strong tendency to stop doing whatever women start doing no matter the activity. They could claim men are doing that because they were trained to do it, which is probably got some truth to it, but probably not the entire story either.
Click to expand...

That's pretty understandable considering that the stay at home role was one that they were historically pressured into.
 
ibelsd said:
In terms of the nobility of hooking v. nursing, I'd say they are equivalent. Both are in the business of helping others. If you see them or value them differently, that is a 'you' problem.
Click to expand...

Hookers are in the business of helping others? I guess that is one way to look at it. :lamo I don't think giving a guy a hole to **** is equivalent to helping that same guy with his medical issues. Call me crazy, but I think one of those jobs is more important than the other. In terms of nobility, they're no where near equivalent. The one sells access to their body and the other sells their assistance in healthcare issues.
 
Henrin said:
Hookers are in the business of helping others? I guess that is one way to look at it. :lamo I don't think giving a guy a hole to **** is equivalent to helping that same guy with his medical issues. Call me crazy, but I think one of those jobs is more important than the other. In terms of nobility, they're no where near equivalent. The one sells access to their body and the other sells their assistance in healthcare issues.
Click to expand...

Of course sexual wellness is an important part of human health. Human beings have built-in physiological desires and many of them have no other outlet.

I really love the idea of sex workers giving disabled people the chance to be touched in a non-medical way, perhaps for the first time in their lives, to be held in a warm pair of arms and have their sexual dreams respected and lived out.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/10/sex-workers-disabled-people

Many people shrink their own needs to accommodate external pressures. I see no good reason to forbid this type of enterprise.
 
Josie said:
Uh, no. Most teachers I know went to school for nothing other than teaching, not because they weren't smart enough to have the career they really wanted.
Click to expand...

Actually, most research on the topic, with some variance, agrees that teachers are generally at the bottom 2/3 of their class.
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Closing_the_talent_gap.pdf
Per the report, just 23% of teachers come from the top 1/3. In other countries, Singapore, Finland, and S. Korea for example, 100% of teachers come from the top 1/3 of their college classes. So, yeah, U.S. teachers tend not to be our best and brightest, whatever their intrinsic motivations may be.
 
Henrin said:
Hookers are in the business of helping others? I guess that is one way to look at it. :lamo I don't think giving a guy a hole to **** is equivalent to helping that same guy with his medical issues. Call me crazy, but I think one of those jobs is more important than the other. In terms of nobility, they're no where near equivalent. The one sells access to their body and the other sells their assistance in healthcare issues.
Click to expand...

Let me start by fulfilling your request. You are crazy. :lol:

Sure, I guess if you want to debase the job that sex workers do, then it is easy to belittle them. I could claim the same about nurses. If putting a band aid on your boo-boo or putting a catheter in your pee-hole is the same as offering a lonely person some caring and comfort and maybe even someone to listen to, I'd agree one job is more important than the other.

In reality, I think they are both important jobs. Different, but both important and its simply not fair to make some sort of comparison in order to make one job or the other appear unworthy. Sex workers don't sell their bodies. They own their bodies just as much as a nurse or an engineer. Surgeons don't sell their hands, do they? Sex workers offer services, which may include intercourse, to those who have a desire or need to pay for them. No sex worker literally sells her body. However, I'd say that it is that attitude which makes sex work so dangerous. Rather than treating the people who perform the work with some amount of respect, it is believed that they are doing nothing less then entering into a contract of slavery. Again, this is a 'you' problem. How you view sex work speaks to your own values regarding the humanity of others.
 
You're right. Sex workers don't sell their bodies; they rent them.
 
nota bene said:
You're right. Sex workers don't sell their bodies; they rent them.
Click to expand...

I think David Ricardo and Adam Smith would disagree. Prostitution might be a sexy career and sex workers have a wage.

I guess you might be thinking about pimps, who profit from the "rent" of the physical body of the prostitute. Maybe pimps rent prostitutes. Paying for sex is bad enough, and treating a prostitute like an inanimate object is at least tasteless.

Well, then what about animals (they aren't inanimate objects) that are "rented?" Aren't they kind of like humans with a zero wage? The difference between two sex workers is how much the wage is. Renting a sex worker implies that she is someone's property, which is not legally possible. But I actually think too much credit is given. It would be nice to dispel the myth that women own their own bodies, in the sense that it is an object which may be exchanged on a market.
 
calamity said:
lol...do you actually believe that when she's whispering it in your ear? I suspect most of them are just stripping to feed a drug habit. But, they are very good at telling men exactly what they want to hear. That is for sure.

I tell my wife she needs to go to stripper school. She never tells me what I want to hear. :(
Click to expand...

You know, it's funny, but my best friend from college actually became a stripper to pay school, lol.



She told me later that she was the only she ever met in that boat, and that most of the girls were lesbians....HATED men. And had drug problems.
 
americanwoman said:
This. A stay at home mother can easily be as objectified as a stripper if she lets herself. It's about the choices we want to make and what empowers us as women.
Click to expand...

It's true. I'd bang a stay at home mom LONG before I'd bang a stripper.
 
nota bene said:
Not all of them, Moot. Some do. Some strip because they haven't finished their education and have no other marketable skills; some do because they have little kids at home but can afford a babysitter at night; some do because they have drug habits and can make a bit of extra party or photography money.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/151418-9-myths-about-strippers-debunked-by-a-former-stripper

https://thinkprogress.org/strip-clu...hese-strippers-are-fighting-back-fb3a204bcc5a
Click to expand...

And some do it because they can make 500 bucks, tax free, in one night, for 4 hours of work. Work three nights, then party like a rockstar for the other 4.
 
Celebrity said:
I think David Ricardo and Adam Smith would disagree. Prostitution might be a sexy career and sex workers have a wage.
Click to expand...

Yes, sex workers earn a wage; they engage in sex for money. But a "sexy career"? I think you may be confusing high-priced call girls/companions for hire and celebrities who “yacht” with your ordinary prostitute, who is very likely to have a drug habit as well as a child/children to support. Surge in Heroin Addiction Linked to Prostitution

Celebrity said:
I guess you might be thinking about pimps, who profit from the "rent" of the physical body of the prostitute. Maybe pimps rent prostitutes. Paying for sex is bad enough, and treating a prostitute like an inanimate object is at least tasteless.
Click to expand...

No, I was thinking about my young relative who was a “dancer” and “model” who “made money on the side.” She never had a pimp.

Celebrity said:
Well, then what about animals (they aren't inanimate objects) that are "rented?" Aren't they kind of like humans with a zero wage? The difference between two sex workers is how much the wage is. Renting a sex worker implies that she is someone's property, which is not legally possible. But I actually think too much credit is given. It would be nice to dispel the myth that women own their own bodies, in the sense that it is an object which may be exchanged on a market.
Click to expand...

Animals have no relevance in a discussion of human beings who prostitute themselves.

No, renting a prostitute doesn’t imply that she is somebody else’s property any more than my renting a room in my home suggests that somebody else owns my house.
 
nota bene said:
Yes, sex workers earn a wage; they engage in sex for money. But a "sexy career"? I think you may be confusing high-priced call girls/companions for hire and celebrities who “yacht” with your ordinary prostitute, who is very likely to have a drug habit as well as a child/children to support. Surge in Heroin Addiction Linked to Prostitution



No, I was thinking about my young relative who was a “dancer” and “model” who “made money on the side.” She never had a pimp.



Animals have no relevance in a discussion of human beings who prostitute themselves.

No, renting a prostitute doesn’t imply that she is somebody else’s property any more than my renting a room in my home suggests that somebody else owns my house.
Click to expand...

Animals serve as an example of objects which are alive. Even though we may "rent" animals, I think it is more appropriate to think of it as animals not being paid in their employment, e.g. entertainment, labor, etc.

Your analogy implies that prostitutes own their own bodies like you own your own house. This is not true. Prostitutes are not like houses, regardless of whether or not johns own a share.

I'm not splitting hairs, I think this is a serious problem that a lot of women have when they think about proprietorship.
 
Josie said:
Sports Illustrated models, strippers, etc. choose to show off their body for money. Men (mostly) then purchase the magazine or go to the strip clubs to ogle their bodies.

Feminists - does this bother you? Should a feminist woman be taking off her clothes so men will pay them? If it does bother you, how do you marry the two feminist thoughts that women should never be objectified and women should do whatever the hell they want with their bodies?
Click to expand...

radcen said:
Not a woman and not a feminist, but I'll chime in.

To me, feminism is about... or should be about... empowerment and choices. If a woman wants to be a stripper or a stay-at-home-mom or a corporate executive, all of those should be welcomed and respected so long as said choices are done freely and without coercion.
Click to expand...

This! Otherwise in my opinion as far as "feminism" is concerned its hypocritical.
 
nota bene said:
You're right. Sex workers don't sell their bodies; they rent them.
Click to expand...

Just reading along not sure who you were talking too but how are you useing sex worker actual sex?
 
LaylaWindu said:
Just reading along not sure who you were talking too but how are you useing sex worker actual sex?
Click to expand...

No idea what you were trying to say here.
 
RAMOSS said:
I bet you do believe in many of the things about being a feminist though.. like making your own choice NOT be get married to a guy and be a baby factory.
Click to expand...

Females have the right to do what they want within reason. However there is a really unhealthy detachment that women are performing on themselves from baby making.

Women are creating an anti baby maker movement in which the idea of making children is somehow inferior or lower than themselves. The reality is only women can make children, and seeing as women are more than 50% of the population have the ability to make baby making positive.

You notice how a group of guys can go around bragging about how much 'pussay' they get. That is just the modern day version of pride brought by inseminating females (biological male goal).

Women on the other hand in an attempt to make themselves more professional and serious have decided rather than making a modern day version of prideful baby making (biological female goal) they have put it under a lamp of shame. And instead aspire to male traits (bragging about how much dick they get).

Yes women have free agency, but in 100 years or so there is a very probable concern women will have given pregnancy so much of a stigma that people will stop having children to the point the population starts tanking.

Obviously this is speculation backed up with no facts but surely you can agree. There is nothing shameful about baby making when you look at it biologically, there has just been a recent attempt to shame it by women themselves.

That if anything is the opposite of empowering females, if you are shaming the FEMALE function.
 
British Right said:
Females have the right to do what they want within reason. However there is a really unhealthy detachment that women are performing on themselves from baby making.

Women are creating an anti baby maker movement in which the idea of making children is somehow inferior or lower than themselves. The reality is only women can make children, and seeing as women are more than 50% of the population have the ability to make baby making positive.

You notice how a group of guys can go around bragging about how much 'pussay' they get. That is just the modern day version of pride brought by inseminating females (biological male goal).

Women on the other hand in an attempt to make themselves more professional and serious have decided rather than making a modern day version of prideful baby making (biological female goal) they have put it under a lamp of shame. And instead aspire to male traits (bragging about how much dick they get).

Yes women have free agency, but in 100 years or so there is a very probable concern women will have given pregnancy so much of a stigma that people will stop having children to the point the population starts tanking.

Obviously this is speculation backed up with no facts but surely you can agree. There is nothing shameful about baby making when you look at it biologically, there has just been a recent attempt to shame it by women themselves.

That if anything is the opposite of empowering females, if you are shaming the FEMALE function.
Click to expand...

And why should anybody be forced to reproduce??
 
British Right said:
Females have the right to do what they want within reason. However there is a really unhealthy detachment that women are performing on themselves from baby making.

Women are creating an anti baby maker movement in which the idea of making children is somehow inferior or lower than themselves. The reality is only women can make children, and seeing as women are more than 50% of the population have the ability to make baby making positive.

You notice how a group of guys can go around bragging about how much 'pussay' they get. That is just the modern day version of pride brought by inseminating females (biological male goal).

Women on the other hand in an attempt to make themselves more professional and serious have decided rather than making a modern day version of prideful baby making (biological female goal) they have put it under a lamp of shame. And instead aspire to male traits (bragging about how much dick they get).

Yes women have free agency, but in 100 years or so there is a very probable concern women will have given pregnancy so much of a stigma that people will stop having children to the point the population starts tanking.

Obviously this is speculation backed up with no facts but surely you can agree. There is nothing shameful about baby making when you look at it biologically, there has just been a recent attempt to shame it by women themselves.

That if anything is the opposite of empowering females, if you are shaming the FEMALE function.
Click to expand...



I agree that in recent years past, expressing your desire to be a "stay at home mom" was, and may still be, scorned and looked at negatively by other women. If you didn't want a career, you gave women a bad name.

I think that extreme feminism is dying down.
 
RAMOSS said:
And why should anybody be forced to reproduce??
Click to expand...

Sorry I can't help but smell a straw man. No one is forcing anyone to reproduce or insinuating it. I am making the point that women have given baby making a stigma that it doesn't need or deserve for no reason other than wanting to distance themselves from the idea of house wifery (couldn't think of the correct word).
 
British Right said:
Sorry I can't help but smell a straw man. No one is forcing anyone to reproduce or insinuating it. I am making the point that women have given baby making a stigma that it doesn't need or deserve for no reason other than wanting to distance themselves from the idea of house wifery (couldn't think of the correct word).
Click to expand...

How is saying that 'baby making' is a stigma?? It looks like a personal choice to me.
 
British Right said:
Sorry I can't help but smell a straw man. No one is forcing anyone to reproduce or insinuating it. I am making the point that women have given baby making a stigma that it doesn't need or deserve for no reason other than wanting to distance themselves from the idea of house wifery (couldn't think of the correct word).
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a stigma like you claim. It's just that we are making own own choices for ourselves now.

Me personally, if a woman wants to distance themselves from being a housewife, then I see no problem with that. I a woman wants to be a housewife, then I see no issue with that. I have nothing against any woman that wants to have a child, even though I personally wouldn't ever want to be a housewife.
 
RAMOSS said:
How is saying that 'baby making' is a stigma?? It looks like a personal choice to me.
Click to expand...

What... you're trying too hard to disagree with me. I know it is a personal choice. My point is women are creating a stigma around baby making. Not that they have to do it.
 
TheGoverness said:
I don't think there is a stigma like you claim. It's just that we are making own own choices for ourselves now.

Me personally, if a woman wants to distance themselves from being a housewife, then I see no problem with that. I a woman wants to be a housewife, then I see no issue with that. I have nothing against any woman that wants to have a child, even though I personally wouldn't ever want to be a housewife.
Click to expand...

When I mean stigma, I mean the recent trend of women denouncing their female organs and saying things like "I am not made to make babies" when in reality they are. We understand that women have fought to get out of the house wife phase of humanity but that does not mean women have suddenly lost their function.

BIOLOGICAL WARNING - I WILL BE MAKING FACTUAL POINTS ON BIOLOGY.

Women's biological purpose is to make babies.
Men's biological purpose is to impregnate women.

Men are happy to say "this is my biological purpose but I choose not to go that path"
women are NOT happy to say "this is my biological purpose but I choose not to go that path"

An analogy for this is the movie 'Planes' (first analogy that came to mind =D)

In planes there is a crop duster (plane used to fertilize crops) that dreams to be a racing plane. Not only does he become a racing plane but he doesn't pretend he isn't a crop duster.

In our world women are starting to pretend they are not in fact females.
 
RAMOSS said:
Sex sells... even if it isn't actual prostitution, or stripping. Look how many TV ads imply sex. I think there are more hang ups given to people because of that one instinct than any other.
Click to expand...

yes, axe "body spray" seemed to really build a big clientele based on selling sexuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom