Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

That kind of contradicts what you said earlier when you acknowledge that the logical consequence of considering prostitution rape meant that it would be illegal...

In fact, I quite carefully and specifically did NOT say that. You said the implication was that it should be "eradicated", and that is what I agreed with.

Quote:

Even if it's different from other transactions (and I am not sure about your evolutionary explanations but I'd say that patriarchy/many religious-moral systems made it so), as long as it is freely entered into (i.e. NOT slavery), I don't think we should intervene.

Which just returns us to the serfdom/bonded labour argument.

Quote:

Yes but not the one I suspect you think. I'd be scared, hurt, blablabla but I don't think I'd hate the landlord, as long as he gave me a decent delay to pack my stuff.

Doesn't matter. I agree that most transactions are not of great personal significance, but some of them are. Housing is one that only usually bites under specific circumstances, but even people evicted with due process often experience it is a highly disturbing, emotionally charged event.

Originally Posted by contracycle

In fact, I quite carefully and specifically did NOT say that. You said the implication was that it should be "eradicated", and that is what I agreed with.

OK. With people willing to sell and people willing to buy (even if they are tiny minorities while everyone has gone and agreed with the view that it's rape), how are you going to eradicate it without making it illegal? (I thought that's the point where you brought in the "democratic majorities can walk all over minorities" point).

Quote:

Which just returns us to the serfdom/bonded labour argument.

Huh? I'd say independent prostitutes are more like self-employed or entrepreneurs than like bonded labour...

Quote:

... but even people evicted with due process often experience it is a highly disturbing, emotionally charged event.

I am damn sure about that. I mentioned "stress". If I was to lose my house, I'd be seriously distressed and fearful. But that's because I'd fear the future, not because I hate the landlord. What I am trying to say is that buying or renting a house is just like any other economic transaction. OTOH, it's really really important to have a roof over your head so it's a very important economic transaction. It's like food. I am sure that not having the money for food is highly stressful. OTOH, it doesn't mean you start thinking Tesco should not charge for its ready meals...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

OK. With people willing to sell and people willing to buy (even if they are tiny minorities while everyone has gone and agreed with the view that it's rape), how are you going to eradicate it without making it illegal?

The same thing we do every night, Pinky...

High minimum wage, low inequality, full employment, free education and childcare etc.

Quote:

(I thought that's the point where you brought in the "democratic majorities can walk all over minorities" point).

It was tangential, but I don't think a minority can hold the majority to ransom.

Quote:

Huh? I'd say independent prostitutes are more like self-employed or entrepreneurs than like bonded labour...

The analogy is that we don't allow people to do some things even voluntarily because of the precedent it sets for everyone else.

Quote:

OTOH, it's really really important to have a roof over your head so it's a very important economic transaction. It's like food. I am sure that not having the money for food is highly stressful.

Yes, and that's my point. There are plenty of things that are trivial, but some are not. I think when people report that they experience prostitution as rape-for-pay, then we are seeing that it is not trivial.

Originally Posted by contracycle

High minimum wage, low inequality, full employment, free education and childcare etc.

i.e. that's what we have right now in France or most Western Europe. And indiginous prostitution is pretty low. You can see that by comparing with previous historical description and data, when the use of prostitutes was a matter of course rather than the exception and it is said that, in London, up to 20% of the women were prostitutes...

Quote:

The analogy is that we don't allow people to do some things even voluntarily because of the precedent it sets for everyone else.

So pysche mentioned that with regards to people consenting to being slaves. Our point was that it can only be a game because the contract is unenforceable. Same with bonded labour. You can say to an employer "I am willing to become your bondsman" and the employer-lord may say "hey, sure, works for me". The reality is that the second the 'bondsman' says "fuck that deal, I take it back", there is strictly nothing, not-a-thing, the supposed lord can do. The contract is instantly null and void, no recourse. Indeed, the "lord" might be sent to jail if he ever think of complaining to the authorities...

That's why bonded labour does not exist and cannot exist. Not because the law forbids people to sell themselves into slavery.

Quote:

Yes, and that's my point. There are plenty of things that are trivial, but some are not. I think when people report that they experience prostitution as rape-for-pay, then we are seeing that it is not trivial.

I never said it was trivial. We can ask Zichao but I don't think she would fancy prostituting herself. I certainly wouldn't (to other men ; to women, I would actually be quite amiable to the idea, if I knew I could make it work).

But my difference with you is that the rape-for-pay is, one, a subjective measure. If some women feel differently about it, I don't think you or anyone can tell them what they feel or how they should feel. And, two, as long as it's a freely entered into transaction within some legal bounds, I object to interferences.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

i.e. that's what we have right now in France or most Western Europe. And indiginous prostitution is pretty low. You can see that by comparing with previous historical description and data, when the use of prostitutes was a matter of course rather than the exception and it is said that, in London, up to 20% of the women were prostitutes...

Mostly, yes, but we do not have full emplyment or particularly low inequality IMO. Nor can we be said to have a particularly high standard of living when most people simply can;t afford to live in London, and even necessary workers like teachers and nurses are obliged to live outside and commute in. And while it might be better in France, measures to reduce the difference are clearly already under way.

Quote:

Our point was that it can only be a game because the contract is unenforceable.

It's unenforceable because it's illegal. As opposed to previous societies in which bonded labour was legally recognised and enforced.

Quote:

That's why bonded labour does not exist and cannot exist. Not because the law forbids people to sell themselves into slavery.

Debt bondage has been defined by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery" [5] and is prohibited by international law. It is specifically dealt with by article 1(a) of the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery.

Debt bondage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point remains that even if someone said "I would like to sell myself into slavery" the transaction is not recognised and anyone accepting the offer would be in violation of the law. Thus my point: just becuase someone says they wish to do something doesn't actually mean they are entitled to do it. The reason for which, of course, is the broader ramifications of allowing such an institution on society as a whole.

Quote:

I never said it was trivial. We can ask Zichao but I don't think she would fancy prostituting herself. I certainly wouldn't (to other men ; to women, I would actually be quite amiable to the idea, if I knew I could make it work).

Do you really? Would really be willing, even able, to have sex with any women, no matter how unattrractive, no matter what age, no matter their personal hygeine, habits or preferences? Really? Because I think, very few people would be.

Problem here is that it is romanticised. The customers are imagined as suave and charming men, or slim and beautiful women. But that's not how its going to be.

Quote:

But my difference with you is that the rape-for-pay is, one, a subjective measure. If some women feel differently about it, I don't think you or anyone can tell them what they feel or how they should feel. And, two, as long as it's a freely entered into transaction within some legal bounds, I object to interferences.

I have said nothing about what people should feel. And I have pointedly allowed the possibility that for some people, it might be something they are positively attracted to for their own reasons. Indeed, although the evidence is not reliable, it may well be the case that for those who do freely choose it the dangers of PTSD etc are significantly reduced. The actual measures I have proposed are ones that maximise the positive benefits of all the regular alternatives, thus reducing or removing the element of economic coercion.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Mostly, yes, but we do not have full emplyment or particularly low inequality IMO.

I was indeed talking about France/western europe. And we may not have full employment but the fact that the unemployed have a pretty big safety net usually means that "economic coercion" as you said (esp. for the natives) is rare.

Quote:

It's unenforceable because it's illegal. As opposed to previous societies in which bonded labour was legally recognised and enforced.

Well, exactly. But if someone comes and say "I'll be your slave" and let you treat him like one, there are going to be very few limits (probably along the lines of permanently hurting or killing the slave). The point is that indeed the contract is not recognised, not enforceable and so, really, it's not slavery.

Quote:

Do you really? Would really be willing, even able, to have sex with any women, no matter how unattrractive, no matter what age, no matter their personal hygeine, habits or preferences?

I haven't talked with many prostitutes, to be honest. But I've talked with a couple. And they would point out that they do screen their customers a bit. Not much but a bit. I would probably do the same. This is getting personal and I don't want to go there but my tastes in women are fairly wide ranging. So I think I'd be pretty open. OTOH, you're still right: I can get along most women... but most likely if it means I am implementing my fantasies. So that still would be fairly a crap "service" I offer and thus it probably wouldn't work.

Quote:

Problem here is that it is romanticised. The customers are imagined as suave and charming men, or slim and beautiful women. But that's not how its going to be.

Let me assure you, I am a realist.

Quote:

The actual measures I have proposed are ones that maximise the positive benefits of all the regular alternatives, thus reducing or removing the element of economic coercion.

I am perfectly happy with these measures and can only point out that a lot of them are already in place. OTOH, I agree with you that they could be deepened. It still won't extinguish prostitution, though and, as long as you're OK with that, then, we are in agreement...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.