Monday, 17 April 2017

Chester Brown: Sex-Work Pride & Related Matters

Paying For It (2013)

Sex-Work Pride & Related Matters
by Chester Brown
(first posted on Patreon, 15 April 2017)

My March 28th post about Dave Sim's body-camera proposal has been put up on A Moment Of Cerebus. Dave has been having computer problems and so has been unable to respond. (Perhaps he hasn't even read the post.) But other A-M-O-C readers have commented. I notice that NONE of them defended Dave's body-cam idea.

Someone named Erick accused me of hypocrisy because, in criticizing Dave's extreme ideas, I neglected to acknowledge that many of my own ideas are similarly extreme. It would seem that Erick doesn't know what hypocrisy is.

Erick asked me a question:
"You truly mean to say that you would have no problem with your own mother and daughter becoming paid receptacles for strangers to hump on and ejaculate over? To be used in every conceivable way by men who see them as just a physical object to satisfy themselves on. Who would treat them no better than a pair of old shoes? And you no problem with that?"
Because I know that prostitutes can engage in their work with dignity and self-respect, I would have no problem with anyone I love doing sex-work. Erick characterizes sex-workers as "paid receptacles for strangers to hump on and ejaculate over" who are "used in every conceivable way by men who see them as just a physical object to satisfy themselves on" and are "treat[ed…] no better than a pair of old shoes". I'm not sure where Erick gets the idea that it's common for prostitutes to be ejaculated on and "used in every conceivable way". All sex-workers have their boundaries. A lot would not allow themselves to be ejaculated on and the ones who would usually charge extra for that. Only a few clients are so interested in ejaculating on someone that they'd pay the extra, so very little ejaculating-on is actually happening to prostitutes. That said, I wouldn't have any problem with a relative of mine allowing himself-or-herself to be ejaculated on during sexual play, whether for pay or not. And no sex-workers allow themselves to be "used in every conceivable way". Erick is exaggerating to make sex-work sound bad.

In saying that the clients see the sex-workers "as just […] physical object[s]", Erick fails to understand why people pay for sex: they want a connection with a fellow human being. I've been seeing one sex-worker for a long time and have real affection for her. That's not unusual - most prostitutes have regular clients and those regulars are the back-bone of their business. Very few prostitutes could survive financially if their only clients were ones who saw them only once. Why do clients become regulars? Most clients are men and, lets face it, guys tend to like sexual variety. If a guy has sex regularly with one woman over a long period of time, it's almost certainly for an emotional reason. That tendency to form emotional bonds with the sex-workers they see indicates that many clients see sex-workers as people, not objects. Even when I saw a sex-worker only one time, I still was able to recognize her humanity.

I've read a lot of stuff written by sex-workers (books, blogs, etc.) and there's general agreement that, while there are bad clients, most of them are relatively decent, and a lot of them are genuinely good. For example, I happen to now be reading King Kong Theory by writer and film director Virginie Despentes. She did sex-work for a few years and wrote of her first client, "I found him astonishingly kind." She then adds:
"[That] impression was confirmed by the other clients: in general, they were nice to me, attentive, and tender. [… I]n my small experience the clients were heavy with humanity". [60 & 61.]
The person proudly going by the name A Fake Name wrote:
"I just don’t think [prostitution is] anything to be celebrated, to be proud of or to have as a goal for a woman's life. But that's not hatred, or dislike or prejudice."
The words hate, dislike, and prejudice are not synonyms. One can be a homophobe and yet honestly not hate or dislike any individual gay people. (This is why the some-of-my-best-friends-are-black-or-gay-or-whatever line is widely mocked). If A Fake Name thinks that it's not possible for a sex-worker to be genuinely proud of what she or he does, it's because A Fake Name has a prejudice against sex-workers and can't see things from their perspective. Engaging in sex-work takes courage for all sorts of reasons. Courage is something to be proud of. H-L Mencken writes that the prostitute's "revolt against the pruderies and sentimentalities of the world [is] evidence […] of her intellectual enterprise." An ability to see through the pruderies and sentimentalities of the world is something to be proud of. Many sex-workers have children - an ability to provide well for one's children is something to be proud of. Those are just a few reasons why sex-workers can and often do feel proud. There are other possible ones - that isn't an exhaustive list.

Sean Michael Robinson wrote:
"I’m […] skeptical of (to me) extraordinary claims when they come from a self-interested party. I’d suggest someone dispassionate about prostitution might make a more effective policy advocate."
Why was Martin Luther King Jr passionate about rights for black people? Because he was black. Why was Harvey Milk passionate about gay rights? Because he was gay. Human rights are moved forward by self-interested members of oppressed groups. It's sex-workers and those of us who are their clients who are most interested in pushing for our rights and pointing out the ignorant misinformation that too many people believe about us.

It doesn't seem to me that I'm making any "extraordinary claims", at least not in the posts that have appeared on A-M-O-C. I've met a lot of sex-workers (both as a client and as someone who created books on the subject that a lot of sex-workers found interesting). When one meets a lot of sex-workers, one finds that most of them aren't like any hooker stereotypes. They're just normal people, all different from each other. The same is true for their clients. (I've met a lot of them, too.) Is it really extraordinary to say that the stereotypes are mostly not true?

Erick returned to the comments section to add:
"I believe that all prostitution is degrading. […] I am sure there are individual cases where [a prostitute] does not feel degraded. […] But […] slaves were and are degraded and treated as less than human. [… T]here have certainly been slaves who did not feel degraded. Who may have been treated well by their captors. But does that in fact mitigate the horror and degradation of slavery as a whole."
In an attempt to explain why sex-work is morally wrong, Erick is saying that even though there are (many) prostitutes who don't feel degraded by engaging in sex-work, it is nevertheless degrading. To prove this, he asserts that some slaves didn't feel that they were degraded, but all slavery is nevertheless degrading. I see that as just a semantic mistake. Yes, there probably were slaves who didn’t feel degraded, but slavery isn’t wrong because it always involves degradation (although it usually does). Slavery is wrong because slaves are forced to do the work they do whether that work is degrading or not. A slave who was in a position that didn't involve degradation knew that his-or-her position was precarious - if the master died, the slave could easily end up in a degrading situation. And slaves want the freedom to make their own choices. No slave makes the choice to be a slave, and every slave would choose freedom.

Of course, I agree that forced prostitution is wrong, but the vast majority of sex-workers choose to do the work, they are not forced to do it. That is the important distinction between slavery and sex-work, not whether either involves degradation. I'm not forcing Denise to have sex with me. Instead of seeing me, she could get a (non-sexual) part-time job to make the same amount of money that she makes from me. But that job would take up more of her time (and she already has a full-time non-sexual job) so, from her perspective, having sex with me is the better choice given the options before her. Unless he-or-she wants to die, a slave has only one option: obey the master.

The idea that consensual sex between people is degrading even when those people don't consider it to be degrading, that idea is perverse - it's exactly that idea that homophobia is rooted in.

Like every attempt to explain why prostitution is supposed to be morally wrong, Erick's rationalization for his prejudice falls flat. To paraphrase George Carlin's well-known comment on the subject: consensual sex between adults is not morally wrong, giving a person money is not morally wrong, therefore giving an adult money to have consensual sex is not morally wrong.

I mentioned that book by Virginie Despentes, here's another relevant quote from it:
"[W]hen you hear that prostitution is an 'act of violence against women,’ we are supposed to forget that it is marriage and other things we put up with that are ‘acts of violence against women.’ We cannot ignore the fact that far more women die from domestic violence than from engaging in sex work. Women who are fucked for free must continue to be told that they have made the only possible choice, otherwise how can they be kept under control? Masculine sexuality is not in itself an act of violence against women, as long as they are consenting and well paid. It is the control exercised upon us that is violent — the power to decide on our behalf what is dignified and what is not." [80.]
CHESTER BROWN:
(from Patreon Update, 17 April 2017)
On Saturday I mentioned the book King Kong Theory by Virginie Despentes - here are two more quotes from it:
"Girls involved with paid sex, who gain concrete benefit out of their position as females while remaining independent, must be publicly punished. They have transgressed, have played neither the role of the good mother nor that of the good wife, still less that of the respectable woman […] and so they must be socially marginalized. [91.]

"When whores are prevented from working in decent conditions, women are not the only ones being targeted, men’s sexuality is also being controlled. Having a relaxed heterosexual fuck when they feel like it mustn’t be too easy or pleasant. Their sexuality must remain a problem. [… Desire] must remain problematic, guilt-inducing." [75.] 
 
Chester Brown has been writing and drawing comics and graphic novels since the 1980s: Yummy Fur, Ed The Happy Clown, I Never Liked You, Louis Riel, Paying For It, Mary Wept Over The Feet Of Jesus. You can help provide him with a stable source of income while he works on his next graphic novel by donating at Patreon.

26 comments:

Erick said...

Chester, or should I call you cherry picker?
I will keep this brief with just two points.
1) You are indeed a hypocrite. You accuse Dave of having extreme views with regard to women (And I agree with you about that), and yet you fail to acknowledge the extreme views that you hold with regards to sex workers. Or, do you contend that your views fall within the norm of societal views on sex-workers? A hypocrite is not just someone who preaches one thing yet does the opposite. There is no restriction on having an extreme viewpoint while at the same time accusing someone else of holding an extreme viewpoint. The problem arises when the accuser (that would be you) either does not recognize or acknowledge (you again) their own extremes views.
2) With regards to the slavery analogy and prostitution: I went on to say that I make no apologies for having a moral compass that see's prostitution as a degrading enterprise. I knew that you or your supporters would cheery pick that, and I toyed with using a different analogy such as cigarette smoking: Legal, most who use it find it enjoyable and addicting, but it is proven to be long term deadly or debilitating. Still, I thought that might be too nuanced and confusing for you and your supporters since prostitution is not legal in the U.S. but for one county in Nevada. Ya gotta know your audience.

Craig Johnson said...

Accusing Dave of holding (so-called) extreme views whilst holding (so-called) (other) extreme views oneself is not being a hypocrite.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypocrite
hypocrite
someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows these are not sincere

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypocrite
hypocrite
noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

If Chester had accused Dave of having extreme views and then showed he held those selfsame views, then he's a hypocrite. But he didn't. And so he isn't.

---

You say that "you" have the "moral compass that see's prostitution as a degrading enterprise" - to men or to women I wonder? Regardless, you should at least acknowledge that people have other views. To me, making a blanket statement that implies ALL prostitution is a degrading enterprise is proof that YOU hold extreme views. Under your own interpretation of hyprocrisy that makes you a hypocrite too! Well done.

Erick said...

Craig,
I hope that you did not break your arm patting yourself on the back.
FYI here is what I said in the prior post, note that I explicitly state that this is MY morality and my moral compass and that I accept that others have can and do have a different moral compass or none at all. So, um there goes your accusation of hypocrisy on my part. As far as Chester is concerned, if he says that his views about having no problems with his mother and or daughter being a whore are in fact an extreme view, i will gladly stop calling him a hypocrite.

Here is what I said

"I make no apologies for taking a moral stand. After all, what compass do we navigate by without morals?
At what point does everything become acceptable simply because some folks believe that morality is so subjective that all so called morality must be abandoned?"

"But hey, that is my morality speaking. I accept that others have a different moral compass or none at all."

Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Erick: I don't think anyone is saying what you paraphrase in your second-last sentence.

-- Damian

Mike Battaglia said...

Erick, your argument regarding 'the life of a prostitute' plays as ill-informed and its execution is shoddy, enough so that I'm surprised Chet is bothering to engage. It's fair to say Chet knows a little bit more about this subject than you do. I'm guessing you have never interacted with an escort? If so, then it might not be wise to debate the subject with the guy who wrote the book on it.

However... I'm not thrilled about the way Chet seemed to be speaking down to Dave. The smugness/tone of the delivery came across (to me) like he was being a bit too big for his britches. Chet is a superb cartoonist, but Dave dwarfs him on every conceivable level, so the lack of respect is inappropriate.

Sean R said...

No one's going to bring up a john advocating for prostitution, comparing himself to Martin Luther King?

Erick said...

Good Lord Mike, talk about smug?
Ok, true I have never engaged in any transactions with a prostitute or an escort. But, dear boy I was military for probably longer than you have been alive. I saw close enough 'the life of a prostitute' on multiple military bases around the world including several in the U.S.
It is nothing like what Chester is involved in. I truly question men who have no compunction about their own mothers and daughters engaging in paid sex acts with multiple total strangers. It makes no difference if it is a blow job in an alley way or an all expenses paid weekend aboard some tech execs yacht. A whore is still a whore. I am not condemning the person who whore's themselves out. I do not think they are any less an individual than i, nor do i think that I am necessarily a better person than they. I have seen many many men who proclaim their love of Jesus and yet will bust your head open for a cigarette.

Culpa Direct said...

If there's no moral argument against prostitution, then I guess there's no moral argument against it becoming Big Business either. Store-front brothels, appointments and walk-ins. Lunch-time customers served in 15 minutes or less. Drive- throughs eventually. BJs could even be an option at drive-thru carwashes. TV commercials, billboards, trade schools, recruitment programs for young women. "But Mom, I wanna be a sex-worker like Granny!"

And I can just imagine Mrs Brown telling little Chet and Gordie to go play in the other room while she goes upstairs for an hour with yet another nice gentlemen. "We need a little extra vacation money, boys, and your father understands".

And, as Dave had pointed out, if it's all about "consenting adults" then there's no moral argument against beastiality either.

Anonymous said...

Chester said: Because I know that prostitutes can engage in their work with dignity and self-respect, I would have no problem with anyone I love doing sex-work.


---Would you really be all right with, let’s say, your daughter doing this? I doubt it.

Chester said: The person proudly going by the name A Fake Name wrote:

"I just don’t think [prostitution is] anything to be celebrated, to be proud of or to have as a goal for a woman's life. But that's not hatred, or dislike or prejudice."
The words hate, dislike, and prejudice are not synonyms.

---I don’t think prostitution is anything to be celebrated or proud of nor have as a goal for one’s life.

---That isn’t hate. I don’t hate prostitutes. I don’t dislike prostitutes. I’m not prejudiced against prostitutes.



Chester said: If A Fake Name thinks that it's not possible for a sex-worker to be genuinely proud of what she or he does, it's because A Fake Name has a prejudice against sex-workers and can't see things from their perspective.


---What an odd digression. Of course I think it’s possible for sex-workers to have pride in what they do. It’s just I think what they’re doing is damaging to themselves, to the ‘johns’ in the long run and any pride they have is just a long term rationalization.


Chester said: Engaging in sex-work takes courage for all sorts of reasons.


----The courage of the sex-worker? What a way to devalue the word. I went up to a woman in a bar and struck up a conversation. What courage, what heroism!

Chester said: Why was Martin Luther King Jr passionate about rights for black people? Because he was black

---I can’t believe you’re using MLK in a discussion about prostitution. I’m actually flabbergasted. You’re talking about women who have sex with strangers for money. It’s a business transaction. It’s like saying a car salesman is courageous for trying to sell me a used vehicle for $8000 after purchasing it for $500 and spending a half hour (if that) cleaning it.

A Fake Name

Anonymous said...

Cont...

Chester said:

mentioned that book by Virginie Despentes, here's another relevant quote from it:
"[W]hen you hear that prostitution is an 'act of violence against women,’ we are supposed to forget that it is marriage and other things we put up with that are ‘acts of violence against women.’ We cannot ignore the fact that far more women die from domestic violence than from engaging in sex work. Women who are fucked for free must continue to be told that they have made the only possible choice, otherwise how can they be kept under control? Masculine sexuality is not in itself an act of violence against women, as long as they are consenting and well paid. It is the control exercised upon us that is violent — the power to decide on our behalf what is dignified and what is not." [80.]


----Again, more de-valued words. Marriage as an act of violence? What? She’s comparing marriage with domestic abuse. Two different things! Most men want a happy marriage, still want love, family and love doing things for their family. That’s beautiful. It’s not violence.
Helping a stranger who’s being robbed is brave, punching a woman is violence.


Chester quoted: Women who are fucked for free must continue to be told that they have made the only possible choice, otherwise how can they be kept under control?


----What does this even mean? “Women who are fucked for free…” It’s making women seem hapless in the situation.

---“Women who are fucked for free….” No no no. What a strange way to word it. For free is the default setting here. This Despentes woman is trying to change the normal context, to warp it away from reality. That’s why the odd wording. No wonder the mind balks when reading it.

----Women want to be fucked and they enjoy it. If a woman chooses not to have sex with a guy, that’s up to her. Despentes is making it seem like this is something that just happens to women without their consent.

----I can come up with all sorts of reasons why men would use prostitutes, why prostitutes do what they do, take pride in it, whatever. But it ain’t nuthin’ to be proud of.

---In the end, women want to be in a relationship. The most distant, disaffected women, underneath it all, want to be loved. Taking pride in prostitution doesn’t change that.

----You want to pay women to have sex with you? That’s your business.

---You want to charge men to shoot sperm across your face or tear your sphincter up? That’s your business.

----You want to be thought of as courageous for doing so, or as a legitimate career alongside let’s say…nurses? No.

---I respect a woman who went to college, nursing school, learned the medicines, how to care for people, biology, chemistry and so on. The waitress working on her feet all day, refilling my coffee mug without me asking despite how busy she is, is respectable Not the one who makes strangers cum for money.

---It’s not enough that people largely don’t care what prostitutes and johns do. You want to be legitimized, and damn any long term consequences for society. And why?

----I think because underneath it all, deep down inside, both prostitute and client believe there’s something pathetic about paying for sex and something scummy about charging men for sex. But they won’t admit it, can’t admit it.

A Fake Name

Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Lots'a weirdness in this thread ... But A Fake Name's sex-negative viewpoint, and insistence that our society should affirm his views, extends beyond the issue of prostitution. AFN seems to have some problems with sex generally (like Dave).

When Chester -- who is the sole authority in the universe on what he is okay with -- states in so many words that he is okay with his daughter being a prostitute, AFN still insists that Chester is not okay with this. (AFN also knows what all men and all women want, without asking them, and -- surprise! -- it jibes with AFN's prejudices.)

How does legalizing prostitution lead to legalizing bestiality? AFN never says; he thinks he's drawing a straight line, and we're just supposed to independently catastrophize, I guess. I suspect that, as with many conservatives, sexual purity is pass / fail; once you've failed the Purity Test, the details of your impurity don't matter. Molesting children or getting tattoeed? Exactly the same! (Dave agrees.) So they can't see a difference between posing for Playboy and The Fappening.

AFN laments: "damn any long-term consequences for society". What consequences, pray tell? Again AFN says, assuming that we agree that there will be some. But what? That people will use their sexual freedom in a way that A Fake Name disapproves of? The horror!

-- Damian

Anonymous said...

Damian,

The only person who seems to profess a sex negative viewpoint is Ms. Despentes: "Women who are fucked for free must continue to be told that they have made the only possible choice..."

Nowhere do I say society should affirm to my views. How strange that you would think that.

What I have been saying since this started:

1) Whorephobia is an intellectually dishonest term to shut down dialogue and paint those who think otherwise as "phobes." A cheap battle tactic.

2) What consenting adults do is their business. Somehow this keeps getting ignored.

3) I don't believe men who say they'd have no problem with loved ones as prostitutes.

I understand Chet truly believes this and I gladly acknowledge his experience with escorts but I think that if it were his daughter, his view on this would change.

There's no man I know, who would be happy with this and further, I think most men, the majority would be quite sad/depressed/angry/disappointed to know that someone they love is a prostitute. Not understanding this shows a lack of understanding of the male thought process.

4)I think in the longterm prostitution is bad for both sexes.

5) I never mentioned beastiality. Nor tattooing and so on. Same with purity tests. You're inventing things I did not say. Your suspicions are incorrect. "He thinks he's drawing a straight line." No sir. You think I think I'm doing that. But I am not.

6) Long term consequences? I don't know what they could be. My impression is Chester doesn't care as long as prostitution is legitimized. Heck, he used the word courage in relation to this whole scene.

Maybe we'd end up with a world like Culpa Direct describes with drive-thru blowjobs. That version of society doesn't appeal to me. Does it to you?

Of course, a society with legalized prostitution doesn't necessarily end up with drive-thru hummers. Maybe it would be no different than ordering Chinese take-out. I don't know. But why risk it?

There's the possibility of the slippery slope. Unintended consequences. Why meddle around when I think most people are content to leave prostitutes and clients to their business. Possibilities, I can't say for sure what would happen, i.e. your straight line comment.

7) I think both prostitutes/clients seek need validation from society because they know deep down inside that paying/charging for sex is pathetic/scummy.


A Fake Name


Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

AFN: Your argument flows cleanly from the premise that you just know how all men and women really are and that those who disagree are fooling themselves. Let us say that this is not the case, however keenly you feel it.

You make up more stuff out of your head than Dave himself! Chester says he believes one thing, but you know he really doesn't, therefore he doesn't; you know better than Chester does what Chester believes. Prostitution leads to negative consequences; even though you admit you doesn't know what they might be, or if they will occur at all, you still thinks that your made-up nothing trumps actual evidence. All men and women know that prostitution is scummy, and those who say it's not are lying to themselves, because you know The Truth.

I do apologize to AFN on one point: it was Culpa Direct who equated prostitution with bestiality, not AFN.

-- Damian

Anonymous said...

Damian,

Apology accepted. Perhaps I need to qualify. I don't think I speak nor know how every man and woman thinks or acts.

Right now, I'll focus on one thing, my claim that most men would be upset at their loved one as prostitute.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

I feel like this is so obvious a point it shouldn't even have to be made. It's like saying Men like sex. Really?! You don't say!? Because what I'm saying is on that same very fundamental level, as fundamental as lusting after women.

I don't speak for all men, but I certainly know how we think, especially on levels like this. Of course I'm speaking in generalities. But I still think it's true. Men would be very upset/sad and so forth if their loved one was a prostitute. Do I need to poll every man on earth to know that the majority would say, "Yep, sex feels good." No. Do I need to do the same to prove that the majority of men would have a problem with the same old point I'm making about relative/prostitute? No.

In the realm of the theoretical Chester is saying one thing, I don't believe him. People often say one thing in the theoretical and think quite differently when it's happening.

But I don't presume to know him, I'm just saying I don't believe him, which is my right to do so. Maybe you choose to believe that he'd be fine with his daughter as a whore, I don't know.

cheers,

A Fake Name

Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

AFN: You don't believe Chester is telling the truth when he tells you what he believes. It's certainly your right to believe or disbelieve Chester -- but you don't get to use your disagreement as evidence that you're right and Chester is wrong.

Similarly, I can't believe you're telling the truth here. I don't know which part of this you don't believe, but you can't believe all of it, because that's logically impossible. You say, "I don't think I speak nor know how every man and woman thinks or acts," and then right away, "I feel this is so obvious a point [about the nature of men] it shouldn't even have to be made." So you don't speak for all men, but you know how all men are. Gotcha.

Sorry to be the first to give you the bad news, but not everybody in the world is like you -- and they don't have to be.

Also, part of the problem is that you're feeling instead of thinking. Dave would disagree with your method, even though he would probably agree with your conclusion.

-- Damian

Jack said...

On the other hand, most people don't like thinking of their mothers, daughters, etc. in any sexual context. Also, most people wouldn't be horrified to learn that their male loved ones watch porn, which of course couldn't exist without people getting paid to have sex.

Has anyone here heard about a fairly recent trend in sex work called "findom" (financial domination)? Basically, the idea is that a self-described dominant woman runs a website/phone line on which she orders male submissives to send her vast sums of money, in return for which she gloats about how the guys are pathetic and on the verge of bankruptcy. Some of the women merge the whole thing with feminism, offering commentary about how they're receiving reparations for centuries of patriarchy and unpaid female emotional/sexual labor, etc. I have to say that for me, this trend serves as an argument against Chester Brown's libertarianism and for the destruction of our entire late-capitalist system (which would hopefully be replaced by some kind of egalitarian socialist/anarchist utopia, although even an Islamic theocracy might be better in some ways).

Anonymous said...

Damian said: but you don't get to use your disagreement as evidence that you're right and Chester is wrong.

---What evidence? I don't believe Chester, I'm expressing an opinion not presenting something for a court of law.

Damian said: You say, "I don't think I speak nor know how every man and woman thinks or acts," and then right away, "I feel this is so obvious a point [about the nature of men] it shouldn't even have to be made." So you don't speak for all men, but you know how all men are. Gotcha.

----You left out this part: Of course I'm speaking in generalities.

----I'll repeat my question: Right now, I'll focus on one thing, my claim that most men would be upset at their loved one as prostitute.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

----I don't presume to speak for every man. At the same time, in order to make it through this world it's useful to have models for peoples' behavior. Certain things aren't complicated about men. I used the sex drive as an example. Do I speak for every man? Nope. Do I know that the majority enjoy sex? Yep.

----Same with men being disappointed/sad/angry/disgusted if their relative is a prostitute. Do you associate with men who would be fine with this?

---Do you think most men would be all right with their loved ones as prostitutes? Would you?



Damian extrapolates: Sorry to be the first to give you the bad news, but not everybody in the world is like you -- and they don't have to be.

----Where do I say everyone is like me? Insight into the majority of men, speaking of a generality is not saying everyone is like me.

---Since the first post on this, all I've ever expressed are my thoughts, not once saying people should be like me, nor do I expect them to.



A Fake Name



Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

AFN: What you have is not insight, it is prejudice. You're pulling a Dave Sim: trying to invent a rational reason after the fact for your emotional prejudices.

But even if you're right (and you're not), so what? How does that justify society acting to discriminate against people who aren't like you? Easily: you assume that some undefined but inevitable harm to society will result.

You keep picking on poor Chester in the most intellectually dishonest and insulting manner. (Not that he needs me to defend him; even though he's a libertarian, he's still smarter than you are.) He tells you what he believes. You don't try to refute his beliefs with logic or fact; no, you simply claim that he does not believe that. I bet you think you win a lot of arguments with this power to arbitrarily exclude relevant evidence.

It's true you're "not [...] saying people should be like [you]. You've already gone past that: you're assuming that people are already like you.

-- Damian

Sean R said...

Required reading.

https://uncommonsense.me/2017/04/18/lies-damn-lies-and-ignoring-statistics-why-the-decriminalisation-of-prostitution-is-no-answer/

Anonymous said...

Damian,

I'm not picking on "poor Chester." What an over-the-top accusation.

You've ignored my question twice now.

You've made incorrect character assumptions about me and basically ignore my points. And you misunderstand me.

I'm simply sharing my thoughts on prostitution. Over and over again, saying the same thing. Just scroll on up and you'll see the same ole points. What Chester does is his affair.

Damian said: "you're assuming that people are already like you."

You're confusing me speaking in generalities with saying "people are already like you."

Most men would not be happy with their loved ones as prostitute. Something so self-evident it's ridiculous to even have to say. When I ask if you agree or disagree with this you ignore the question.

A Fake Name

Anonymous said...

From Sean's link:

All the same, the arguments in favour of decriminalisation are likely to persist. From what has been seen, the proponents of such a policy generally do not seem to care too much for what is actually true. Their method is one of selectivity and partisanship, often sensationalising and personalising their arguments by denouncing those who disagree as “prudes”, “moralists” (?!) or, strangely, “whorephobics”.

----Interesting. Thanks for sharing, Sean.

Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

AFN: You say, "Most men would not be happy with their loved ones as prostitute. Something so self-evident it's ridiculous to even have to say. When I ask if you agree or disagree with this you ignore the question." I do -- because, unlike you, I do not presume to speak for all men. You repeatedly claim that this is not what you are doing -- as you are doing it.

To address your alleged point, though, two thoughts:

One: We know that at least some men are perfectly okay with their loved ones being prostitutes. You discount this with the ingenious tactic of telling them that they do not believe their own beliefs and thus the fact that they contradict you proves your case. You simply don't get to do this in an argument; you're being either deliberately dishonest or accidentally stupid.

Two: Other people's emotional disapproval does not curtail one's right to self-determination. It was within my lifetime that many men would not be happy with their loved ones marrying people of another race. (You may say you're okay with that, but I don't believe you, and the more you say you're okay with interracial marriage the more evidence you give me that you're a racist. See how that works?)

Nobody is saying you have to be okay with prostitution. But why should you get to use the force of law against people who are? Your answer: There are no people who are. Yes, very clever.

Sean: I read the article you link to.

-- Damian

Barry Deutsch said...

Sean, do you remember than in an earlier thread, while responding to you, I linked to an academic article about how bad much of the research in this area is (pdf link)? I'm not sure if you read it.

Because a lot of the research cited in the article you just linked to is very badly designed. For example, the first citation is to research by Melissa Farley, who is the article I linked singles out for her particularly badly designed and unreliable research. For example, in the Farley article you cited, her German interviewees were exclusively chosen from a drug addiction treatment center - an obviously unrepresentative sample that will produce unrepresentative results.

That isn't unusual for Farley; all of her research is subtly designed to find the most miserable and abused sex workers. Which is fine - that population should be studied - but we can't logically draw conclusions about the typical experience of prostitutes based on the nonrandom populations Farley selects.

And an article that relies on such research, like the article you linked to, is simply unreliable.

Barry Deutsch said...

Aaargh. Here's the exact same comment, with some of the errors and typos removed. Apologies to all.

Sean, do you remember than in an earlier thread, while responding to you, I linked to an academic article about how bad much of the research in this area is (pdf link)? I'm not sure if you read it.

Because a lot of the research cited in the article you just linked to is very badly designed. For example, the first citation is to research by Melissa Farley, whose work the article I linked to uses as an example of particularly badly designed and unreliable research. For example, in the Farley article your link cited, her German interviewees were chosen exclusively from a drug addiction treatment center - an obviously unrepresentative sample.

That's not unusual for Farley; all of her research is subtly designed to find the most miserable and abused sex workers. Which is fine - that population should be studied - but we can't logically draw conclusions about the typical experience of prostitutes based on the nonrandom populations Farley selects.

And an article that relies on such research, like the article you linked to, is simply unreliable.

Anonymous said...

Damian,

-----If you're unable to answer my question because you think doing so has you as "speaking for all men", then fine. I'm willing to speak in generalities. Men like getting blowjobs. Am I spokesmen for all men? Nope. Is what I'm saying self-evident? I would hope so. Note up above I wrote: "Most men..." But again, you refuse to answer.

Damian said: "You discount this with the ingenious tactic of telling them that they do not believe their own beliefs and thus the fact that they contradict you proves your case."

----No, all I said was I don't believe they'd be happy having a relative/loved one being a prostitute. I never said their contradicting me proves my case.


Damian also said:

Nobody is saying you have to be okay with prostitution.

----Maybe, maybe not, I didn't think this at first but now I don't know. This goes back to "whorephobia" as a tactic. Build the argument so the opposition is viewed as a "hater." I think the long term goal is not only to have prostitution socially accepted but to shun anyone who dares criticize it. But hey, maybe I'm wrong on this. In which case, yes, nobody is saying I have to be okay with prostitution.

But why should you get to use the force of law against people who are?

---I'm not using the force of law. I'm stating my opinion on a website devoted to Cerebus.


Your answer: There are no people who are. Yes, very clever.

----Thank you but I'm not trying to be clever. I just keep saying the same things over again.

Within those points you infer all sorts of things I'm not implying. I don't quite understand why my opinions bother you so much that you even said: "picking on poor Chester." Disagreeing with him and saying that I don't believe him on one point is not picking on someone.

---Perhaps this is an attempt to emotionally bait me. Again, strange when from my end, I'm simply offering my opinions in a civil fashion.

cheers,

A Fake Name


Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Fake, you say: "I'm not trying to be clever. I just keep saying the same things over again." That's true, you are -- regardless of how intellectually dishonest you're being, or of lack of evidence for your case, or of presence of evidence against your case. Well done.

-- Damian