Following my last post: Any legitimate social contract will involve a mix of rights and responsibilities. But Peter - you are only seeing the needs of the ruling and middle/intermediatory classes. You are defending a particular interpretation of economic freedom; but not recognising the reality faced by workers, the poor, the unemployed; and their access (or lack thereof) to ‘positive’ or ‘enabling’ freedoms.

Your assumption is that concentrated private property and the system whereby surplus value is expropriated is 'natural'. But socially-contextual rights (‘positive freedoms’ if you will) - shelter, nutrition, education, social inclusion and access to culture, recreation and rest time, health care and decent employment - are seen as 'impositions' - indeed as 'violence' against the effectively-ruling class. (which then attempts to recruit the upper middle classes on the basis of the ‘threat’ the welfare state poses to their ‘economic freedom’) Again: the nature and extent of these 'positive' rights depends on - and have arisen in the context of - an enver-changing/modernising economic context.

But economic power also translates also into political and cultural *power*. (which is crucial even for a project of 'mere political equality') Such concentrated power weakens the real effective power of citizens *as citizens*; undermines the ideal of political equality IN REALITY.

What I call for is such a redistribution of resources that all citizens have those socially-contextual rights protected, and that individuals and movements of ordinary people have such cultural power and resources as to rival that of the property-owning class. Indeed – to take the process so far as to meaningfully blur class lines. (economically/structurally - not merely culturally)

The point is to create a *real democracy*. And in return for social guarantees that citizens provide for society in return through their labours - in the best way they are capable of doing.

Theories are kind of fun, basically it boils down to stringing a few words together, into a meaningful rational sounding combination of phonetics.

The best sounding theories aren't really theories but a group of meaningful sounding words that appeals to a persons biases and prejudices and the best have an emotional hook.

Once the emotional hook is engaged any point of having a rational reasoning examination of a theory, flies out the window.

It then complicates human interaction or more accurately the binary system, that stimulates neuro transmitters, pheromones and primative evolutionary pathways.

Peter Hume
"Do you support anyone being punished for participating in prostitution?"

I have already said NO with the exception that you cannot imprison one without the other if it is deemed illegal. It takes two to break a law in these scenarios. Where I live prostitution has not been illegal for many years. I don't know about other states.

Some of the behaviours mentioned are already illegal ie. child sex trafficking although it is sometimes difficult to make a case.

The best way to protect prostitutes is to encourage men to report dubious arrangements particularly if the women appear to be underage or to perhaps take a second to think about what it means to have sex with someone with obvious tracks up and down their arms.

RObert
It is the fact you should know me by now and yet you diminish my view by categorising it as 'playing games'. That is not what I am about and I assumed you would know that after many discussions around gender. That is also disappointing for me as I do respect your contributions. It was probably not the best approach to use the word patriarchal but the fact is I am not game playing nor do I have to live up to anyone else's standards if they fail to grasp my intentions and immediately jump to knee jerk responses.

It is insulting to men to continually have to make the caveat that men are basically good, but equally foolish to ignore the fact that some men are violent and may not see the John/sex worker relationship in the same mutually respectful way the majority of men appear to on this thread at least.

And then you read nonsense like this from dane:

"My point was that Paul McCartney experience is very much indicative of all men. Maybe not in money terms but very much in how women see men as just a meal ticket."

There seems to be no outrage at these sorts of broad sweeping generalisations when it is targeted at women, so please at least keep some equal perspective.

pelican I have the sense that we could get bogged down in a side debate and don't really want to go there. Simply put I was more bothered by your comments than those of dane and some others because I have more respect for your views and history than that of most others in this space.

I think dane's comment was way way too sweeping (and from memory I've discussed similar with him before) but it does seem that enough women see men as a meal ticket to give his point some credibility (and I get the impression that enough men see WIFE in terms of Washing, Ironing, Food, Entertainment to cause similar distress to women).

The paid transaction between John's and sex-worker's seems a lot more honest than the way a lot of people conduct other sexual transactions.

No one is being told it's about a long term committment when it's really a one off, no one's being led to think the other is really keen on sex and want's it regularly when a few years later the lamest re-run on TV will take priority.

R0bert

Hahaha

'The violence of malnutrition, homelessness, social exclusion'

...
..
.

'Theories are kind of fun, basically it boils down to stringing a few words together, into a meaningful rational sounding combination of phonetics.'

Kudos James!

Violence is hitting people and WTF is social exclusion anyway? Is it if your mates don't invite you down the pub because you smell? Maybe it's when you admit you're such a loser you must pay for someone to shag you.

'The best way to protect prostitutes is to encourage men to report dubious arrangements particularly if the women appear to be underage or to perhaps take a second to think about what it means to have sex with someone with obvious tracks up and down their arms.'

Ah but pelican, the stigmatizers, as melanie says, are partly responsible for this. If Johns weren't painted as abusive cheating woman bashers they may be more happy to admit they were there in the first place, and then they could more easily report stuff like that.

Imagine being a man pelican. You go to a brothel... well, now that's objectifying women for a start!, now as Tristan claims it's also violence (with no perpetrator haha) and you read, well, guy .. sex, seedy, Hey PERVERT too, and there is an under-age girl in the vicinity, hey........ Peadophile! You dirty scum! Where there's smoke there's fire!

Can you imagine a guy walk into a room, there's a guy with a bleeding stab wound and you pick up the knife and then the cops walk in the door. Smile!

Ah it's a funny world.

In the end, by default, male sexual desire is filthy, dirty, abusive, predatory, perverted, selfish, cold and disgusting. Female desire is, by default, erotic, sensual, beautiful, pure, liberating, entwined with love and warmth and giving; Only to ever be corrupted by the filthy male.

40yo man and 18yo girl: Disgusting pervert and abused, exploited and corrupted young girl!

40yo woman and 18 yr old guy: Nurturing teacher in sensual love or sexy liberated cougar and one lucky young man!

Fair enough RObert, I agree we shouldn't get bogged down but I do think you were misreading my posts.

"The paid transaction between John's and sex-worker's seems a lot more honest than the way a lot of people conduct other sexual transactions"

I agree the transaction is in theory an honest one but no more honest than most other sexual transactions. Despite this view, I don't always think there is respect shown the sex worker. Much of the feeling is more in line with contempt even by the men that use those services. Whether it is a response to having to pay for sex or the fact some men might feel a loss of power to the sex-worker - who knows.

It is the same attitude that portrays promiscuous women as 'sluts' while men are championed as sowing their oats. That attitude is slowly changing but I still hear it from teenagers and in my children's age group. There is hypocrisy still in our sexual culture whether people wish to acknowledge it or not even though many of the posters on this thread will see it only on the part of women.