I have been appalled, in this article, to note that the main requirement of prudent and moral regulation of prostitution, that of architectural regulation, has not even been mentioned.

The important thing about prostitution is that it must be carried out in single-story premises.

The reason, of course, is to cut down on the f**cking overhead.

I think this Sells quote says it all for me:

>>Liberalism, as I use the word, is that attitude that would reduce morality to a bare minimum and which ignores the deeper harms that come from certain behaviours<<

He has taken a perfectly innocent word, and twisted it to signify all the things he fears and hates.

Liberalism as most of the world use the word, has a totally different connotation.

My OED defines "liberalism" as follows:

"The holding of liberal opinions in politics or theology; the political tenets characteristic of a Liberal"

The definitions they supply for "liberal" in this context are:

"Free from narrow prejudice; open-minded, candid"

"Free from bigotry or unreasonable prejudice in favour of traditional opinions or established institutions; open to the reception of new ideas or proposals of reform"

The latter segment adds:

"Hence often applied as a party definition to those members of a church or religious sect who hold opinions 'broader' or more 'advanced' than those in accordance with its commonly accepted standard of orthodoxy"

The position Sells takes appears to be categorical: anything "broader" or more "advanced" than traditional opinions by definition "would reduce morality to a bare minimum".

That seems to be that, then.

Discussion is futile.

Sells,

How terribly 'scientific' of you to attempt to isolate just one dimension of so complex an issue.

"Certainly such a deeper harm is involved in prostitution since that which is by its nature intimate, private and future directed becomes unemotional, non-intimate and short term. Without a rich understanding of the nature of the human person, which I believe the Christian faith gives us, we are open to the moral reductionism of “as long as no one gets hurt"

Sells, this is the problem. You see the world through the tiny
little Christian window, in which you grew up, those who don't
comply must be immoral etc.

If you read up on some anthropology, you'll get a very different
understanding of the nature of the human person! Helen Fisher
makes a great case to show that lifelong monogomy is a relatively
recent thing, tied up with the invention of the plow and
agriculture. After that, women started to become male possesions,
marriage being the process.

Yes, if we look at swopping sex for resources in big cities, it
can be impersonal, but big cities are impersonal, many don't even
know their neighbours. You live there in a tribal way, ie the
200-300 people in your phone address book, nervous of the rest.

But in hunter gatherer tribes, where women had other resources,
from gathering etc, such as the San, sex was often swopped for
meat for the kids, doesent mean it was impersonal. Many wealthy
men have mistresses, including a number of our richest. All that
means is that they can afford it.

Have you noticed how the divorce rate has increased, since women
don't depend on men excusively anymore for their resources, but
go out and earn their own. I remind you that women used to
be told to chew an apple and think of England :) You mean they
wern't actualy swopping sex for resources for their kids? Would
the men have stuck around, if their supply of a bit of crumpet
was cut off? Think about it beyond your small world.

Yabby,

An interesting post. Primatologists state that Chimps are quite promiscuous and some apes [like some birds] mate for life. Human [great ape family] are somewhere in the middle.

Obviously, with AIDS and STDs, free sex is dangerous. But,it could be said to be situation specific. In some Amercian Indian Clans, it was the case that old husbandless women would teach the adolescence males, "sex". That is practical sex lessons. Suspect, if the environment is disease free, the practice is the norm of that society, and, the youths transition to more stable relationships, it makes good sense for them. The approach shows an awareness, lack of guilt and common sense. Freud would have had an empty waiting room. [Albeit, this is social communion not prostitution, as known to us.]

All,

The OT is full of immoral deeds of divine cause.

Sells,

Prostitution predates the Enlightment, my friend. Liberalism does equate to evil, as you allude. The ultra conservative pedophiles in the Catholic Church, demonstrate that inappropriate and immoral deeds are known to the Right

Sells,

You don't love your neighbour, you categorise your neighbour. And, either, offer paise or stand aloof, based on that categorisation. Those who have followed your last five or six articles and related forum discussion, know this to be true.

Few would agree with your strange definition of Liberalism.