The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The economics of s*x work > Comments

The economics of s*x work : Comments

By Andrew Leigh, published 11/9/2009

Why are wages for prostitution so high? What policies best reduce s*xually transmitted diseases? And is legalisation a good idea?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Even if sex workers have asked the Scarlet Alliance to agitate for the policing of their sexual activity, so what? That will not give them any right to seek to police those who have not.

‘Perhaps instead we should be idly dreaming up ways to police and inspect the sexual health of Andrew Leigh or SJF.’

So it’s okay for you to dream up ways to police others’ sexuality against their will, but an outrageous offence when someone suggests what you’re doing to others, might also apply to you.

You have been thrashed and humiliated, and now you want to go crying to Daddy – in a non-patriarchal way of course.

Diver Dan

“So essentially you allude to the substitution of “desirable with acceptable”.”

I’m not saying that what is acceptable is desirable, if that’s what you mean. Different people have different opinions on both.

My point is only that, just because you think something is immoral, doesn’t mean:
a) everyone else agrees with you
b) everyone else should agree with you, nor
c) you should be able to use violence or threats to force other people to comply with your opinions.

“Essentially you argue, morality has no fixed parameters.”

Only in the sense that different people have different morals.

I am not saying that we should not use morality to enforce policy or law. I believe that the only morality that should be used as a basis of law or policy, is to stop A from aggressing against B. If prostitution was a case of A using violence or threats against B, I would be in favour of illegalizing it. But not just because people don’t like it, or think it immoral, or presume to tell others what values to live by.

“In what other social issues do we extend the argument of morality”?

We should ban the use of force or threats to agress against the person or property of others in all cases whatsoever, including by governments and officious meddlers – that’s the point!
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 9:44:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hume

Your long-winded response to my post is so fixated on my supposed capacity for mind-reading, I'll just consult my crystal ball instead of bothering to address your labrynthine thought processes.

However, this howler deserves some less mystical attention:

'So it’s okay for you to dream up ways to police others’ sexuality against their will...'

Excuse me?? Where on earth in any of my posts did I advocate policing people's sexuality against their will? My comments on the sex-work trade has been entirely about acknowledging and respecting it as a profession.

And this one ...

'You have been thrashed and humiliated ...'

I have?? You'd think I would have noticed. To make one of your own cheap shots ... Haven't you chosen a rather revealing word choice for a discussion about prostitution?
Posted by SJF, Friday, 18 September 2009 9:58:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The men on this forum who defend using prostitution for a bit on the side and say that it is not immoral should have no objections then, if their wife or girlfriend accompanies them over to the bothel and does a bit of part-time work to earn a bit on the side, while they are waiting for them.

If they can't agree to this then all their arguments about their openmindedness about prostitution is bullcrap.
Posted by sharkfin, Monday, 21 September 2009 12:51:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"women generally earn lower wages than men"
This is not true.

After adjusting for the fact that few women work in the dirty, dangerous and low-status fields (such as farm labourer, construction, miner, taxi driver, garbo, security, offshore oil drilling, (and suprisingly) cleaner)...

And adjusting for the hours of working experience...

Women earn MORE than men.

Have a look around at 3am one morning... you see pub bouncers, security, taxi drivers, truckies, road workers, coppers, garbos, and prostitutes. All of these are almost entirely MEN, (except most prostitutes). One intrepretation is that they are all 'prostitutes', forced to sacrifice themselves for money... to support their families, or drug habits...

And most are men.

The main reasons that women ON AVERAGE earn less than men are:

1: Men work longer than women. Of all people who work more than 50 hrs per week, 90% are men.

2: Dirty, dangerous and low status jobs need to offer better pay to get anybody to do them. These are only done by men

3: young women (under 30) earn MORE than men... but once they becoem parents, dads work LONGER, while mothers demand a wonderfull 'work-life balance', or never do paid work again.

4: Consequently during the crucial 'career development years (30-40) few women work at all. You need to do Long years of long hours to get to be a top income earner.

5: It only takes a very few, very highly paid, special individuals to push up the 'average male income'.

ONE single man, earnign a million dollars per year noticibly increases "average male wages". These men are exceptions, they are outliers, and should be ignored in calculating an average, or at more meaningfull "average" should be used, such as "Median" which means "Typical". "average" wage is well above the 'typical' male wage.

PartTimeParent@pobox.com
Posted by partTimeParent, Thursday, 1 October 2009 11:06:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The men on this forum who defend using prostitution... if their wife or girlfriend accompanies them over to the bothel and does a bit of part-time work to earn a bit on the side, while they are waiting for them. "
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9416#151198

Rubbish!
Throughout human evolutionaty history, men who have a 'bit on the side' do little harm to their families. IF there was a pregnancy, it didn't hurt his wife or their children... it was the responsibility of the 'loose woman' and her duped husband.

But if a wife betrays her family, she brings home a pregnancy. THis poor child is doomed to never live with it's NATURAL FATHER, and the husband is expoited in the most horrendus way, Not only does he pay for som other bloke's kid... but he is duped into loving this other child, believeing it is his.

In tis time of divorce, it has bever been more clear that the greatest love of all is a parent's love of their child.

Since the greatest love of all is a parent's love of their child, this is the ultimate betrayal
Posted by partTimeParent, Thursday, 1 October 2009 11:15:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hume: <"I once read a study that said that (ie in the absence of sufficient cash payment), heterosexual couples on first intercourse took 12 to 16 prior meetings and spoke 1,000,000 words. That is obviously to satisfy the women's pre-requisites, and can be thought of as valuable non-cash consideration from the man.">

Why wouldn't meeting 12-16 times and speaking a million words also be considered a "valuable non-cash consideration" for a woman? Are you saying that men don't get anything out of those exchanges (other than the expectation that there'll be a bonk at the end). You seem to be of the opinion that most men are very shallow - are they?

Also, your benevolent approval of the prostitution biz rings hollow when you clearly delight in the Churchill/Lady Astor anecdote. The punch line: 'We've already established what sort of woman you are; now all we're haggling over is the price.'

"... WHAT SORT OF WOMAN YOU ARE..." <- your slip is showing.

In any case, I am less interested in whether or not people choose, from a viable range of options, to be prostitutes than whether the opportunities exist for them to get out of it.
Posted by Pynchme, Friday, 2 October 2009 12:59:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy