this reply became too long... almost like another post...
Jess, I definately know where you are coming from on that sentiment. I haven't ever been to a regulated red light district, and as such have limited my informed opinion. But I should like to think that people are reasonable enough or that our government is strong enough to handle the violations of human rights that currently arise in the illict sex trade. That is a hope that may or may not be unfounded. They seem to do a good enough job of watching our bank statements and listening to our phone calls.
I don't necessarily think that women subjecting themselves to the excesses of the male imagination is a bad thing. In fact, some women profess to love the sight of a man drooling over them. Perhaps our sensabilities are shifted towards the more modest, in that we get disgusted by the concept. But the essence of my argument was "to each, his own" (minus, of course, the obvious sexism inherent in that quote). Is it up to us to decide whether objectivism of a woman is a negative thing to her? Given that we are free to decide that we would not want our bodies on display or for sale, shouldn't we also say that, given informed consent and in good conscience, that those women are free to do the opposite?
I'm not in any way arguing that it is a glamorous profession or that it is good for humanity. But I also do not believe that we should impress upon others our moral system; it is in the same vein as the resentment we feel for the overly religious and their vendetta against homosexuality: we should never tell someone what they can or cannot do with their own body.
So then, I suppose, that the dilemma becomes whether we should act in good faith and allow individual choice with rules in place to prevent abuse, or let it run rampant, unregulated and taboo.
Also, now that I think about it, we allow pornography, don't we? Another profession in which women (and men) sell their bodies for others. Another venue in which women voluntarily objectify themselves, and get paid for it. Is there a huge distinction between these professions? (Note: these questions are not meant to be accusatory, merely inquisitive and curious. I really would like a discussion to arise from this.)
I don't necessarily think that women subjecting themselves to the excesses of the male imagination is a bad thing. In fact, some women profess to love the sight of a man drooling over them. Perhaps our sensabilities are shifted towards the more modest, in that we get disgusted by the concept. But the essence of my argument was "to each, his own" (minus, of course, the obvious sexism inherent in that quote). Is it up to us to decide whether objectivism of a woman is a negative thing to her? Given that we are free to decide that we would not want our bodies on display or for sale, shouldn't we also say that, given informed consent and in good conscience, that those women are free to do the opposite?
I'm not in any way arguing that it is a glamorous profession or that it is good for humanity. But I also do not believe that we should impress upon others our moral system; it is in the same vein as the resentment we feel for the overly religious and their vendetta against homosexuality: we should never tell someone what they can or cannot do with their own body.
So then, I suppose, that the dilemma becomes whether we should act in good faith and allow individual choice with rules in place to prevent abuse, or let it run rampant, unregulated and taboo.
Also, now that I think about it, we allow pornography, don't we? Another profession in which women (and men) sell their bodies for others. Another venue in which women voluntarily objectify themselves, and get paid for it. Is there a huge distinction between these professions? (Note: these questions are not meant to be accusatory, merely inquisitive and curious. I really would like a discussion to arise from this.)