SEX

[mik3cap]

People just need to get over sex, for pity's sake. I mean seriously...

http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters/oddlyEnoughNews/~3/335077627/idUSN1441724120080714

Who was hurt by this? Are you honestly telling me these vacationing British women weren't consenting to the sex? And were they really plying trade, or just having a good time? I mean, this is like bursting into someone's house and arresting everyone for illegal gambling over a friendly cash poker game.

Why do people have so many fucking hangups? (pun intended) If people could just get over the fact that they have genitals, and that other people have genitals, and that sometimes genitals touch together, THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE.

- Fewer teen pregnancies and unwanted children with more available birth control
- Fewer STIs if people were more cognizant of symptoms and had more info and had more access to condoms
- More equality between the sexes
- Improved health overall

Let people pay for sex if they want to. What business is it of yours if two people have sex and exchange money? No one gets to legislate "sinfulness". Not in democracies anyway. This religious fundamentalist crap has got to end, we don't live in a fucking theocracy.

Give up the "forbidden fruit" bullshit already. It just hurts everyone to hide sex and knowledge about sex because of ridiculous superstitions and unthinking "rules" of morality based on millenia-out-of-date traditions.

Comments

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

The flaw in your logic is that the sex industry is the biggest transmitter of STDs out there. Guys don't like to wear condoms, they are not going to wear a condom and get less enjoyment from sex they are paying for, that's like renting a sports car and not going over the speed limit. Yes it's REALLY dumb to have sex with a hooker without a condom but it happens. And the hooker isn't always in a position to insist so she in turn gets exposed to anything the guy might have.

If there wasn't a big link between sex and the drug industry (woman trading sex for drugs and because they are addicts they can't really consent because they are not in their right mind, as well as pimps hooking women on drugs to make them more controable), and there wasn't a problem with forced sex service from run-aways kids, illegal immigrants, and all the other illegal activity tied to the sex industry.

And don't start your diatribe that if it was legal that wouldn't be a problem becuase it's legal in Nevada and in Amsterdam and they have the same problems there.

Yes the concept of sex-a'la-cart (to quote from Down with Love) is a fine concept. Sex clubs where conenting adults can go to meet other horny people and get it on with each other should be fine. If you start trading sex for money or other reimbursments you start having a problem. The women (or men) become a comodity and not a person anymore. They now have a service they are expected to provide and loose the expectation of choice. It is a fact that people (Americans) treat things that are not their own poorly. Americans trash hotel rooms, rental cars, and otherwise have the it's not mine so what do I care what happens to it attitude. When you mix sex, drugs, and people with that mentality it cannot but end poorly.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I don't know if it's true that the sex industry is the biggest transmitter of STDs. There are lots and lots and lots of people of all social classes out there who have an STI who have never paid for sex (and neither did their partners). And I think the reason they have those STIs is because they or their partners weren't informed enough about safer sex or about what STI symptoms might be. I think there are very few people out there who vindictively or purposefully give people STIs.

There is definitely a link between sex and drugs, but so are there links between guns and drugs, and practically everything and drugs because drugs are treated by many as a form of cash. Adding drugs to this mix just clouds the issue and doesn't address people's hangups about sex. I think the very term "the sex industry" is just another way to demonize sex itself and dehumanize people who have sex for money.

Would I ever pay for sex? No, I wouldn't, not because I think it's degrading to women, but because I think it would emasculate me! If the only way I can get sex is to pay for it, that's kind of pathetic. But why shouldn't someone charge someone else for a service? Why is sex so magical and special? People pay for massages, pedicures, and many other body-related services. Are massage therapists just being used for their hands? How shameful! Those poor therapists are just a pair of hands, like a machine, not even a person any more!

At any rate, I think it's ridiculous to arrest people for having a blowjob contest and "encouraging obscene behavior". Screw them for thinking they can define and legislate people's sexual habits.

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

The government define's a legislates people's sexual habits all the time. You can't have more than one husband or wife at a time. You can't have sex with children. You can't have sex with farm animals. You can't have sex in public. Etc. etc.

I agree that two consenting adults in a private environment should be able to do pretty much anything they want as long as no one gets hurt (more than they are willing to get hurt) then I don't care. But it's hard to ligeislate that stuff, they have to make all or nothing laws because otherwise there are too many loopholes for criminals to get around. It's more about how the laws are enforced, then how they are written. They may have arrested the people but were charges brought against them? Did they go to court? Or were they just trying to break up something before it got out of hand (in their opinion) and didn't actually do anything beyond that.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with those other legislations either - except for the animals one, that's just a livestock safety and health issue overall; and the one about children, well a significant part of the definition of being a child means you're not sexually mature, so that's obvious as well, but that's more of issue of protecting minors (like livestock), not legislating adult behavior. I don't think the government gets to tell me who and how I marry, and there should be areas in public places for people to have sex if they choose to, just like there are areas for other bodily functions like excretion and breastfeeding.

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

People make a lot more noise having sex then they do excreting and breast feeding. I'm sure if you could be quiet you could have sex in one of those family bathrooms (a bathroom that doesn't restrict gender) or in a handicap stall if you are both the same sex.

They do have public places to have sex, they are called hotel rooms. If you can't wait until you get home or to a hotel to have sex then you have other issues.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but you have to pay for a hotel room, so that's not exactly "public". If sex were truly recognized as a natural, healthful, normal part of human existence, there would be public sex places. And believe me, there are plenty of noisy bathrooms out there!! Some people just eat the worst stuff...

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

There are a lot of natural, healthful things in life that aren't free and there aren't public places for. You have to pay to get a massage unless you have a friend who will do it for you. You have to pay to go to a spa.

There is no need for public sex places. They may be fun and convenient but there's no need for them. If you can't afford a hotel room you go home. If you can't go home then you go someplace and hope you don't get caught. You try the back seat of your car if you can find a quiet place. Sex is not needed right here right now so there's no need for tax payers to pay for the convenience of a public sex place. Besides.. who the hell would want to use a public sex place. Yuck!

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Then again, if you paid a friend to give you a massage, no one would get arrested either.

I disagree, I think there are a lot of people who would be thrilled by public sex spaces. I don't think everyone will take advantage of them, but then again, not everyone takes advantage of public restrooms. That doesn't necessarily mean a need doesn't exist.

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

Also, you need to have a license and go to school to be a massage therapist, do nails, or any other physical contact job. Are you going to create sex school that gives out licenses, makes regulations for insurance and health codes, and monitors the quality of your free sex people? You can't just have "normal" people show up because if something happens in one of your free sex locations then someone is liable for that. If I slip and fall in a public restroom I can sue the city for poor conditions in the bathroom causing a health risk.

You are gut reacting without logic and being impractical. And you can't have people sign waivers or anything like that because waivers only work for "expected risk" and death or permenant disorder are never covered under those.

[saintentreri.livejournal.com]

It may not be the majority of causes, but if prostitution was legal, I can guarantee the STD infection rate would skyrocket. Not because of misappropriation or attacking of sex ed by religious freaks, but because people are stupid. People don't ask if their partner has been tested, or won't bother being tested themselves, or the other person would lie and say they did because they want to get laid already. They won't bother with condoms because they don't like the way they feel, or they won't bother with birth control because it messes with hormones or ten thousand other ridiculous reasons. We can put in place all the measures we want to keep people safe in a world like that, but it will be the same as it is now or worse because people simply don't bother trying, or are too stupid to do it right.

In cases not related to prostitution, it's pretty much the same reason. I can name ten places in a minute you can get free condoms by the bucketload within a ten minute train ride of my house, some within walking distance. You can even get birth control meds for free around here. Wikipedia tells me more than I ever needed or wanted to know about STDs, and I paid attention in health class in high school when they told us what all of them did and what not to do if you don't want your genitals to explode.

I can almost guarantee that most std cases are caused by people either not wanting to admit a screwup because they would look stupid or get rejected by future potential partners (seriously, only a person in a deeply committed relationship would jump someone who got frenchified, even if they were wrapped up) or just not bothering to do what they as mature adults should do. If they didn't get good sex ed at school, all they have to do is watch tv once or twice or take a train or two, and they'll know plenty just from the advertising everywhere. It's nearly impossible to have a dark ages mentality about stds these days because there's info about them everwhere.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I don't see how there will be this huge upsurge in sex just because buying it will be legal. There may be fewer cases of rape though. And if the stigma surrounding it were alleviated, people would generally be more laid back about stuff in general.

I don't agree about people knowing a lot about STDs though. There's still too much stigma surrounding them and too much fear and general unknowns.

[saintentreri.livejournal.com]

Not an upsurge in sex, but definitely an upsurge in usage of prostitutorial services; skyrocket was a poor verb for what I was aiming for, but an increase would be certain. There's no data to back that up, but it's a very safe bet there are plenty of folks who only don't go out and pick up a prostitute because they're afraid they'll get caught.

Fewer cases of rape is a stretch, because plenty of rape cases involve people who know each other somehow. Either a date people had different expectations for, or a spurned lover, etc etc ad nauseam. That won't decrease because the rapist could have gone and got his freak on with some chick he paid on a corner. If anything, that would probably put the fury in them even worse. Maybe it would decrease those cases of just sick fucks waiting around for a girl (or guy) to jump, but then again, those people are sick enough to be infuriated at the prospect of having to PAY for what they can just take.

People may not necessarily KNOW a lot about STD's, but not for lack of available info. I see ten ads for different genital this and thats every day, and I hardly watch television. I see article after article in most major news publications, plenty of stuff all over the internet too. Sex ed in schools may be lacking in some places, but the NY state regs seem to have a decent set of information being fed to the kids in school. Even with all this, it's impossible just from being around people and conversation in general not to know what sex is by some point just from overhearing. Curiosity about details would follow, details would be found, and unless the details were porn sites, there would be something about STDs somewhere.

It's the retarded parents we have to worry about. Sure, there are religious nuts who won't even tell their kid about sex until they marry them out of the house at 18 and let their husband worry about the explanation (and that's wrong, something I've gotten very pissed about because it's fucked with peoples lives that I care about); but we also have plenty of idiots who really just can't be bothered with their children. The kind of people who you see pulling their WIC checks out of a coach bag to pay for milk with six yelling kids in tow, ignoring or smacking the lot of them. This is cause enough for PLENTY of problems with today's youth.

I'm all for being laid back, acceptance and all that. But these are diseases, unpredictable at best, incurable at worst. If it were anything else not involving genitals, there would be a system in place to make sure it wasn't spread, because it's a threat to people's safety. We have already bred "superbugs" by handing out powerful antibiotics willy-nilly to people with sniffles, do we really want so many permutations of syphilis that some freak strain knocks on our door and says "Hi, I'm completely immune to whatever you try to kill me with, and I can be transmitted through more than your junk, welcome to hell!"

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Rape is almost always a crime enacted by people who need to feel powerful and in control. If those people felt like they could get sex anytime they wanted, they might not be obliged to go out and take it. Then again, there will still be people who can't afford to pay for sex anyway... I guess there's not much basis for that after all.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

You can totally legislate sinfulness in a democracy. The only document we have which determines what sorts of things you can make law out of is the Constitution, every other theory about what opinions people should or should not vote for is just personal opinion. Now *I* think we shouldn't legislate victimless crimes, but there's nothing innate to democracy to prevent the legislation of morality.

The "failing" here is not matching our more liberal view of the ideal role of laws, not being bad at modern democracy.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Laws are supposed to protect society, not tell people what's innately right and wrong. Law does not equal morality at all, it only exists to preserve social order. Certain people just insist on reading morality into things, because it's easier for them to come to simple conclusions without thinking through the consequences. "It's just not right to molest children" is not the same thing as "Children should be protected from sexual advances because they aren't sexually mature and they are the future of the society and should be kept from harm."

They may both be true and correct things to say, but one is a moral judgement and the other is a practical social concern that can be formed into a law.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

Laws are supposed to protect society, not tell people what's innately right and wrong.

That's your opinion, but it's not universal or inherent to modern democracy.

When it comes down to it, few people (myself included) really actually want a society where laws are purely about protecting individual rights.

Do you believe in animal cruelty laws? There's nothing in our government's design indicating that animals have their own rights to protect, so who are we to enforce our morality on what an individual does with his property in the privacy of his own home?

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Mine and the dictionary's "opinion", I guess.

A more (more-ay) defines a piece of moral code. A law does not. Laws couldn't really be impartial per se if they were steeped in morality; and morality can actually be quite circumstantial and fluid in nearly every moral examination - one man's moral act could be another man's sinful act, but a law would treat a result the same way no matter who was looking at it. Morals imply judgements of right and wrong; laws are just rules, with no inherent rightness or wrongness.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

Very well, if you want to run a semantic argument about whether laws judge something as right or simply enforce it, that's fine. Nevertheless, saying that laws shouldn't be based on morality is only opinion.

There's nothing functionally wrong with encoding laws based off of morality while still being a democracy (see animal cruelty laws above). Democracy is not synonymous with personal freedom, it's just a way to decide laws that gives everyone a voice. What they say with that voice is up to them (though some things may be much harder to implement due to constitutional protection, but even that's up for the vote).

Simply put, if you go up to a religious guy and tell him he's not democratically supposed to vote based on his religious morality, you're the one who's doing democracy wrong.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Um. Voting or running government based on religious morality is called "theocracy". People voting in a "secular democracy" (which is what we are, for the moment) ought to set aside their individual religious beliefs and do what's right for all members of society, not just their fellow personal religion-ites. Unfortunately, religious fanatics aren't reasonable people, and don't give a shit about people outside their religion.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

No, a theocracy is when a church runs the state, not just happens to inform the beliefs of a majority of voters. Why they vote how they do has absolutely no effect on whether the system is a democracy (well, as long as their votes are cast of their own free will).

Prostitution laws are perfectly valid democracy. Some people who support them may do so out of religious conviction, but they are exercising their secular right when they vote their convictions, just the same as a random person who votes for them because they think prostitution is icky. The original problem you highlighted is about more than religious voting, it's about voting morality at all.

You can't judge an individual's motivation as wrong or right with regards to democracy. You can have an opinion about what motivations they should filter and attempt to convince them to do so, but if they don't wish to, "I just think it's wrong" is a perfectly valid justification for casting their vote. After all, what sort of democracy do we really have if we're telling people their beliefs about how society should function are invalid in the process?

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I fail to see an effective distance between church heads running the government directly, and church heads running the government through puppet elected officials. If religious people are running a government for a church, and are being directed by their pastor/mullah/shaman/pope/voudoun priestess to vote a certain way, that's still a freaking theocracy.

In other words, let's say you have two medical doctors. One is non-theist, the other is religious. The former makes decisions based on his training; the latter makes decisions based on training, and his religious beliefs and maybe even his priest. You may be getting medical treatment in both cases, but one is clearly very, very different than the other. Especially when one tells you not to take birth control and not have abortions based on beliefs.

"I just think it's wrong" is probably the most simple-minded, and nearly least rational reason to vote on anything. It's only one step above "God told me to vote this way".

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

Democracy isn't about "not being functionally similar to a theocracy". Are people able to freely vote to determine government? Yes? Then it's democracy.

[Skipping seemingly unrelated rant about religious doctors.]

Sure, "it's just wrong" is simple-minded and poorly reasoned. You know what? It doesn't fucking matter for democracy. The entire point of democracy is that everyone gets their vote. Even the simple-minded or those with "poor" reasons (as judged by whom exactly?).

Any system where some people don't get their vote counted or you can't freely express your opinion isn't a democracy.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Put another way:
If widespread ignorance does not have a negative impact on governance, then there's something wrong with the government.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Hell yes.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

He's arguing against you.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I don't see it as an argument for or against anything in particular that I was saying. However, if one equates ignorance to religious fanaticism (and I do), then if religious fanaticism doesn't negatively impact government, there is something wrong with the government.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

You seem to be arguing that it should not because they should not freely cast their vote for their preferences. Instead they should vote in the mold you like and suppress their personal beliefs.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

There is no true democracy the way you've been describing it. You talk about it as if it's this lofty Platonic ideal - but our form of government is actually a plurality represented republic, and not a 1 person, 1 vote fully equal democracy.

This is about making a working system. Theocracies don't work, and religion always clouds rational governance. But any system of government that actively allows for its own implosion seems like an utterly useless one no matter what form it takes. It therefore makes no sense to allow a democratic republic to transform itself into a theocracy, because that itself defeats the very purpose of democracy in the first place.

Are you really that fanatical about preserving democracy that you would give people the choice to not preserve democracy? This is a completely paradoxical position.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

It doesn't matter that we have representatives rather than direct vote for all the things we're talking about. Representatives just provide another step in the process, so the whether or not we are a direct democracy or a representative democracy is merely a red herring.

If the people want a theocracy they elect representatives that want a theocracy that then perform a constitutional amendment to implement a theocracy, and that's how it's supposed to work. It's probably not what the founders would have hoped for, but their point was to let the people decide, and that includes the power to change the very structure of government.

What you're advocating is that some people's beliefs as to how government and society should run because you, armchair politician, decide so. Whether you think (or even scientific studies indicate) that theocracies don't work is irrelevant. If the people want a theocracy, they will have a theocracy, either by the ballot or by the gun. And it is their right. You can't decide for them unless you want to suppress them with military force.

It sounds like you don't really want a democracy. You want an oligarchy of those with scientific values and "correctly" liberal viewpoints on the freedoms you value. Only people of the correct beliefs should be able to influence things. Sounds a lot like the very thing you're arguing against.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

You are clearly the radical extremist in this discussion. You advocate democracy at all costs, including democracy itself, and that is the most absurd thing I may have ever heard.

That's akin to granting absolute license for the First Amendment, to the extent that anyone at any time could shout FIRE in a crowded theatre or use their means to completely drown out all opposing viewpoints, all for the sake of preserving complete and absolute "freedom" of speech for all entities at all times and under all circumstances. That is also patently ludicrous, and no sane/non-extremist person would argue otherwise.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

Your other commenters seem to disagree on who may or may not be the extremist here.

It's just not a choice Mikey. You can't have democracy and say "well, except if your opinions come from this disfavored school of belief". Not doing that is the whole point of universal suffrage.

And if you opened it up to that possibility, do you really think it would be the religious losing their voting capability? Think again.

What is your solution to a population that wants a theocracy, really? You telling them no? The army doing it? You haven't been responding to this point because there is no viable response. If they want to change, you're going to lose your democracy one way or another, and a peaceful vote is a hell of a lot better than the other two options.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I do not appreciate you not addressing my example of First Amendment license. Does it not fit into your view? Do you like to just ignore the things that don't hold up your "democracy at any cost" position?

If a democracy dies by force of arms, that's at least an "honorable" death - and not a complete FAILURE of the democratic system via implosion due to some majority of dunces choosing to destroy it and removing all future options of self-governance.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

Your First Amendment example was just an example of absolute freedom having dangers. There's nothing to respond to because the only concept the analogy contradicts is that absolute freedom is best in all things, which is not a statement I'm trying to make. I'm arguing a specific version of freedom with specific context, so you can make up analogies all you want, but unless the parallel draws on something deeper than simply involving freedom in some way it's not shedding any light or making any new arguments.

You may also notice that in your analogy, the "free" action is illegal while in the ACTUAL DISCUSSION, it is not. These are not coincidences, the two situations are *gasp* different.

<sarcasm>Yes, "self-determination of government is bad", because when faced with the idea of civil war or a peaceful transition of power, civil war is totally the more desirable course.</sarcasm> Usually one would see an orderly transition of government according to the will of the people as a strength. But I guess abstract systems have some honor that is separate from the people they're supposed to represent and that's apparently very important.

I'm done here Mikey, you're not trying to support your statements and just have a hard-on hate of religion that's playing out in a desire for an illogical governmental structure (that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion despite your focus on it) whereby everyone can vote, except not in ways you don't like. Mikey knows best, so why do we even let other people vote.

Go back and argue with jessnut or sirroxton, they'll be happy to tell you (again) why your desires are actually pretty horrible government.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

You are totally full of it, and you can't argue your way out of your own ridiculous train of thought. I've been trying to follow you here this whole time, with your initial claim that people can legislate anything they want in democracy.

Your whole position is "let the people determine their government" even to the point of choosing to destroy their government and their own future ability to choose their government. That is pure idiocy. Any analogy I tried to come up with was an attempt to demonstrate your innate paradox in letting people determine their future by eliminating their ability to determine their future and show that government should only be about laws and society and nothing more.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

By your logic, Abraham Lincoln should have let the Confederacy secede from the United States, and let government of, by, and for the people perish from the earth.

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to make that point to him for years. He's the same as the religious fundies that he hates execpt on the other side of the spectrum. They think their voices are the right and obviously correct opinions because they so firmly know they are correct because of faith/logic. You are right that a democracy works because everyone gets their vote. Just because you or I don't agree with the majority doesn't make the majority wrong or democracy flawed.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I cannot imagine that the intent of democracy is to give so much power to the people that they can destroy the democracy. That would be the most ridiculous and anarchistic model of society possible. It makes no sense to say that people can vote in a democracy to change it to a theocracy - you may consider that to be the ultimate "success" of a self-determining democracy, but it would also be its ultimate failure because it destroys itself and doesn't allow people to self-determine any more.

The "religious doctor rant" is not unrelated, because it models the effects that occur when you substitute the word politican for doctor. When politicians don't set their religious beliefs aside to make rational decisions about society, they are performing effectively the same way as they would in a theocracy - they would (and do) ignore the will of their constituents in order to enact "god's will". In short, a doctor who ignores his medical training for the sake of pushing religious doctrine is no better than a priest, and the same goes for a politician.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

Democracy is about personal choice. By definition the result of their voting is the will of the people. Good or bad. If the people want a theocracy, then why shouldn't they have a theocracy? Because you don't want it? The other alternative is revolution.

A politician is a profession of belief, not science. The doctor analogy is not applicable. Plus, while I would choose a doctor who's not religious, there are plenty of people who would prefer the opposite. Even if representing beliefs wasn't the core of what a politician is supposed to do, there isn't a correct choice, just different criteria of judgment.

If the people elect a politician who ignores them (because he's religious, high on drugs, or just an ass), then they have methods to remove him. If they don't, maybe they like those qualities. You not liking their choice doesn't make it wrong.

You talk a lot about how the underclass is being controlled by business and politicians, but that sounds like exactly what you want.

[griffytime.livejournal.com]

Who won!??

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

The Republicans and Sun Myung Moon.

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

Your initial outrage is unfounded. I guess Reuters forgot to mention that the women were paid to participate in the contest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080714/od_nm/britain_dc;_ylt=AumtYk8xuIlznIYGjg_en0rtiBIF

That's why they were arrested.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

The original article must have been very poorly written. I shouldn't have expected good accuracy from Reuters; and it seems like they may have actually updated their article to include more info.

However... this may only change things slightly, if at all. Yes, the women were paid, but they weren't compelled and they were on vacation. One can easily imagine that the money was more just a nice bonus than being the determining factor in their participation in a sex act. If they're on vacation, they have jobs and disposable income, so it's not like they're desperate for money.

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

Just because people are prostitutes doesn't mean they are desperate for money or poor. There are lot of people who do it because it's "easy" money.

On the same argument since they have disposable income they are smart people who know that taking money for blow jobs is prostitution and they are legally responcible for the act. If it was really a contest then their would have been a prize for the winner, not all of the contestants being paid up-front.