Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3566)	3/3/2010 2:17:23 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3816

”…something where someone is acting as a criminal and abusing others,” We consider the choice of consenting adults to be enough to legitimize most relationships. However, the role of a prostitute is not consent as much as it is compliance. The conduct of a prostitute is paid conduct, which is coerced financially while it is both disparaging and abusive. She may be required to display her naked body before ogling masturbating males, allow them to stick their objects into any opening they choose, they suck and maul the prostitute without concern for her well being, and often in a demeaning manner to enhance their own sense of powerfulness. She understands and accepts as conditions of work where rapes averaging one per week are nearly unavoidable. She agrees to be trafficked to the highest payer, or just to any payer. She does choose to do this with her body, though the avaricious push for money and substance some times presents no apparent option, any more than a cow being prodded sees any option when it chooses to move rather than suffer the prod, it moves on through the chute to its inevitable execution but it does choose. How is it different for a pimp to compel a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, than it would be for any other employer? Why would you bar any employer from requiring such compliance of his employees as a condition of employment? Is it exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape? If not, why not extend that to other places of employment? Why bar any coercive economic tactics that would push a woman to comply with sexual demands? It is impossible to separate emotional debilitation, trafficking, abuse, rape, communicable disease, etc. from the conditions of work and it is unreasonable to blow them off as hazards of the trade. The trade itself is abusive, pimps exploit the trade, and participating prostitutes are submitting themselves to self abuse and abuse of their Johns, and they are coerced to do so for the substancial benefits, or in most cases to avoid the hardships of struggling along without those benefits. In addition to concern for people involved in the trade, I am concerned for the rest of our society which is effected by our sanctioning of it as legitimate. If such conduct is valued in one quarter of society, how do you criticise the same attitudes everywhere else. ... tie in to the statistics previously presented.