reply to post by poet1b
Personally, I see nothing wrong with drunks or prostitutes
These are my views.
Prostitution exists and has existed for a very long time. It might not ever go away. However, there is no industry where woman are more exploited,
where drugs, alcohol are more indulged, and where Mafia interests are more involved, than in prostitution.
Where I live - Toronto - Chinese, Russian and Italian mobs run the prostitution rings. Thousands of girls are drugged up - mostly foreign, but also
local - and sold for $200, sometimes as little as $80, to sexually frustrated men. It is a dirty, dirty business. And it's a business where girls are
almost always exploited.
It's been suggested that maybe prostitution should be fully legalized and protected by law. Places of business could be established where incall or
outcall services could be offered to interested parties. This exists in many places, however, there aren't any laws in place to protect the escort
from being exploited by her employer. Thus, even 'legitimate' escort services fleece their escorts. And it's not the police who intervene when the
escort get's spurned of payment, but the mob; hired thugs who make you give her money.
Problem, is, prostitution is a horribly unhealthy menace to a society. It is the lowest form of human sexuality. Sexuality, ideally, should be between
persons, hence, we look down upon prostitution.
When two people love each other, they relate to each other first as persons. It's this intimately personal, and emotional interaction which sublimates
the physical act of sex with greater meaning (and also orgasmic pleasure). Then there's the psychological aspect of sex. Someone who wants to 'talk',
and get to 'know' the other person, to perhaps increase the thrill of the sexual act, is one level up from the more base form of sexual meeting: when
one person treats another person as a senseless object. Prostitution is often nothing more than masturbating on another object. All you care for is to
release that pent up energy on something which attracts you. That's it.
Well, first, I didn't know anything about that. Besides, it was besides my point. Charlie Sheen's attitude toward his drug addition is one of "oh, I
can change it". All around him people are suffering for his intransigence, but he's going to do it when "he feels like it".
all I was doing was discussing morally ambiguous situations.
I'm not angry or anything. I just don't quite agree with the logic you're using.
You talk as if those situations you mentioned are irredeemable, that none of the courses I suggested were morally valid, or translucent enough in
their logic to be taken seriously.
Forgiveness is the greatest of virtues
Forgiveness happens after something 'evil' has been done. BEFORE the action is what were talking about. This is the area of morality we are
discussing. If something is understood to lead to something else, and we act ignoring knowledge of the probable consequences, we are morally culpable.
And frankly, someone who continues to commit the same mistakes over and over and over again, who doesn't seem to try to act differently, or even agree
that he should act differently, taxes the patience to 'forgive' of those around him.
Just as drug addicts need to be reformed and rehabilitated, so do such people need moral rehabilitation.
Of course, it would 'authoritarian' to force such rehabilitation on people. Since we can't force people to hold constructive values. But, it would
nevertheless be wise for them to change their ways.
edit on 8-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)