![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 44. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 3:53:34
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » alexandra_k, posted by TexasChic on November 20, 2005, at 19:56:28
> Wow, that seems like a step in the right direction.
Well, it is good that the girls are more protected yes.
> Its not like its going to go away any time soon, so it would be nice to see some protection.
Yeah, I agree with you there.
> And like you said, the people who hire them are just as responsible.
I think they are more so...
But I guess I'm not really sure...> I think all women deserve to be treated humanely even if they aren't exactly making the best life decisions.
Yeah. All people. Some people don't seem to mind doing it. Not many... But some. They consider they are indeed making the best life decision. Where else are you going to (reliably) get so much money for so little time???
> Isn't sex pretty much using each other's bodies to 'get off?'Ah. In todays society you would think so, wouldn't you...
> I mean, I know with love its much more meaningful than 'just that'.
Yeah. But is love just a 'patch' that doesn't really solve the underlying problem of objectification???
Hmm.
> No disrespect intended toward you alexandra_k , I know things can be easily misinterpreted in chats like this. I'd really want to hear your viewpoint of what sex is if it isn't that. I really don't have that much experience one way or another.
No offence taken...
I went to a seminar a few weeks back...
It was on what Kant had to say about sex.
And about how feminists etc have interpreted that...
And about what Kant might have had to say if he hadn't had to be so very careful about the church.
(I'm not Kant scholar and this is the first I've heard abotu this so I might get some of it wrong)Kant seemed to think sex was wrong because he thought it pretty much did involve objectification.
He thought it was wrong to a) treat another person as an object and he thought it was wrong to b) offer yourself up as an object for another.
In fact... He considered that we could not freely give ourself up as an object for another. That this was something akin to giving part of yourself away... Akin to suicide...He said that marriage changed that...
(But given the church influence we might want to replace 'marriage' with 'love')
He seemed to think that love meant that both allow themself to be an object for the other but that this was acceptable because they were gaining that part of the other person. So basically... If the relationship is reciprocal then things are okay, and sex is morally acceptable.The feminists have critiqued the role of marriage with respect to helping / harming that kind of transaction...
But other people have thought that this seems to be an attempt to 'patch' up the objectification problem, and it doesn't really seem to do very much of a good job....
I think...
I don't think sex has to involve objectification.
But I think that society teaches us that it does.
We seem to get up in arms about men treating women as objects - but what seems to be happening (IMO) is that women are attempting to gain 'equality' by turning the tables and returning the favour. I'm not sure that that solves the problem...I don't think it has to involve objectification if it is an act of love in a loving context.
And I don't think that is a 'patch' that fails...
I think that is a very different thing indeed...
But I'm not really sure...
I think what happens is that people train their sexual responses so that they have sexual responses to objectifications. This is something that can happen... But it seems to be something that people also actively encourage to happen. Viewing porn to get off etc.. Thats considered fairly much socially acceptable. The kinds of things they show on TV even... The way they encourage us to think of certain things as appropriate / inappropriate. They way they encourage... pornography and objectification. If you train your body to get off on that kind of thing then you are training your body to get off on something when you view it as an OBJECT.
I dunno...
I'd rather someone would go buy themself a blow up doll
Than make use of a person
But I think...
Either one is a bit of a shame...But I don't really know either...
Maybe I'm just talking...
I guess I just think that release is one thing...
And sometimes, yeah, its best to do that.
Masterbation... I don't have a problem with that.
But... Well... Maybe people don't really think about how they are training their body to respond to various things when they are doing that.I don't know.
Posted by Damos on November 21, 2005, at 15:34:01
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by alexandra_k on November 20, 2005, at 15:56:49
Yeah the laws here are pretty similar. We've had a few court cases recently to do with people being charged over bringing in overseas women on the promise of jobs in restaurants and stuff only to turn them into 'sex slaves' in brothels. I think it was quoted that they needed to sleep with around 600 men to earn their passport back and repay the debt to the brothel owner for their airfare, visa, upkeep etc.
At least being legal they have some rights and protections that they otherwise wouldn't have. Which is something I guess.
Posted by TexasChic on November 21, 2005, at 16:44:58
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » TexasChic, posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 3:53:34
Whoa. Now you've got me thinking all deep and everything! I agree that casual sex and sex when in love are two very different things (at least I'm hoping so!). But if someone's okay with being objectified, so be it.
Its interesting the points you make on training ourselves to be aroused by a certain object. I've always felt that all sexual feelings are taught (I know that's not what you were saying). I believe that people are basically born bisexual and every aspect of their lives figures in to what they end up finding arousing. I think if our society wasn't so gender fixated, things would be alot different. But that's just my theory.
>He seemed to think that love meant that both allow themself to be an object for the other but that this was acceptable because they were gaining that part of the other person. So basically... If the relationship is reciprocal then things are okay, and sex is morally acceptable.
I think this is a good point, although I might substitute 'psychologically healthy' for 'morally acceptable'.
>We seem to get up in arms about men treating women as objects - but what seems to be happening (IMO) is that women are attempting to gain 'equality' by turning the tables and returning the favour. I'm not sure that that solves the problem...
That is definitely true. I know I'm guilty of that myself. Its an easy thing to fall into, and I don't know yet how I feel about it. Its never even occured to me that it isn't the the best way to go, so you've given me something to think about. This reminds me of something I ironically heard on the radio today. Heidi Fleiss is talking about opening a brothel with male prostitues servicing straight women. H-m-m, I have to admit, getting a taste of the sort of freedom that men have had for years (centuries?) is appealing.
-T
Posted by TexasChic on November 21, 2005, at 16:53:01
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by TexasChic on November 21, 2005, at 16:44:58
Posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:03:42
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by TexasChic on November 21, 2005, at 16:44:58
> Whoa. Now you've got me thinking all deep and everything!
Hmm. I think thats because I really should be doing my thesis... But I do keep on Babbling... But I'm in thesis writing mode. Sorry peoples...
>I agree that casual sex and sex when in love are two very different things (at least I'm hoping so!).
Do you mean having sex when you are in love with someone as opposed to having sex when you are not in love with someone? Because I'm thinking... Can't casual sex be loving too??? I mean... It typically isn't, but wouldn't that be possible? Because I'm thinking that you can have loving sex with someone who you aren't in love with...
> But if someone's okay with being objectified, so be it.
One thing I forgot to mention...
Kant thinks that it is morally wrong to treat a person as a mere object. But we do treat people as objects sometimes (can you come here and open this for me?) and that isn't problematic. Its just problematic when we treat people as *mere* objects (so demanding that they do that I suppose without respecting that they may be up to something else). And so...For Kant... It would seem okay to treat someone as an object, so long as you didn't treat someone as a *mere* object.
I don't know...
Do you like to be treated as an object?
I have to say...
That that was my problem with sex. I had this 'arrangement' thing going on with one of my friends. We would sleep together sometimes. Sometimes... It was loving and I felt fine about that. But othertimes... I felt like he was treating me like an object. And thats why I ended the 'arrangement' because I didn't like how I felt. Like a tupperware container or something...
> Its interesting the points you make on training ourselves to be aroused by a certain object. I've always felt that all sexual feelings are taught (I know that's not what you were saying).Yeah, I think that is fairly much right...
But then some associations are easier learned than others. For example... It is easier to associate snakes with fear than it is to associate cups with fear. We seem to be 'hard-wired' to learn the snake-fear association more than the cup-fear association. And I suppose... Sexual responses might be a bit like that too. And different people may have more or less of the hard-wired thing going on which in conjunction with their experiences...>I believe that people are basically born bisexual and every aspect of their lives figures in to what they end up finding arousing. I think if our society wasn't so gender fixated, things would be alot different. But that's just my theory.
Yeah, I think thats probably right... I wish we were both genders. That way there wouldn't be any gender as we know it. Other animals and insects and fish and stuff are, so why not people? I think that would be pretty cool.
> >He seemed to think that love meant that both allow themself to be an object for the other but that this was acceptable because they were gaining that part of the other person. So basically... If the relationship is reciprocal then things are okay, and sex is morally acceptable.> I think this is a good point, although I might substitute 'psychologically healthy' for 'morally acceptable'.
Yeah, I take your point there.
> >We seem to get up in arms about men treating women as objects - but what seems to be happening (IMO) is that women are attempting to gain 'equality' by turning the tables and returning the favour. I'm not sure that that solves the problem...
> That is definitely true. I know I'm guilty of that myself. Its an easy thing to fall into,Yes, it is. I think... I went through a bit of a phase with that too.
> and I don't know yet how I feel about it. Its never even occured to me that it isn't the the best way to go, so you've given me something to think about.
:-)
> This reminds me of something I ironically heard on the radio today. Heidi Fleiss is talking about opening a brothel with male prostitues servicing straight women. H-m-m, I have to admit, getting a taste of the sort of freedom that men have had for years (centuries?) is appealing.
Hmm.
I don't think I like that idea...
But then I don't particularly like the status quo...I think you are right. Its not so much a 'moral objection'. I really don't think I judge people who do this stuff... I just think... Yeah... It is about psychological health, like you said.
Objectification.
All I know is that I don't like to feel like I'm being treated as an object.
And especially...
When it comes to sex.
But yeah, maybe it is about the *mere* object...
And I guess relationships are about give and take...
I don't know...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:04:14
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:03:42
hmm.
i think its catchy ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:04:46
In reply to Re: above for texaschick, posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:04:14
Posted by TexasChic on November 23, 2005, at 19:37:26
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:03:42
All good points!
I wonder what happened to the guy who started this thread. I guess we kind of highjacked it.
;-)-T
Posted by zeugma on November 24, 2005, at 23:07:43
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » TexasChic, posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 3:53:34
i don't know about Kant's rather absolutist (IMO) ethics.
I will say that the experience of depersonalization is one in which one views oneself as an object. Body parts are disconnected in the sense that there is no organic sense of 'belonging to oneself.' Experience is perceived as discontinuous, rather like Edelman's 'splinter selves', except that the splinters are not autonomous at all, albeit they are not felt to make a whole. I suppose Dennett would say they are like a set of drafts competing for primacy- the difference with DID being that the drafts are not autonomous at all, they lack the feeling of being a set of mutually coherent drafts but they are not autonomous at all.
it makes relationships in the sexual asense impossible. I don't perceive others as objects at all- but perceiving oneself oneself continuosly as an object is not conducive to entering into relationships at all. It's not even a sense of being a coherent object, which I think is the sticking point. I know Kant has some interesting things to say about the first person, and I think that is the crucial point for this matter. if one simply has a shaky sense of the first person, then the relations one can enter into with others are ambiguous at best. One has trouble relating to oneself. I suppose everyone has trouble with that, to some degree.
-z
Posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 18:44:30
In reply to reverse objectification » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on November 24, 2005, at 23:07:43
> i don't know about Kant's rather absolutist (IMO) ethics.
Hmm.
I guess I prefer 'universal' to 'absolutist' but yeah, I guess...
I don't know much about ethics in general...
But I do remember having to read about Kant...For example...
If you are thinking about performing an act then you need to decide which maxim / law captures the act.
(Problems here with respect to how you DESCRIBE the maxim).
So... Suicide. Lets say you are deciding whether it would be morally acceptable to top yourself.
The relevant maxim is supposed to be UNIVERSAL (to apply to all people, situations, times etc)
So... One description of the relevant maxim may be...
'It is morally acceptable for someone to kill themself'.
Now...
The criterion...
COULD YOU WILL THE MAXIM TO BECOME A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW???
(aka: could you will (intend) that everybody live by that maxim?)
Kant thought that IT WAS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to will that maxim to be a universal moral law because...
If everybody killed themself, then there wouldn't be any people left to act on the universal moral law.
And thus... He considers that the maxim would be CONTRADICTORY.
And... That is his criterion. If you can will the maxim to be a universal moral law (that everybody followed) WITHOUT CONTRADICTION then the maxim is a universal moral law. If you are led to contradiction then it can't be a universal moral law (so you SHOULDN'T do the act covered by the maxim because you (logically) CANNOT will the maxim to be a universal moral law.(Hence ethics is a matter of logic / reason, not of desire / emotion)
Works best for promise breaking IMO.
You can't will 'it is okay for people to break their promises' because if everybody broke their promises then there wouldn't be any such thing as promises. The very notion would self-distruct becasue of the contradiction...Thoguh... We can surely imagine cases where someone might need to be later than they promised in order to save a drowining person on the way to the meeting...
> I will say that the experience of depersonalization is one in which one views oneself as an object.Yes.
I have read something (a while back now) on borderline personality disorder... more specifically... on de-personalisation - objectification - and self injury.I remember reading about how in de-personalisation you don't see yourself as a 'subject' (of experience) rather you see yourself as an object.
But who is the 'yourself' that is being objectified?
It seems to be an experience of ones subjectivity being dissociated / split off from ones physical body. Typically ones experiecne of ones subjectivity embraces ones body. Sometimes... Ones experinece of ones subjectivity becomes narrowed. The boundary or limit of ones subjectivity becomes restricted. The physical body is seen as 'other' or 'foreign' or 'ego alien' or... as an object. The subjectivity has been split from being intimately associated with the body.
Self injury... One function of it can be to help 'ground' oneself back in ones body. The experience of bodily pain... Is hard for ones subjectivity to ignore... And thus self injury can function to enlarge the boundaries of the subjectivity to encompass the body once more...
(I'm not recommending that as a strategy. Though some people finding holding a cube of ice... A less injurous way of achieving the same thing).
But other people... Depersonalise in the face of bodily sensations of pain... Perhaps most interestingly... When the pain is a result of someone else treating their body as an object... Hmm...
> it makes relationships in the sexual asense impossible.
Hmm.
Yeah. I'm not sure what Kant was thinking... But what I took from the seminar seemed to be a little different to what most other people took.
Most people came away thinking that mututal objectification (between consenting parties) was just fine and Kant was a little too uptight.
I came away thinking that IT IS possible for sex to be an activity between two subjects rather than two objects.
And Kant just didn't quite manage to get himself to there...
Though I'm still thinking about the *object* / *mere object* thing...
> if one simply has a shaky sense of the first person, then the relations one can enter into with others are ambiguous at best. One has trouble relating to oneself. I suppose everyone has trouble with that, to some degree.
Yeah. I have trouble...
So... You think of other peoples bodies as 'containing' (or being intimately associated with) subjectivity...
But... You don't think of your body as 'containing' (or being intimately associated with) subjectivity...?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 19:07:49
In reply to no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by MichaelJr on November 16, 2005, at 12:42:52
Hey there. Sorry for my part in 'hijacking' the thread...
I want to say... That I don't judge you... Really.
Sounds like... It is becoming a bit of a problem in your life. The expense etc. And that a huge part of the problem is to do with your self-confidence. Not feeling able to talk to girls. To ask them out etc. And so... Prostitutes become a realtively safe way of getting what you need without taking the risk that someone will say they don't want to go out with you or something.
I would say... That therapy is likely to be your best bet. To talk to someone about the problem. Because... Sexual activity can become 'addctive' in much the way that drug taking and gambelling etc can be 'addictive'. You know you are spending more than you can afford... But there is a compulsion to keep doing it. And why is there that compulsion? Thats where you could chat to someone about what you are getting from these prostitutes that you aren't getting in your life.
And you said about your self-esteem and confidence etc. And so... Working with someone on that would probably help you. And could help you gain the confidence to meet more people (including women) and ask them out etc.
Congradulations on graduating :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 21:59:06
In reply to Re: reverse objectification » zeugma, posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 18:44:30
though maybe this is more about dissociation than depersonalisation...
?
(sorry it was awkward and rambly)
Posted by caraher on November 26, 2005, at 8:37:07
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by TexasChic on November 16, 2005, at 18:26:45
> That being said, dude, if it were as easy to get straight male prostitutes and not be scared they're a serial killer or something, I would so be there. Unfortuntely, its just not the same for women.Yesterday I read that Heidi Fleiss (of "Hollywood Madam" fame or infamy) was joining a partnership to start a brothel with male prostitutes in Nevada (where such things are legal).
Posted by zeugma on November 28, 2005, at 20:24:21
In reply to Re: reverse objectification » zeugma, posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 18:44:30
> > i don't know about Kant's rather absolutist (IMO) ethics.
>
> Hmm.
> I guess I prefer 'universal' to 'absolutist' but yeah, I guess...
> I don't know much about ethics in general...
> But I do remember having to read about Kant... >>I remember having to read Kant. (The sense of obligation). Reading about Kant was better, because not put in that 'packing-crate prose' that Heine talked about. I should have said 'universal,' not 'absolutist,' as absolutism is way off base with regard to Kant.
>
> For example...
> If you are thinking about performing an act then you need to decide which maxim / law captures the act.
> (Problems here with respect to how you DESCRIBE the maxim).
> So... Suicide. Lets say you are deciding whether it would be morally acceptable to top yourself.
> The relevant maxim is supposed to be UNIVERSAL (to apply to all people, situations, times etc)
> So... One description of the relevant maxim may be...
> 'It is morally acceptable for someone to kill themself'.
> Now...
> The criterion...
> COULD YOU WILL THE MAXIM TO BECOME A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW???
> (aka: could you will (intend) that everybody live by that maxim?)
> Kant thought that IT WAS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to will that maxim to be a universal moral law because...
> If everybody killed themself, then there wouldn't be any people left to act on the universal moral law.
> And thus... He considers that the maxim would be CONTRADICTORY.
> And... That is his criterion. If you can will the maxim to be a universal moral law (that everybody followed) WITHOUT CONTRADICTION then the maxim is a universal moral law. If you are led to contradiction then it can't be a universal moral law (so you SHOULDN'T do the act covered by the maxim because you (logically) CANNOT will the maxim to be a universal moral law.
>
> (Hence ethics is a matter of logic / reason, not of desire / emotion)
>
> Works best for promise breaking IMO.
> You can't will 'it is okay for people to break their promises' because if everybody broke their promises then there wouldn't be any such thing as promises. The very notion would self-distruct becasue of the contradiction...
>I agree. And there are implicit promises in many things we do, so I don't think that puts Kant on the margins. Although...I am sympathetic to a form of moral realism stronger than Kant's highly 'performative' and individualistic theory (i.e. the agent considering whether her actions can satisfy a maxim rational for everybody to follow). As a matter of fact i tend to agree with Hume, that desires and emotions take precedence in the moral sphere, and that morality may be more akin to perception than to reason, or at least that it comprises the two elements (thus providing for objects to have 'moral qualities,' a possibilty I don't see kant as allowing for).
> Thoguh... We can surely imagine cases where someone might need to be later than they promised in order to save a drowining person on the way to the meeting...
>
Easy to imagine that.
> > I will say that the experience of depersonalization is one in which one views oneself as an object.
>
> Yes.
> I have read something (a while back now) on borderline personality disorder... more specifically... on de-personalisation - objectification - and self injury.
>
> I remember reading about how in de-personalisation you don't see yourself as a 'subject' (of experience) rather you see yourself as an object.
>
> But who is the 'yourself' that is being objectified?
>
> It seems to be an experience of ones subjectivity being dissociated / split off from ones physical body. Typically ones experiecne of ones subjectivity embraces ones body. Sometimes... Ones experinece of ones subjectivity becomes narrowed. The boundary or limit of ones subjectivity becomes restricted. The physical body is seen as 'other' or 'foreign' or 'ego alien' or... as an object. The subjectivity has been split from being intimately associated with the body.
>This is about right.
> Self injury... One function of it can be to help 'ground' oneself back in ones body. The experience of bodily pain... Is hard for ones subjectivity to ignore... And thus self injury can function to enlarge the boundaries of the subjectivity to encompass the body once more...
>
> (I'm not recommending that as a strategy. Though some people finding holding a cube of ice... A less injurous way of achieving the same thing).>>I used to inflict pain intentionally on myself (picking hangnails and such) as a way to feel sensation. I still do on occasion, since it doesn't leave scars the way skin picking on the face does (which I try not to engage in, despite the fact that it meakes me feel 'there.' Oh, the wonders of stimulants and antidepressants. It's easier to be rational about these things when they are in your system.) It's the desire to feel some sensation, any sensation. It also reduces anxiety because the feeling of having perceptual experience completely dulled is frightening. One can get in a lot of trouble that way (we either have to have functional sensory systemns, or well-developed coping mechanisms, such that blind people use to get through daily life).
>
>
> > it makes relationships in the sexual asense impossible.
>
> Hmm.
>
> Yeah. I'm not sure what Kant was thinking... But what I took from the seminar seemed to be a little different to what most other people took.
>
> Most people came away thinking that mututal objectification (between consenting parties) was just fine and Kant was a little too uptight.
>Kant WAS uptight, but that doesn't mean mutual objectification is OK. Actually I take the phrase to be oxymoronic. 'consent' can be made only by a subject, or so i would think; it's a kind of promise.
> I came away thinking that IT IS possible for sex to be an activity between two subjects rather than two objects.
>
It certainly is.
> And Kant just didn't quite manage to get himself to there...
>
> Though I'm still thinking about the *object* / *mere object* thing...
>well, i think, as i hinted above, that what i don't like about Kant's theory is that there is no room for a 'moral sense' or perhaps more precisely, 'moral perception.' So I think it's less that a person treating another as an object is acting irrationally, so much as acting immorally, and to say that one must be covered by a maxim that is unversalizable ignores the uniqueness of each situation (as for instance breaking a promise to meet someone for dinner in order to save someone from drowning). Likewise, I would hold objectification to be a kind of abstraction, i.e. considering a person qua sex object rather than qua friend or lover or whatever. Apart from morality here, the issue of perception would be, Do you know what aspect is being considered when the person views you? And morally, is the way in which the person views you right or wrong? This is complicated by the fact that a person is viewed in many ways simultaneously; that's where i think a moral sense comes in, to perceive the specifically moral, as opposed to psychological characters of the situation.
> > if one simply has a shaky sense of the first person, then the relations one can enter into with others are ambiguous at best. One has trouble relating to oneself. I suppose everyone has trouble with that, to some degree.
>
> Yeah. I have trouble...
>
> So... You think of other peoples bodies as 'containing' (or being intimately associated with) subjectivity...
> But... You don't think of your body as 'containing' (or being intimately associated with) subjectivity...
>
> ?
>i think my body contains subjectivity, but it is difficult to access. depersonalization is a dissociative state, characterized in particular by phenomena such as autoscopy (seeing oneself from a vantage point outside one's own body). i believe it relates to an inability to process information from an egocentric (not in the pejorative sense merely in the subject-centered sense) as opposed to allocentric (centered via coordinates outside one's body) point of view. I don't have autoscopy these days, but the extreme frequency of hypnagogic hallucinations (which I take medication to suppress; otherwise they are intolerable) and their peculiar form, of simulataneously being aware of my own position in bed and being subjected to sensations of being somewhere else (i.e. in a dream) suggests a weakness in the ability of the egocentric pathway to maintain a coherent picture. The egocentric pathway is associated with subjectivity, definitely. I look at others, and see that they are 'there' in a sense that is very difficult for me to maintain.
-z
>
Posted by MichaelJr on December 3, 2005, at 4:46:30
In reply to Re: reverse objectification » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on November 28, 2005, at 20:24:21
I have been in therapy for over 7 years already and am currently in therapy.
Girls I get with are never forced into it. In fact these girls are living a lifestyle that they otherwise would be unable to afford. The problem is that all the kooky feminists out there say all prostitution in the 3rd world is forced and due to the sex trade of children. This couldn't be further from the truth. I will say that most of these girls have the choice to either be poor or work as a prostitute, which is sad. But by no means are they some type of SLAVE like many people think. There are some men out there who are looking for children but I am not.
I do not think my behavior is healthy but I have strong opinions in favor of prostition. If two adults agree to have sex for money, who cares?!
I do not take offense or really even care to listen to any of the women posting in this thread. Of course women are against it. Western women think their pussies are frickin goldmines! It just takes the power right away from them.
I always use protection and get tested so I am clean.
Anyway...I look at it this way. Which is worse...me being alone and j*rking off, or at least getting laid albeit by a stranger?
I do talk to my therapist but I am more in favor of living in another country than dating American women!!!!! I honestly get better treatment from hookers in the 3rd world than I ever got from my girlfriends in the United States.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 18:16:34
In reply to Re: reverse objectification, posted by MichaelJr on December 3, 2005, at 4:46:30
> Girls I get with are never forced into it.
How do you know? Do you ask them?
>I will say that most of these girls have the choice to either be poor or work as a prostitute, which is sad. But by no means are they some type of SLAVE like many people think.
Yeah, I think you are right there.
But you do not know for a fact that the girls you have paid have not been forced into it - do you?
>If two adults agree to have sex for money, who cares?!People might care because it might ultimately be harmful for either one or the other or both parties.
> Western women think their pussies are frickin goldmines!
All women...
Or the women you have paid to be with?
You don't think that maybe... That attitude would be more prevalent in people who... Are being paid in virtue of having one? And if you generalise from that to ALL women... Then can't you see that you most probably are going to have some issues about women that are likely to interfeare with your having a genuine relationship with a woman who isn't just after your money or what you can offer her materially.
> Anyway...I look at it this way. Which is worse...me being alone and j*rking off, or at least getting laid albeit by a stranger?Do you hurt yourself when you j*rk off alone?
Do you know for a fact that you don't emotionally / physically hurt the strangers that you have been with?You are worried about YOU
Not the fact that there is another person whose wishes and preferences YOU disregard for YOUR needs.
Don't you think this might be unhelpful with respect to ever having an equal relationship with another PERSON?> I honestly get better treatment from hookers in the 3rd world than I ever got from my girlfriends in the United States.
Thats because you paid those hookers to humour you.
A good hooker will leave you believing that she liked it.Girlfriends...
Want to see that you respect them as a person and you take their needs and preferences and desires into account.
A good relationship will leave both of you believing that you liked it.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 19:42:41
In reply to Re: reverse objectification, posted by MichaelJr on December 3, 2005, at 4:46:30
I'm glad you came back to babble with us :-)
Posted by caraher on December 3, 2005, at 22:21:51
In reply to Re: reverse objectification, posted by MichaelJr on December 3, 2005, at 4:46:30
> The problem is that all the kooky feminists out there say all prostitution in the 3rd world is forced and due to the sex trade of children. This couldn't be further from the truth.
The problem isn't that the prevalence of sexual servitude is overstated, it's that it exists! I think being forced into that against one's will is a far more serious problem than that patrons of the women who have freely chosen sex work feel bad when they hear about the dark side of the industry.
> I do not take offense or really even care to listen to any of the women posting in this thread. Of course women are against it. Western women think their pussies are frickin goldmines! It just takes the power right away from them.Your original post's title said you have no girlfriend so you turned to prostitution, and you follow up with the preceding misogynistic generalization. You seem to equate a girlfriend with a (low-cost?) outlet for sexual desires - which is certainly ONE role of a girlfriend, but which shouldn't be the whole story, either. I think your perceptions of women's motives are really just your own expectations of them reflected back to you. And your opinion of them seems rather low...
> Anyway...I look at it this way. Which is worse...me being alone and j*rking off, or at least getting laid albeit by a stranger?Seems to me you started this thread by talking about how this is becoming an addiction you cannot afford. So I'd say getting laid by a stranger is clearly worse. You're not running up excessive debts being alone and j*rking off, are you?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:48:45
In reply to Re: reverse objectification, posted by caraher on December 3, 2005, at 22:21:51
> You seem to equate a girlfriend with a (low-cost?) outlet for sexual desires - which is certainly ONE role of a girlfriend...
one role of a girlfriend?
charming...
Posted by caraher on December 3, 2005, at 23:05:03
In reply to Re: objectification » caraher, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:48:45
> > You seem to equate a girlfriend with a (low-cost?) outlet for sexual desires - which is certainly ONE role of a girlfriend...
>
> one role of a girlfriend?
>
> charming...hehe... I'm shooting for the lowest common denominator here
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 23:51:07
In reply to Re: objectification, posted by caraher on December 3, 2005, at 23:05:03
> > > You seem to equate a girlfriend with a (low-cost?) outlet for sexual desires - which is certainly ONE role of a girlfriend...
> > one role of a girlfriend?
> > charming...
> hehe... I'm shooting for the lowest common denominator here
well... i suppose Kant might possibly allow that it isn't treating someone as a *mere* object...
;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 23:53:01
In reply to Re: objectification » caraher, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 23:51:07
i think the object / mere object distinction might break down...
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2005, at 1:33:04
In reply to Re: reverse objectification, posted by caraher on December 3, 2005, at 22:21:51
> I do not ... really even care to listen to any of the women posting in this thread. ... Western women think their p[*]ssies are frickin goldmines!
>
> MichaelJr> You are worried about YOU
> Not the fact that there is another person whose wishes and preferences YOU disregard for YOUR needs.
>
> alexandra_k> you follow up with the preceding misogynistic generalization.
>
> caraherPlease respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. Please don't jump to conclusions about them, post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down, or use language that could offend them.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 16:34:32
In reply to Re: please be civil » MichaelJr » alexandra_k » caraher, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2005, at 1:33:04
interesting discussion though...
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2005, at 16:50:09
In reply to Re: sorry folks..., posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 16:34:32
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Relationships | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.