Psycho-Babble Relationships Thread 579342

Shown: posts 20 to 44 of 44. Go back in thread:

 

Re: above for texaschick

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 ;-)

 

Re: sorry for typo (or spelling problem actually) (nm)

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

 

Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » alexandra_k

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

 

reverse objectification » alexandra_k

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

 

Re: reverse objectification » zeugma

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...

?

 

Re: You still with us???? » MichaelJr

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 :-)


 

Re: reverse objectification

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)

 

Re: Brothel catering to women » TexasChic

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).

 

Re: reverse objectification » alexandra_k

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
>

 

Re: reverse objectification

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.

 

Re: objectification » MichaelJr

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.

 

PS » MichaelJr

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 :-)

 

Re: reverse objectification

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?

 

Re: objectification » caraher

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...

 

Re: objectification

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

 

Re: objectification » caraher

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...

;-)

 

Re: objectification

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...

 

Re: please be civil » MichaelJr » alexandra_k » caraher

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.
>
> caraher

Please 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

 

Re: sorry folks...

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...

 

Re: thanks (nm) » alexandra_k

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

 

Re: reverse objectification

Posted by TexasChic on December 5, 2005, at 20:54:33

In reply to Re: reverse objectification, posted by MichaelJr on December 3, 2005, at 4:46:30

> 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.

Um, hello, I was on your side. If a women wants to charge for sex, I say, work it girl, work it. If she's okay with it, who's it hurting.

But it sounds as if you've made your decision about women.

You may want to consider that women may be more complex than you think.

-T

 

Nevertheless » MichaelJr

Posted by Tamar on December 6, 2005, at 8:17:50

In reply to Re: reverse objectification, posted by MichaelJr on December 3, 2005, at 4:46:30

> I have been in therapy for over 7 years already and am currently in therapy.

Glad to hear it. Hope it’s helping.

> Girls I get with are never forced into it.

I doubt you could know that for certain, but I’d be interested to hear why you think that’s the case.

> In fact these girls are living a lifestyle that they otherwise would be unable to afford.

Hmmm. Are you saying that these women have no choices in life except to sell their bodies for money? Is that really a choice?

Or are you implying that you’re doing them a favour by paying them for sex?

> 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.

Well, I’m a feminist, and we don’t all speak with one voice on this subject. But those of us who are against prostitution would probably say that the problem of forced prostitution and trafficking of women and children is not limited to the third world. There are plenty of American child prostitutes (and French, German, British, Dutch, Australian… etc.).

> I will say that most of these girls have the choice to either be poor or work as a prostitute, which is sad.

Again: what sort of *choice* is that?

> 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 am glad to hear that you’re not looking for children. However, many of the women you encounter are women who have been prostitutes since they were children.

Furthermore, many women working in brothels have been sold to the brothel owners for a substantial sum of money. The women are expected to work in the brothel until they have earned enough to repay the brothel owners the ‘cost’ of buying them. That is, in fact, slavery. By the time they repay the money they have no means of leaving prostitution and no way of reintegrating into society. Many of them will have sexually transmitted diseases.

> 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 think if we lived in a world where there was equality between the sexes I wouldn’t care. But I think in the present circumstances prostitutes are not respected by men. Also, conversely, when men show disrespect for women they call them prostitutes. If prostitutes could work safely with no fear of being beaten or raped; if they could exercise a genuinely free choice to work in prostitution; if women could earn just as much for manual labour as for selling sex… then perhaps I wouldn’t care.

But until that time comes I will continue to believe that prostitution is harmful to women, and that the vast majority of women who sell sex don’t want to be selling sex.

> I do not take offense or really even care to listen to any of the women posting in this thread.

I’m glad you won’t take offence. But I wonder why it’s just the *women* you don’t want to listen to. Do you think men are more likely to agree with you?

> Of course women are against it.

It seems to me from reading this thread that women are not necessarily against it. Some women have spoken out in support of prostitution.

> Western women think their p*ssies are frickin goldmines! It just takes the power right away from them.

I’m sorry, I genuinely don’t understand. Are you saying that western women are angry and jealous of third world prostitutes because they have more power than us? That’s how I read it, but it seems so unlikely I feel I must have misunderstood. Could you clarify?

> I always use protection and get tested so I am clean.

Glad to hear it. I think it’s really important, especially if you’re travelling a lot for prostitution. It’s difficult to know what conditions are like in other countries; whether the women have health checks and so on.

> 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 agree with Caraher’s answer: j*rking off costs you nothing; going abroad for sex with prostitutes is taking you into debt.

> 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.

Do you mean you get better treatment *sexually* from third world prostitutes than you get from American girlfriends? Or do you mean better treatment in a more general sense? Having a relationship is more complex than having sex with strangers, of course, but many people find it more rewarding. For many people the advantages of a relationship outweigh the disadvantages.

I wonder if your experience of relationships has been so disillusioning that you prefer to get into debt in order to pursue a means of finding sexual satisfaction without risking being hurt. I’m still not judging you, by the way. But I do suspect that you might find more sexual fulfilment with a woman who really wants *you*.

Tamar


 

Re: Nevertheless

Posted by jonquiljo on December 7, 2005, at 22:05:29

In reply to Nevertheless » MichaelJr, posted by Tamar on December 6, 2005, at 8:17:50

Michael, I'm a rather latecomer (bad pun) to this, but ....

People have to do what they have to do. You shouldn't be judged at all. It sounds like the economics of this is really the problem. If you're broke, youre broke. There's something to be said for not spending more than you are able. For this perhaps it might be good to seek help. Running up student loans for prostitutes will really get to you in the end. Really ... I have been there (broke and in debt) and it is no fun Good luck, however.

 

Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob

Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 15, 2005, at 13:53:01

In reply to Re: please be civil » MichaelJr » alexandra_k » caraher, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 2005, at 1:33:04

er...
how did you manage to direct the header to all three of us???

can we do that???

 

Redirect: directing the header

Posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2005, at 15:32:14

In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k2 on December 15, 2005, at 13:53:01

> how did you manage to direct the header to all three of us???

Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding directing the header to Psycho-Babble Administration. Here's a link:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/590403.html

Thanks,

Bob


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Relationships | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.