But photocopying does not pay as well...
I have obviously upset some pure-minded people with my views on prostitution. One reader now even calls me a postmodernist who “ultimately ascribes to no form of reason at all”.
But it is some form of reason that makes me question the motives of people who claim to want to help sex workers by criminalising their work. Surely, if we legalised sex work, it would undermine the power of pimps and others who exploit sex workers? In that way sex workers will face less exploitation than they do now. O, yes, and of course they will not face police harassment and jail time for earning a living in this particular way.
In the end, the argument is not about reason at all. It is clearly about sex and whether one thinks that sex outside the procreative marriage is evil, sinful, dirty and disgusting. If one does, then one can obviously not fathom sex work as another legal job because one believes the state has a duty to enforce the moral views of one section of the community on all of us – regardless of the consequences to others.
This is not a pro-women position but an anti-sex position. It is, of course, deeply illiberal and quite patronising towards woman and many woman who make a living from sex work would feel highly aggrieved by these attempts to “help” them.
I come from another perspective. I do not see sex as having any moral significance on its own. Having sex is morally no different from having dinner, or making photocopies. It might often be more enjoyable, but it is just another activity. Of course if one is raped after having dinner with someone, or if one is sexually harassed in the photocopying room, then those acts would be worthy of condemnation and criminalisation.
However, one does not protect the woman by banning them from having dinner with strangers or from taking a job doing photocopies. Why would one then claim to protect woman by banning them from doing sex work – because one thinks they are disgusting fro doing it? The christianists may not agree with me, but they can’t say this view is not based on a kind of reasoning. It is just not the kind of reasoning that they like.
Subscribe to constitutionally speaking
2 comments:
"Having sex is morally no different from having dinner..."
Wow. No wonder rapists face less and less jail time. Soon, it'll be tantamount to forcing someone to eat dinner with you. As a professor of law, you've become very disillusioned with the concept of law, which in its very concept is the upholding of a form of morality (look up the word "moral" sometime, you may learn something).
The reason you ascribe to is either missing, or so deeply flawed it's as water-tight as a spagetti-strainer.
Seems like you're a professor because the court won't have you - they adhere to reason.
I wonder if I can lay some charges that’ll put my parents away for twenty, seeing they repeatedly forced me to eat dinner in years gone by. Seeing I’m back from a little “consensual dinner”, I thought to add a little more…
Now, on to the issue: on your bigoted, closed-minded, fundamentalist super-left wing blog, you've equated sex to an amoral activity.
What then, is moral? Loving the hot Italian intern with the firm butt? Condemning Bush? Hanging the "homophobe"?
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept what you say about sex, as you proclaim your deviance from the blog-tops. Before you label me as a homophobe christianist, let me lay out my logic on homosexuality:
Being fag is deviant, simply because it deviates from nature - the plumbing don't work, buddy... Sex is about procreation, not orgasm. Sure, that's a healthy and happy motivation, but it's not the point. Discovery has a little about how the rest of the creatures do it. Watch 'n learn.
Reading your post provides endless amusement about the strange ends of your mind:
"... one believes the state has a duty to enforce the moral views of one section of the community on all of us – regardless of the consequences to others."
Isn't it strange that a liberal, pro-homo-morality is determining the sway of law in our conservative country? The small but ridiculously loud homosexual community is making its duty to enforce homosexual ideologies about sex in our schools, universities, media... and constitution - regardless of the consequences to others. I have a nagging suspicion that homosexual rights have pushed through despite resistance by the public in South Africa (e.g. 95% voted against gay marriage during the country-wide tour to "feel the temperament of the people on the issue" but it still got passed) is because most of our leaders are ex-inmates.
South Africa is conservative, it holds to traditional values – wake up and smell the boerewors!
"The christianists may not agree with me, but they can’t say this view is not based on a kind of reasoning. It is just not the kind of reasoning that they like."
The liberalist is saying that sex is amoral. Then goes on to say that sexual harassment should be condemned. I don't like this reason, because it is flawed, obtuse and tepid.
I'm not disagreeing with you because I'm a "christianist", whatever that is, I disagree because I find it reprehensible that a person who could spew a slew of idiocy like this could be called a professor!
Look mama, the law professor has no clothes!
Post a Comment