| Subject: Re: Male vs Female Strippers |
Author:
Raisinmom
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:27:01 07/04/02 Thu
In reply to:
Astrid
's message, "Re: Male vs Female Strippers" on 18:45:46 07/04/02 Thu
>I think that victimless "crimes" aren't the business
>of the state. Adults should be allowed to destroy
>themselves, whether it's via being a hooker, being a
>sex addict, being a drug or alcohol user, or being a
>gambler.
>
I guess some would say that prostitution is not victimless because it contributes to the objectification of women and spreads disease. The latter objection is a valid point, but one that I agree with you that legalization would help contain. As for contributing to the objectification of women: we just can't outlaw everything that creates a negative image of others of the same group. That would deny some members of the group autonomy, which I think is a bad result. It also sets a dangerous precedent.
This doesn't mean, by the way, that we can't scorn or shame those who do engage in behavior that tarnishes the group -- I think shame is a grossly underutilized social tool. Thus, I think prostitution should be legal, but that we should use shame, scorn, etc. to turn women away from that line of work. (Interestingly, this is similar to my take on the First Amendment: the government can't prohibit speech, but that doesn't mean that we the people cannot or should not scorn, mock and debate speech with which we disagree.)
Against this background, I thought it interesting that Michelle mentioned college girls who turn to stripping because the money is so good. These educated women, who are stripping for economic gain, just are not "victims" -- they have made a decision to make money in a way I find sleazy, but they clearly find bearable (or even empowering, though I never could understand that). This is why I find the "victim" terminology for strippers to be so off; I find it patronizing to label people who make choices with which we don't agree "victims" merely because those choices seem like bad ones. I would much rather just call them trashy, or bad decision-makers, or stupid, or immature, or what-have-you. They made their choice, so they aren't victims, but that doesn't mean I agree with the choice and won't mock it.
Anyway, back to victimless crimes. Astrid, what about, for example, seat belts? The government requires that they be worn, yet an unbelted person is generally a danger only to herself. Should seat-belt laws be revoked (subject, if you like, to a penalty if an unbelted person hurts someone else by being unbelted)?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 