|
From:Gazy Posted on 2000-08-23 14:30:09
Yes, Sleazy Eyes,
I would be interested, it was firewire who popped to me the idea.
Firewire, make the necessary arrangement to talk to this free
lancer.
And firewire, make sure you only do the interview and nothing
else!
From:sleazy-eyes
Posted on 2000-08-24 00:11:19
I will keep you and firewise posted if
she agrees to the interview.
From:e[vil]-femme
Posted on 2000-08-24 18:22:03
Fluffy Puppy, I think you are either very
naive, self-deceiving or living in some kind of insulated environment
like I was.
Firstly, prostitution in Singapore is not just confined to the
licensed ones featured in sammyboy's website.
Secondly, confining the scope within Singapore doesn't make prostitution
right either.
hence, to argue against prostitution in s'pore by appealing
to the dire state of prostitution elsewhere is comparing apples
and oranges.
Stealing is still stealing, no matter what country you are in.
It's still a crime, no matter the circumstances. So? Do you need
prostitution in Singapore to reach 'dire straits' before you
can take a personal stand against it?
I'm not arguing about whether it is right or wrong to be a prostitute.
I'm arguing about whether it is right or wrong to VISIT a prostitute.
As long as there is somebody who wants a prostitute, there will
be one. That, to me, contributes to the harm.
I was also thinking to myself, how would the customer know the
real age of the prostitute anyway?
Doesn't it disgust you if you find out that a man is capable
of having sex with a girl young enough to be his daughter?
Do you know that we get 'social visitors' from our neighbouring
countries? Then their visa expires and they have to go back to
their own countries, wait out there for about a month or so before
being allowed a visa to come in again. The potential for disease
spreading is mind-boggling, going cross-borders, importing viruses.
Did you also read about the 12(?) year old girl who went round
construction sites in S'pore prostituting herself to earn money
for drugs?
From:FluffyPuppy
Posted on 2000-08-24 19:38:57
evil-femme,
i regret to read your resorting to names. perhaps a rational
and dispassionate discussion was too much to ask for.
you have systemically missed my points. firstly, i was hoping
delay in 'right' or 'wrong' judgements since they prevent us
from looking at the patronising of prostitutes objectively.
secondly, whilst prostitution is universal, the configuration
of patrons, authorial response, working women and cultural cache
varies from society to society. to talk about prostitution in
general omits vital differences. hence,
"Stealing is still stealing, no matter what country you
are in. It's still a crime, no matter the circumstances. So?"
i'm extremely perturbed with your stance. everything is given
meaning through context. a starving man stealing bread to feed
his family should be viewed differently from, say, white-collar
embezzlement in a 1st world country.
"Doesn't it disgust you if you find out that a man is capable
of having sex with a girl young enough to be his daughter?"
it may disgust me but i don't understand your point. how does
it buttress your argument?
if you are worried about 'social vistors' hopping back and forth,
shouldn't the discussion be about labour migration, issue of
work permits and levels of MOH checks?
From:sugar Posted
on 2000-08-24 22:05:53
sleazy-eye and fluffy puppy,
evil-femme is talking about social responsibility, supporting
an industry in which many individuals are unwillingly trapped
in.
Her stand is on social responsibility, and her point (with artistic
license) is that a sex patron can be a good boss, a good collegue,
a provider, even a good father and husband, but such an individual
lacks social responsibility and is still guilty of the uglier
side of the industry by means of participation.
You guys are talking about individual choices of willing participants
and the evils of generalization. Your point is that such an individual
is still a good boss, colleague etc etc etc regardless, and that
professional prostitutes chose this path and can indeed make
a very good living this way instead of say, at Coffee Bean or
McDonalds.
both are valid in their own ways, but maybe only in black letters.
From:FluffyPuppy
Posted on 2000-08-24 23:10:51
hi sugar,
if a person is a good father, good husband, good boss, good colleague
and good provider - then what would you qualify as 'social responsibility'?
isn't more of a qualitative than quantitative concept? after
all, would you say a man who is a good boss, good colleague and
ardent environmental activist but who doesn't spend enough time
with his children a man with 'social responsibility'?
no, the crux of the disagreement is the methods and identification
of 'problems' in prostitution. i humbly feel evil-femme addresses
what is a complex configuration of social, moral and capitalist
issues with only a moral perspective. this means any solutions
will invariably be generalised since there is no allowance for
moral relativism and social differentialities.
by deciding prostitution is morally wrong and desiring clampdowns
on 'social visitors' from nearby countries, she fails to address
important corollaries - like labour migration, issue of work
permits, availability of local lower-income jobs and levels of
MOH checks - by insisting on a laudable but monolithic objective.
in other words, saying prostitution is bad is just not enough,
one has to show why its bad and its empirical effects in society.
wuff!
From:e[vil]-femme
Posted on 2000-08-25 15:54:59
Fluffy puppy, like I said,
I'm not arguing about whether it is right or wrong to be a
prostitute. I'm arguing about whether it is right or wrong to
VISIT a prostitute.
I'm not concerned with the prostitutes' motives. I'm concerned
with the customers' motives and, as sugar puts it, social responsibility.
Can we start from this point?
if you are worried about 'social vistors' hopping back and
forth, shouldn't the discussion be about labour migration, issue
of work permits and levels of MOH checks?
Please, gimme a break here! Now I know how Gazy felt when he
'suaned' Mitsui or whoever. Work permits, MOH health checks,
labour migration are totally irrelevant because these people
are 'social visitors'. That means they come in as tourists, not
employees, not as spouses of employees, not as work permit holders.
The government is not stupid and there are safeguards in place
that deter these 'social visitors'. (If you don't know what they
are, let me know.) But by the same token, you cannot expect every
visitor from certain neighbouring countries to be labelled as
'potential prostitutes'. That's not right. And you aren't going
to get visitors who are going to declare themselves as prostitutes
at immigration. Some of them, frankly are not prostitutes, by
definition of jobs, but are prostituting themselves, by definition
of action and motive.
Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said, 'Stealing is
still stealing'. I was not talking about the motives of the thief
but the law on stealing.
Yes, I can recognise that a thief might steal out of necessity.
But if he gets caught, he is still subjected to the law.
If you view prostitution as a service to be bought, then you
can also think of drug dealing as a service. Honestly, why should
people care if this person wants to take drugs?
Sure, I can accept that there are 'vital differences' in the
prostitution industry in various countries. They are all different,
depending on the economic situation of the countries. But how
different are the customers? They all have a sexual need that
they want gratified. It's that simple. What's so vitally different
about that? Do you think that abusers of prostitutes only happen
in poorer countries?
By all means, let's explore the complexities and the social ramifications
of the customers of prostitutes.
From:FluffyPuppy
Posted on 2000-08-25 17:46:00
evil-femme,
no YOU give me a break. if you want to talk about the right/wrongs
of visiting a prostitute then provide the moral system/gauge
you are employing. don't tell us its wrong because its wrong.
if you want to start from social responsibility, then define
social responsibility - something which i suggested was very
nebulous in my above post.
and, i've never said or suggested all social vistors are potential
prostitutes. i would be interested to know what you know about
the safeguards in place.
lastly, yes, i think any product that is in demand and sold to
meet this demand is a service. by definition, the drug trade
is a capitalist service. so?
From: Posted on 2000-08-26 02:19:03
pup,
social responsibility referring to ripple effects of our actions
on society, beyond that of our immediate circle.
1. providing the moral system/gauge
evil-femme has already repeated herself over and again on the
reasons why she feel it's wrong, from family life to health to
degradation of women to cross-border ripple effects. You rejected
all of them demanding empirical statistics, scientific proof
and at the root of it, a blinding witch-hunt mentality whereby
instead of burning prostitutes at stake, a metaphorical burning
of the sex patrons at moralistic stakes. You already disagreed
with her fundamentals - her values. So why ask her for her moral
system.
2. moral relativism and a matter of pure service.
the sex industry is an age-old industry. It is by definition
a service. but is it only a service, that's the real question.
Is drug pedalling only a commercial service? Is anything only
a service? body shop will tell you no.
If you really want to be a social scientist about this, then
we're talking about marginal untilities, public goods, public
versus private costs/benefits, all of which boils down to general
perception - something which is generalised, faceless, a Quantified
set of Value judgements.
Anyone who is honest will have to concede that empirical figures
are merely lukewarm aggregated value judgements. Who decides
the criterion? Who assigns the number to a service or product
- customer satisfaction, product worth etc? Human beings. Be
it confucian, Jesus Christ, Goh Chok Tong, or whoever. it's an
ideological warfare.
Otherwise you can do a study of the relationship between men
who visit prostitutes and broken families. but it can still be
argued like a chicken-egg question. You can look at studies between
increase in porn sites and the increase in sexual crimes, and
it has gone up. but to be true scientists one must take into
account that improvement in law enforcements and educations may
have simply revealed more of what was already there. It goes
on and on. In the meantime, numbers are there to be manipulated.
Empirical data has its place. but does it takes a number to convince
you of someone else's suffering. going by cold logic, such an
individual is simply "unsuitable" for the profession,
and if it was a coerced participation, it's the coercing party
that should be castigated, not the entire profession. It all
works out very well in a paper but what about the execution.
let's be honest. Prostitution still exists today because there
is a demand for it and some people are not willing to give up
the available service because the victims that do exist either
do not matter to them, or they do not consider as their responsibilities.
That's all there is to it.|
sammy's website is a pornographic web-site with the added features
of a forum and what not. Do these extras make it more or less
of a pornographic web-site? No. Do these bring added value to
its readers? Probably, in terms of knowledge and amusement. Does
it objectify and degrade women? Does it mislead the young and
impressionable? And at the end, does anyone even care about that?
From:sugar Posted
on 2000-08-26 02:20:32
oh, that was me by the way.
From:Gazy Posted
on 2000-08-26 05:04:02
Sugar,
It is obvious from your posts that you are an immensely intelligent
woman. I will construct a more intelligent and lucid reply in
the morning after I wake up, but just to give you a general idea
of the whole crux of this disagreement.
It seems that Evil-Femme has again overgeneralized the effects
of sammyboy's website, pornography and prostitution in general,
all those so called statistical data she claims to have is from
other countries, and yet she is trying to parallelize it to Singapore.
Okie, I will continue after I wake up. Thanks.
From:Gazy Posted
on 2000-08-26 16:44:48
Sugar wrote :
"social responsibility referring to ripple effects of our
actions on society, beyond that of our immediate circle. "
That is a fine definition of social responsibility, sugar. But
I hope you do know, under a practical scenario, things get a
bit blurry though.
Let me give you an example, Einstein formulated the theoretical
basis for extracting immense amount of energy from the atom,
so is he socially responsible for it being used in nuclear weapons?
Don't answer me so quickly, think over it slowly and carefully.
"1. providing the moral system/gauge
evil-femme has already repeated herself over and again on the
reasons why she feel it's wrong, from family life to health to
degradation of women to cross-border ripple effects. You rejected
all of them demanding empirical statistics, scientific proof
and at the root of it, a blinding witch-hunt mentality whereby
instead of burning prostitutes at stake, a metaphorical burning
of the sex patrons at moralistic stakes. You already disagreed
with her fundamentals - her values. So why ask her for her moral
system."
Well, first of all, it is almost compulsory that she must state
her moral system. But being the christian that she is, her moral
system is usually not geared towards human utility and happiness.
Moral systems, as we know it in other systems of thought, are
geared somewhat towards social cohesion, economical utility and
other practical purposes.
If her code of morality does not even address these basic concerns
that our moral system addresses, there is little I can say of
her opinions, and little I can rebutt. The only thing I can say
to her is probably, "hey we live in the real world".
"2. moral relativism and a matter of pure service.
the sex industry is an age-old industry. It is by definition
a service. but is it only a service, that's the real question.
Is drug pedalling only a commercial service? Is anything only
a service? body shop will tell you no. "
Good rebuttal! So what distinguishes prostitution from drug pedalling?
There are more negative social effects from one of the activities,
for example?
And if that is the criteria to tell differences, can I say drug
pedalling has more negative social effects (even that is pulling
a bit far, in Amsterdam, where Heroine can be bought of the streets,
crime rates seems rather low)? What negative social effects can
result from prostitution, and mind you, it is singaporean prostitution
we are talking about here.
So is prostitution just a service, I personally think it is.
"Otherwise you can do a study of the relationship between
men who visit prostitutes and broken families. but it can still
be argued like a chicken-egg question. You can look at studies
between increase in porn sites and the increase in sexual crimes,
and it has gone up."
I am sorry but I would have to ask you to provide the references
of all these sociological studies. I am not even sure whether
visiting prostitutes even correlates with broken family. And
you have to be careful when you make claims like correlation
between pornographic sites and sexual crimes. Readers who are
not trained in sociology here would assume that you are saying
that increase of pornographic sites _causes_ the increase of
sexual crimes. I don't think you have made the claim about causality,
but I have lesser faith on readers on reading the correct signals.
"Empirical data has its place. but does it takes a number
to convince you of someone else's suffering. going by cold logic,
such an individual is simply "unsuitable" for the profession,
and if it was a coerced participation, it's the coercing party
that should be castigated, not the entire "
I don't know what you mean by "suffering" and "coerced
participation". Nowadays most prostitutes are willing parties,
from what I understand. For all we know, they may be enjoying
the whole experience.
"sammy's website is a pornographic web-site with the added
features of a forum and what not. Do these extras make it more
or less of a pornographic web-site? No. Do these bring added
value to its readers? Probably, in terms of knowledge and amusement.
Does it objectify and degrade women? Does it mislead the young
and impressionable? And at the end, does anyone even care about
that?"
Things are not so direct, my dear sugar. Sammyboy is a pornographic
site, no doubt, but the more interesting question is whether
it is just a pornographic site. I suggest you shirk off the negative
connotation you may have of "pornography" and look
clearly and the kind of utility sammyboy's website has provided.
The conclusion may be liberating.
And about objectification and degradation of women, I am sorry
to tell you that is the problem of the society, not specifically
of prostitution. The whole human enterprise (modelling, movie,
girls at car/IT shows, earning money to impress women) fully
concentrates and reinforces the fact that women are objects,
trophies to be won and conquered. Women seem to understand that
fact better than men, and they seem to resign to their fate,
so instead of blaming it solely on prostitution, why not blame
it wholly and completely on humanity itself?
From:FluffyPuppy
Posted on 2000-08-26 21:20:34
sugar,
thank you for your considered reply. i am not a social scientist,
just someone trying to understand.
1. 'family life to health to degradation of women to cross-border
ripple effects' - but EF has yet to identify the moral system
itself. i've not rejected her moral system because i don't know
how she decides what is right and what is wrong. besides, it
very shakey to say there is a direct co-relation between prostitution
and 'family life to health to degradation of women to cross-border
ripple effects'. the decline of these is a complex configuration
of different factors - and prositition may not be the most important
to this decline. (gazy has said that EF bases her moral system
on Christianity. perhaps he knows her better but i'll wait for
her to declare it before i address it.)
2. moral relativism and a matter of pure service.
its true that beyond pure mechanics of a service, there may be
other effects. i agree with you. however, to prevent the 'ideological
warfare' you talk about, to prevent a person espousing a certain
brand of ideology on issues and events, empiricism is all we
have for a sense of objective truth. its true that statistics
can be interpreted to suit any ideology. but its important we
BEGIN with empiricism and hope we remain on this track instead
of beginning from a particular brand of ideology since by definition,
it is an exclusion process which in a worst case scenario leads
to fascism.
3. let me give you an example of the problems i have with EF's
line of argument.
"Part of marriage is about being faithful to one's spouse,
the commitment to one's spouse. Visiting prostitutes is not it.
I know of 2 men who caused their wives to give birth to deformed
children. This is reality. It's not a joke or something that
only happens to somebody else."
this is an Appeal to Consequences argument where disagreeable
outcomes are used to buttress the truth-value of the proposition.
if prostitution is wrong because it can result in deformed babies,
then, is driving wrong because it results in car-accidents? we
should be talking about health issues and STD prevention instead
of sweeping the entire board with fear.
one or two of your points i want to address have been so by gazy.
i'll await your reply to him before saying more.
Wuff!
From:sugar Posted
on 2000-08-27 05:16:53
gazy,
There are a lot of studies out there in the internet. Just go
to google and do a search yourself. You don't need me to spoon-feed
you, and I won't patronise you by conveniently picking only studies
that are against prostitution and pornography.
I didn't give anyone a fine definition for social responsibility,
I gave a hurried, general definition because like you, I need
my sleep, and I am not academically inclined and have no patience
for crafting considered response, defining social, responsibility,
time, premise, conditions. If you want to talk about Einstein
and atomic bomb going by my simplistic definition, then yes,
he's responsible. If I were to go by your simplistic definition
of prostitution, then yes, it is just a service.
Things get blurry within a practical situation, and that is exactly
what's so galling about your sanitised version of prostitution
in Singapore. You cannot expect to me to draw parallels between
your real-life moral dilemma analogy centering on an individual
when you construct your hypothetical image of prostitution neatly
along a selective situation against an entire spectrum of possibilities.
Just as you cannot accept a lop-sided focus against prostitution,
I cannot accept your lop-sided portrayal for prostitution.
> If her code of morality does not even address these
> basic concerns that our moral system addresses, there
> is little I can say of her opinions, and little I can rebutt.
> The only thing I can say to her is probably, "hey we
live
> in the real world".
Real world is subjective; different worlds. No quarrels with
the above at all.
nothing distinguishes the nature of prostitution from the nature
of drug pedalling. Singaporean prostitution has been cited by
many as good examples of why prostitution should be legal since
it minimises many drawbacks commonly associated with prostitution
eg exploitation, diseases etc. But it is still an issue similar
to child labour. Should that be legalised rather than banned?
I would say yes, because given the degree of poverty it is the
most practical solution for the present situation. Banning child
labour in cotten factories had forced many children of both sexes
into the sex industry instead. To me, child labour is the lesser
of the two evils in such an instance.
Yet to a poor teenaged girl condemned to a life of poverty, prostitution
may be preferable as a way out of poverty. Even a rich teenager
who wants even more easy pocket-money. In such an instance, legalising
prostitution is of great benefit to her and to deprive her of
her clients is a disservice to her. In this case, prostitution
is an outright sex-for-money transaction, service with a smile.
In this situation, words such as "suffering", "coerced
participation" are foreign and laughable. This group of
prostitutes exist, no question. And if they are the only group
in existance, I wouldn't be spending all this time on this thread.
You're neither stupid nor naive. However you are unrealistically
selective.
> pornographic site, no doubt, but the more interesting
> question is whether it is just a pornographic site. I
> suggest you shirk off the negative connotation you may
> have of "pornography" and look clearly and the
kind of
> utility sammyboy's website has provided. The conclusion
> may be liberating.
No one doubts that it is a pornographic web-site, that's a given.
I said it's one with added features. Sleep has not cleared your
mind in any great degree. telling me to liberate my mind when
yours is so stubbornly insisting on a one-way track is ludricrous.
I have looked through the forums, the graphic reviews, and my
conclusion is that sammy will make a totally brilliant marketeer
and businessman. Where most pornographic sites are like wine
shops, selling only various types of wine and alcohols, his is
a bloody supermarket, a three-in-one Sifone, your lunch time
set menu deal and Big Mac with fries and cola thrown in.
And most importantly he knows what makes for good appetiser,
main course and dessert and he knows the importance of packaging,
of market psychology, and finally, he has a real interest in
it. The combination of forums with pornography is a brilliant
idea. The pornography attracts and filters and indicates no holds
barred, levelling the grounds at the forums. those too embarrassed
to confess a fascination for pornography has the alibi of the
forums. Those too macho to confess the need for some counselling
or human bonding has the cover of the pornography. Finally it's
a safe place for men-talk without consternation from the women
around them. and I was quite impressed by how all the men rushed
to the aid of their fallen comrade who was jilted by his gf.
Have I been "liberated"?
Do I still hold on to negative connotation of pornography?
I do, and without apologies because they exist. I don't see "sufficient"
merit to outweigh the demerit.
>And about objectification and degradation of women, I
>am sorry to tell you that is the problem of the society,
>not specifically of prostitution.
So you agree that there is a problem and that prostitution is
part of the phenomenon? You will also then agree that pornography
also contribute to the objectification of women. The problem
is there and pornography is the least subtle contributor though
not the only one.
>Women seem to understand that fact better than men, and they
seem to
> resign to their fate, so instead of blaming it solely on
prostitution, why not blame it wholly
> and completely on humanity itself?
you mean why kick up a fuss at all? why not play by the rules
of a patriachal sytem, and take what can be gained? accept being
an object not a human, to be a trophy to be conquered and then
what? it's a sad day when a woman resigns herself to such a fate
because a part of her has already been killed inside.
From:sugar Posted
on 2000-08-27 05:49:37
pup,
Some things can be observed by oneself and through one's own
experience. I don't need a scientific docuament to tell me if
I'm being treated like a sexual object or trophy. I can see for
myself if prostitution has harmed family life. Studies are great
for many reasons. But if you can't even identify the world around
you on your own, I feel sorry for you. The entire issue is never
about whether or not prostitution is the MAIN factor in the decline.
Someone brings up prostitution, I say it is a factor. Weightage
is not an issue.
>empiricism is all we have for a sense of objective truth.
the witch-hunt syndrome. One can get your drift but to depend
upon empiricism like a crutch is a sorry sight. Objective truth
for many people can mean no god. absolute truth for people of
religious beliefs is of one absolute god. You can begin with
empiricism, but at some point you have to decide for yourself
where you stand on an issue.
>if prostitution is wrong because it can result in deformed
babies, then, is driving
>wrong because it results in car-accidents? we should be talking
about health issues >and STD prevention instead of sweeping
the entire board with fear.
going to prostitutes is wrong when you're unfaithful and is wilfully
exposing your partner to health risks. It's like drunk driving
in which case, yes you are responsible if an accident ensues.
If you're focusing on damage control, does that mean that if
one can acertain 100% clean bill of health, it's ok to visit
a prostitute even if it makes one unfaithful?
From:sugar Posted
on 2000-08-27 15:51:35
gazy, pup,
I think I was a little unfair to you guys last night. Apologies.
I do see the points you're trying to make about prostitution/pornography,
how a local context can differ from abroad, the prejudices that
automatically make prostitution the cause for social ills rather
than the result of social ills (hence the need for empiricism
and proper studies)
I think it's a chicken-egg situation and I personally feel that
many people use similar arguments as a convenient excuse to avoid
taking actions or to face an issue squarely in the face. Pup's
point that prejudices similar to what I expressed here can hinder
solutions by giving attributing the cause to the wrong sources,
is valid and the flipped side of the same logic. there are those
who are truly open-minded and liberated, and others for whom
open-minded simply represent an empty mind.
Just as the both of you are waving the banners against prejudiced,
conservative, and self-righteous individuals, I am waving the
banner against people who white-wash issues, hide behind academic
facades, and refuses to take a stand for fear of being criticised
as being stodgy, old-fashioned etc. it all boils down to personal
motives.
If either of you wants to take the issue further point by point,
you're welcomed to send an e-mail to me. It's quite troublesome
having to keep scrolling up and down to read the posts/replies
in a page of this length. : )
From:the
5th bull Posted on 2000-08-28 00:02:37
As you might notice, our caption is "How
far do you think you can go today?" It symbolises this site's
mission to question the things which we take for granted everyday.
Now, suppose Sam Leong were to ask us to give a similar caption
for his site, what would his be? Would it be "How far do
you think you can go in today?"
From:sleazy-eyes
Posted on 2000-08-28 01:14:01
After having scanned through all your opinions,
I realize that the opinions on prostitution can be very varied
indeed, and I must confess that this is an area where:
(i) it is almost impossible to make a neutral stand
(ii) there will be inevitable amount of rationalization and blocking
out of info that is contrary to one's stand.
Commercial sex is a topic where it is very easy to become emotional,
and even when one keeps a cool head, selective perception often
clouds the picture. The fact is that there is no right or wrong
answer, and sometimes, even no better-argued or worse-argued
opinion.
It is perhaps of interest to know why the singapore govt decide
to legalize prostitution and go all out to create zones where
gals can sell their goods and get regular checkups. Did the pratical
necessities of such an arrangement outweigh the moral issues
involved. Remember that the sillypore govt places a very high
weightage on a moral culture. There must have been a countable
collection of extremely compelling reasons for them to take that
decision.
Maybe this can form the basis of another thread.
From:Gazy Posted
on 2000-08-28 01:14:04
Oh fifth bull,
Stop poking fun (another pun?) at visitors.
Anyway, Sugar, worry not, I find women who argue intelligently
an immense turn on, and I am very much turned on by you.
In any case, I am all along okie with seeing things the way you
or evil-femme are seeing it. But such ways of looking at prostitution
and pornography (ekks, dirty dirty dirty) are rather standard
and I guess such stands are very much explored, the same however
cannot be assumed for stands which see pornography and prostitution
in other lights - like how it benefits society for example.
I just want to complete the possible perspectives, I am not interested
in the superiority of my perspectives as compared to yours or
evil-femme's.
Thanks, and btw, you did not give me your email address, I am
afraid I cannot email you. In case you want to give me your email
address, you can email to [email protected].
From:e[vil]-femme
Posted on 2000-08-28 19:20:39
Gazy, I did say much early on in my post
that my religion has got nothing to do with my stand in this
instance. So kindly leave my religion out of it. Because I have
not brought it in. Unless you want to start talking about it.
sugar, I thought your posts were excellent and it hit right on
target.
I haven't given any statistical data. What I have given are real-life
examples of what I have read in the papers and articles. A point
which both of you seem to have ignored. I think sugar has brought
up a very good analogy / example, the issue of child labour.
Gazy, not too long ago, you said based on higher probability
of having deformed children, you would be against incest. So
how is this different from prostitution, one night stands? People
who patronise prostitutes are at a higher probability of catching
and passing on infectious diseases, not just to their partners
but to their children.
fluffy puppy, let's start simple and leave out the single man
first. My moral value is the issue of being faithful to one's
partner and that includes not having sex with somebody else other
than your partner. Do you agree that if one is married and has
sex with a prostitute, he is being unfaithful to his partner
and therefore he is WRONG in visiting the prostitute in the first
place? Pure and simple.
My second point was one of consistency. If a person who visits
prostitutes has no issue with his wife visiting prostitutes,
by all means carry on with their lifestyles, teaching their children
to do the same.
Gazy, I didn't overgeneralise. I am looking at prostitution as
a whole, while you seem to be focusing on the so-called 'clean'
part of it. Until you begin to address the 'ugly' part of it,
then can we start somewhere.
Both of you have simply failed to address my point on knowing
the age of the prostitute, preferring to leave it to the so-called
'sanitized' legalised part of prostitution in Singapore.
Fluffy puppy, if you had caught me on my initial statement '...
sluts', then yes, I will agree with you that it is a purely judgemental
opinion of my own. However, I did go on to say, 'I question his
character' and went on to give a list as to why I would question
it. The issue I was trying to relate is that of doubt. A patron
of prostitutes will bring into the relationship an element of
doubt.
Like I said before, by all means, let's explore the complexities,
the mentality involved of people who visit prostitutes. I'm willing
to listen to whatever justification men have for visiting prostitutes.
I mean we already know one of the reasons is sex. Surely there
must be more reasons. I've already given a lot more reasons not
to visit prostitutes. Unless the single reason of sex is enough
to outweigh the risk to family, to children.
From:e[vil]-femme
Posted on 2000-08-28 19:32:09
Fluffy puppy, you mentioned you wanted
to know what are the safeguards in place for the 'social visitors'.
1. Visas are necesary
2. Upon expiry of the 1 mth visa, they have to go back to their
home country, stay there for one month before coming back again.
3. If they do come back after that one month, their visa length
is usually reduced to about 2 weeks, depending on the discretion
of the immigration officer. Then they have to wait another month
before coming in again.
4. They are questioned in depth about their motives for coming
in.
5. Unless accompanied by the 'sponsor', again their visa is reduced.
6. They are not allowed to pop out to JB for a while and come
back in again with a renewed visa.
The last I heard, the stupid expat whose condom broke has caught
an STD. Luckily he is no longer in S'pore. Imported the virus
back to his own country, I think. Or maybe he just caught it
back home. Did I also mention that he had a girlfriend back home
before his condom broke?
I'm evil. I laugh. I'm selfish. I don't want such visitors contributing
to the spread of diseases in Singapore.
From:sleazy-eyes
Posted on 2000-08-28 22:32:01
Evil Femme, I like you when you are selfish.
Selfishness is an ideal.
From:sugar Posted
on 2000-08-29 08:12:16
gaze,
you can mail me at [email protected]
From:FluffyPuppy
Posted on 2000-08-29 22:45:18
sugar,
hello.
"The entire issue is never about whether or not prostitution
is the MAIN factor in the decline. Someone brings up prostitution,
I say it is a factor. Weightage is not an issue."
i disagree. a factor may be necessary but not sufficient. to
say weightage is not an issue is to wilfully ignore the limits
and particular causes of prostitution, attributing every social
ill to it. at some point, when it comes to determining its societal
impact, it is necessary to divorce morals from social fact. for
example you said,
"If you're focusing on damage control, does that mean that
if one can acertain 100% clean bill of health, it's ok to visit
a prostitute even if it makes one unfaithful?"
EF was alluding to the biological consequences of prostitution.
i was addressing the validity of her particular example. her
logic was flawed. that was my point. there is no need to add
'faithfulness' into the equation because the equation was not
concerned with the notion of 'faithfulness'. we can talk about
'faithfulness' in another corollary. to mix and match like you
have is to lump everything together for confusion.
can you pls explain to me why empiricism and objective truth
are part of a witch-hunt syndrome? empiricism provides an indiscriminating
platform for views, whilst preaching from a podium of morality
automatically excludes people who subscribe to different morality.
"I am waving the banner against people who white-wash issues,
hide behind academic facades, and refuses to take a stand for
fear of being criticised as being stodgy, old-fashioned etc."
to be fair, no one here has hidden behind academic facades as
far was i've read. the leitmotif for my argument has always been
distinction between personal morality and phenomenon. morality
and values are used to explain and come to terms with external
phenomenon. and if you read history, beginning with the rise
of the Holy Roman Empire to the hegemony of the Church in the
Middle Ages, the whitewash you talk about is more prevalent whenever
a particular brand of morality is enforced. furthermore, i don't
think anyone here fears being labelled old-fashioned. i have
no qualms revealing my personal views on prostitution and my
brand of morality but how will that contribute to a discussion
intent on ascertaining the societal effects of prostitution and
the co-relation between prostitution and pornography?
i think that it is important to post here instead of private
emailing since this is a public discussion. i find private emailing
always veers off from discussion proper into ubiquitous bien
passant for cordality's sake.
EF,
"Do you agree that if one is married and has sex with a
prostitute, he is being
unfaithful to his partner and therefore he is WRONG in visiting
the prostitute in the first place? Pure and simple."
no its not pure and simple. 19th cent french philosopher charles
fourier asserted that prostitution-patronism amongst married
couples (men and women) was emotionally healthy. the sukala tribe
in the amazon believe that formal union between man and woman
is merely for the production of heirs - sexual gratification
is derived elsewhere. so it boils down to the brand of morality
you use. if you say it is WRONG only for you, i can accept it.
but if you say its universally WRONG, then i humbly disagree.
to further this line of discussion, you have to state your brand
of morality, and invite scrutiny.
ok. you stated the 'safeguards' in place by the government for
social vistors. would you care to elaborate your point? the screening
of potential prostitutes will not and never completely eradicate
prostitution. this screening process is not to eradicate it,
but to minimise it. if eradication is the authorities primary
concern they would make it illegal and raid all the well-known
spots. this screening process is also to monitor the rate of
illegal workers (non-sexual). i maintain the present safeguards
plus MOM and MOH checks on brothels are adequate.
to further broaden the discussion. would you say that the moral
standards for a single and married man should be different since
there are no worries of family and unfaithfulness for the former?
wuff!
From:e[vil]-femme
Posted on 2000-08-30 12:13:37
Fluffy puppy, you are, frankly, getting
me really confused.
What exactly is it that you want me to elaborate on regarding
the 'safeguards'? I have already listed the procedures for social
visitors. Like I said earlier, these 'social visitors' are in
fact coming in as tourists. I did not say that these safeguards
will completely eliminate this particular group of tourists.
And I can understand that it is extremely difficult to screen
such people.
You can maintain that the health standards of the legal prostitutes
in Singapore are adequate but I find it laughable that you can
choose to ignore the 'illegal' ones that are coming in to Singapore.
Since you insist on confining your argument within the so-called
sanitized state in Singapore, so am I right to say that your
reasoning is: as long as one confines one's attentions to legalized
prostitutes in Singapore, he runs absolutely no fear of catching
any sexual diseases in Singapore. The same reasoning that you
employ to question the validity of my point on health endangerment?
19th cent french philosopher charles fourier asserted that
prostitution-patronism amongst married couples (men and women)
was emotionally healthy. the sukala tribe in the amazon believe
that formal union between man and woman is merely for the production
of heirs - sexual gratification is derived elsewhere. so it boils
down to the brand of morality you use.
For the point that you gave above, I have already addressed it
with my opinion on consistency. I said, if both partners have
no issue with each other visiting prostitutes, that's their business.
Your quotes on the 19th century philosopher and the sukala tribe
makes no sense to me if you are talking about prostitution within
the context of Singapore. Although I appreciate your point on
differing views of morality. But like I said, I have already
addressed this issue with the one on consistency.
Sorry man, I just don't buy it. I don't agree that just because
prostitution is so-called sanitized in Singapore, it makes it
right. There may be some customers who only visit the legalized
prositutes in Singapore. But you have to acknowlege that there
will be customers that will go cross-borders. Time and time again,
I have said I'm interested in hearing about the issues that these
customers have to deal with.
I'm curious. Do these customers think they are contributing to
the economy, sort of helping it along? How do these customers
face themselves in the morning if they find out they just screwed
a 14 year old prostitute? Or do they even care at all?
From:FluffyPuppy
Posted on 2000-08-30 14:45:27
EF,
sorry to confuse you. i didn't make myself clear.
i was addressing moral relativity with my charles fourier example.
i was just showing that there is no universal notion of 'faithfulness',
hence your idea of right and wrong is not 'pure and simple'.
if you accept that there are various versions of morality, then
yours is but one amongst many, and thus there is no ethical cache
in your argument when you condemn others. if your clarion call
against prostitution is based on this morality, then it is no
different from the KKK's right to burn crosses.
i'm sorry you find my describing things as they are laughable.
for value-added laughs perhaps you could take a look at your
own line of reasoning. you say it doesn't matter if there is
consistency (i.e. if the woman visits prostitutes as well). so
you are saying there is nothing wrong with visiting prostitutes
per se - its only wrong if SOME do it, but perfectly alright
if ALL do it? so what morality is this? let me get this right;
if a man visits a prostitute, he is wrong. but if he brings his
teenage son to pop his cherry with Sandy from thailand, and allows
his wife to visit male prostitutes, then what he is doing is
ok? interesting. which brand of morality do you subscribe to?
the example of social visitors was to show you that your ideal
world in which prostitutes are but a puritan's nightmare does
not exist. some of us, pragmatists in the real world, realise
that policies and social regulations are but demarcators in reality
and avoid the hysteria for a prostitute-free dream world.
wuff.
From:e[vil]-femme
Posted on 2000-08-30 18:34:16
Fluffy puppy, on the issue of consistency,
what I was trying to say, sigh, is that :
if a man visits prostitutes, he should not have a double standard
of disallowing his wife or his children to do so. If you apply
my moral system here, then yes, the man is a slut with no social
responsibility. However, when I brought up the issue of consistency,
I was not judging based on my moral values, I was acknowledging
the fact that he may not think it is wrong to visit prostitutes
and therefore allows his wife and children to do the same. Is
that CLEAR enough?
i was addressing moral relativity with my charles fourier
example. i was just showing that there is no universal notion
of 'faithfulness', hence your idea of right and wrong is not
'pure and simple'.
I have already acknowledged your point on differing views of
morality. Did you miss reading it? But within the context of
Singapore, within the context of the Singapore law, the concept
of unfaithfulness will fall under the category of 'ADULTERY'.
Is that simple enough for you? Since you do want to keep the
discussion confined to Singapore, right?
the example of social visitors was to show you that your ideal
world in which prostitutes are but a puritan's nightmare does
not exist.
Fluffy puppy, in an ideal world, there wouldn't be overfishing,
crime etc. And yes, we are not living in an ideal world. However
my point is that each of us can play a part to help and collectively,
we can make a difference, whether it be to stop eating sharks'
fin or visiting prostitutes.
I am very sure that there are customers who have no qualms whatsoever
in visiting child and teen prostitutes because they have differing
moral values else such prostitutes wouldn't exist but does it
make it right? If everybody were to accept the fact that there
is no universal moral value system, then why should we even bother
fighting against child or teen prostitution etc?
From:Gazy Posted
on 2000-08-30 22:38:11
evil-femme wrote:
"I am very sure that there are customers who have no qualms
whatsoever in visiting child and teen prostitutes because they
have differing moral values else such prostitutes wouldn't exist
but does it make it right? If everybody were to accept the fact
that there is no universal moral value system, then why should
we even bother fighting against child or teen prostitution etc?"
Evil-femme, you are begging the question.
From:e[vil]-femme
Posted on 2000-08-31 11:38:29
So?
I have already stated several times that I have taken a personal
stand.
While I am not the type to force my opinions down somebody's
throat, such as physically blocking a person from visiting prostitutes,
I am contemptuous of such people because they are hiding under
the umbrella of 'differing moral values' and not dealing with
the real issues of prostitution. The persistence in denial that
they are not doing any harm is disgusting.
Take a good example of a smoker smoking around a pregnant woman
or anybody breathing in second-hand cigarette smoke for that
matter. Do you think the smoker cares? His excuse is always,
'Oh well, it's only a minute exposure compared to all the carbon
monoxide given off by cars' or 'Oh I didn't know it affects your
health directly!' SOME smokers, if they are good enough, will
only stop if you tell them. But why should we have to in the
first place? They shouldn't even be lighting up around non-smokers
in the first place.
Just because people have differing moral values doesn't mean
we should stop striving towards ideals. I can understand PETA's
drive for people to become vegetarians but my personal stand
is that I'm not fanatical enough to be a vegetarian. Perhaps
one day I will be. However, through PETA's efforts, they have
generated enough awareness to motivate change and THAT is what
I appreciate.
The point that I'm trying to make is that change starts with
ME. SammyLeong's website doesn't do any of that but rather encourages
the misery / happiness (depending on the differing moral values)
to perpetuate.
We spend most of our lives without passion in our beliefs, with
possibly even no beliefs and we think it's okay.
At the point in time when we think intervention is justified,
THAT's when we are taking a personal stand, not a rational one.
What do I mean? Take for instance, you see a guy bashing up a
girl. Maybe both think it's okay, maybe passers-by think it's
okay, but you intervene. Based on what, do you make your decision
to intervene?
From:Gazy Posted
on 2000-09-03 17:47:03
I don't think you even see your own logical
inconsistency.
1) On one hand, you agree that there are differing standards
of morality. Thus acknowledging and respecting that there are
different standards of morality.
2) On the other hand, you appeal to us that child prostitution
and pornography is universally bad, and that precisely contradicts
point 1) which you have made.
Point 1) and point 2) cannot exist together, they are irreconciliable.
It is this irreconciliability that I am asking you to correct,
I am not interested in the intrinsic content of your statements.
Like I say, your statements are very well explored and there
is not much I can say about them that has not been said.
From:e[vil]-femme
Posted on 2000-09-04 10:35:18
Gazy, the last line of my paragraph explains
my 'logical inconsistency'.
I was saying, sure there are differing moral standards, but up
to a point where people will start interfering. Example being
child prostitution. There are people, law enforcement agencies
stopping such patrons.
Why is it that such patrons can't claim they have differing moral
values and the law enforcement agencies leave them alone?
Who actually decided that it was morally wrong for them to do
so?
From:FluffyPuppy
Posted on 2000-09-04 10:52:37
EF,
so are you saying above the spectrum of moral standards, there
is a universal standard, i.e. the standard that authorities set?
no one decides if someone is morally wrong unless the person
who decides already retains moral premises.
From:e[vil]-femme
Posted on 2000-09-04 18:03:25
'already retains moral premises'
Er... I'm trying to figure how is that possible...
My main conjecture: in a democratic environment, people vote
these authorities in and to a certain extent, society's moral
standards are defined by the leaders in power, who are also influenced
by rights groups, international pressure etc.
The only reason as far as I can tell, in Singapore, because prostitution
is not illegal, people think it's alright to visit them. So what
if it became illegal overnight?
From:FluffyPuppy
Posted on 2000-09-04 19:22:25
"Er... I'm trying to figure how is
that possible..."
very simple. for a person to say someone is morally wrong, that
person must already subscribe to some type of morality.
"My main conjecture: in a democratic environment, people
vote these authorities in and to a certain extent, society's
moral standards are defined by the leaders in power, who are
also influenced by rights groups, international pressure etc."
i repeat, so do you believe in a universal morality?
if authorities made prostitution illegal in s'pore it would mean
just that - prostitution would be illegal in s'pore. it doesn't
affect the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of prostitution. i think
you confuse issues regularly.
From:Gazy Posted
on 2000-09-04 20:07:36
Law has little to do with morality. If
you had read philosophical basis of law and its motivation, you
would have known that there are 3 main motivations
1) Deterrence
2) Retribution
3) Utilitarianism
The final aim of law, IMHO, is to create a society which reaps
the maximum benefit for our society. Do you think eradicating
prostitution brings about the greatest benefit for our society,
I do not think so.
Forming a legal system around morality is not only stupid, it
is also unthinkable.
And unfortunately no, I do not see that there is an universal
standard of morality, not even those coming from our government,
in fact, especially those coming from our government.
From:Gazy Posted
on 2000-09-04 20:17:26
Evil-femme wrote:
"At the point in time when we think intervention is justified,
THAT's when we are taking a personal stand, not a rational one.
What do I mean? Take for instance, you see a guy bashing up a
girl. Maybe both think it's okay, maybe passers-by think it's
okay, but you intervene. Based on what, do you make your decision
to intervene?"
Very simple, that depends on whether I am perceiving her to be
suffering or whether she needs my help. If I see that she is
moaning and groaning in sexual pleasure, I will leave them alone.
Like I say, I am not here to decide what is right or wrong, I
have no interest in that, nor am I self righteous enough to do
that (hey I am not a christian). I am here as a part of humanity,
I will live as one, and I will leave this world as one. I give
people what they want, that is my aim in life (if it is within
my capacity).
.......Back
to Page 1
|