I'm not opposed to anyone buying a fuck if that's what they want; I just wouldn't call it liberating--either to the buyer or the seller.
>clearly there must be because i'm sure worries about integrity and
>sensibility would not emerge were we discussing bakers, regardless as to
>whether they worked in 17th c. France, in an indie bakery in Berkeley, or
>at the Krispy Kreme factory in Raleigh.
It's not a question of what objects people make; it's a question of relations between people. I submit that prostitution is not a good relation between people.
> but i imagine
>it is Anthony's and others' goal (among other goals) to not have to listen
>to some leftish types imply that there is something special about sex such
>that the ONLY reason anyone can want to have paid-for sex or look at porn
>is because they are the warped products of capitalist ideology.
I didn't say any of that. Obviously, prostitution and porn predate capitalism by many thousands of years.
>i might
>even grant you that much of it is quite related to capitalist ideology, but
>the really obnoxious thing here is the presumption of some lofty position
>above the fray where you observe the plight of those poor others.
I didn't claim that lofty position; you assigned it to me. In previous posts I acknowledged that I found porn extremely effective. I have read my way through De Sade, Story of O, and Penthouse letters for less than philosophical reasons. But, once again, while that experience delivered the goods I was looking for at the time, I would never call it liberating. You can't get to freedom through a fantasy. You have to wake up. You can't get to freedom by treating other people as objects. You just can't.
Joanna