[lbo-talk] Decriminalisation (was something else)

[Bill Bartlett]

At 7:39 PM -0500 7/2/08, shag wrote:
>At 02:41 AM 2/7/2008, Tahir wrote:
>>This debate should always proceed on different lines, I think. You
>>FIRST ask the guy whether he is for decirminalisation or not. If he is,
>  >then you can have a meaningful discussion about the degree to which sex
>>work represents freedom or unfreedom. But if he refuses to support
>>decriminalisation unequivocally you're wasting your time with a
>>conservative who will continually twist and turn and evade the point.
>>Tahir
>
>At first I thought, OH! Excellent litmus test. But then I remembered that
>the list of organizations Dwayne mentioned -- such as $pread -- are
>representative of women, not just in illicit trades, but in completely
>legal trades. Bill doesn't respect what they have to say, either. Much like
>Robin Morgan, people who object to sex work come up with a multitude of
>ways to dismiss women -- often in  the name of feminism and women's true
>interests. (see my earlier post, Chelsea, ObamaGrrrlz, etc.)
>
>It really is, at root, what Laura Agustín D'Andrea says it is: an objection
>to sex that takes place outside of sanctioned relationships that don't
>involve money -- the family broadly understood. Hence, if I recall
>correctly, some folks here also object to casual sex, generally from the
>argument that they don't find it fulfilling: "I'm cold; you should put a
>sweater on."
>What D'Andrea means is that the relationships are sanctioned because they
>are or give the appearance of being about long-term relationships,
>commitment, loveyoubabybabyforeverandever even if, in reality, they are two
>week flings. The idea is that the intention to long-term relationships is
>there. (That's a paraphrase of what D'andrea said on Doug's radio program).

Well, I'm against marriage too. Can't see why I 
should have to get a licence from the state or a 
church to sanction my relationship. Hence, my 5 
kids are all technically bastards.

But I think I understand your reluctance to ask 
the question Tahir suggests. As the lawyers say, 
never ask the witness a question you don't 
already know the answer to. It might very well 
spoil the prosecution strategy.


>It still doesn't get at what _some_ people are asking for: the possibility
>that, even after the revo, people will _enjoy_ casual sex. That they will
>_want_, as part of their contribution to society and social needs (from
>each his according to his abilities....), to be a sex worker, like people
>will want to be attorneys or programmers or nurses or home health aides or
>urinal cake changers.*)

Having sex with other people without any form of 
coercion, including economic coercion, is a hell 
of a lot different than doing it on a genuinely 
voluntary basis. But perhaps your revolution is 
different from mine.

We can test your theory that people would still 
want to do it merely for the reason of making a 
contribution to society by seeing how many people 
become prostitutes in today's society without any 
economic incentive. That is to say how many of 
the very rich turn their hands to prostitution.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas