>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.
first, why should I ask again. You need to answer Tahir.
Second, you apparently didn't read to the end where I stated what I figured your answer was: you'd support decrim, not actively, of course, but you'd sit back and notobject, though maybe have a tussle on lbo when you're bored.
> >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.
that's exactly the point made by people at $pread -- except they aren't rich, merely from theprofessional-managerial class. Not all of them, of course, but enough that it's the point. they could be professors, they're sex workers. They could be dental hygeniests, they do pornography. They could use their two master's degrees to earn the 80k salary they used to make. Instead, they are sex workers.
Same thing for the women in Kamela Kempadoo's studies of sex workers in the Carribean and in South East Asia: some of them, even when rescued, _choose_ to go back to sex work, even illegal sex work, because they _want_ to. No one ripped them off the streets and forced them. They may even have gotten skills at another decently paid trade during their "rescue" by the antisexwork industry. They wanted to go back to sex work. Yes, I know: you think they're as deluded as any other workers.
Finally, your test case misses the point that matt already made: stigma. it's relative of course, but I think of a student i used to have who's family made her feel terrible because what she wanted to do was get jobs at mcdonald's and spend her time travling all over the world. There are other factors here than economic coercion. it's called social stigma. The rich don't choose to be sex workers the same way they don't choose to be mcdonald's workers or, as with another student, a zoo keeper, because they're families expect them to be doctors and wall st. brokers.
I think it telling, of course, that you bothered to respond to me. Tahir and Matt bore you? I undertand bill: you bore me -- and not in a good way.
ta
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)