|
xssve -> RE: Sex Slavery in The US: Why can't American Men Keep it in their Pants? (5/18/2011 12:00:50 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
quote:
A sex slave is not a protitute in that a " prostitute " choses to make her living with her body. A sex slave is forced against her will and coirced and threatened.
Then there are very few actual prostitutes in the United States as many of the street walker variety (and maybe even the call girl variety) are threatened and coerced.
I get your point, you would like to create some sort of difference between someone who is sold into slavery without their consent, and the common tramp at the liquor store, unfortunately, sometimes there isn't much of a difference in the day to day reality.
The fact of the matter is, if a woman has had someone sell access to their pussy in this country they are a second class citizen. And when women like this are beaten and murdered, our law enforcement doesn't work quite as hard to catch the perp as they would if "she didn't ask for it"... it is a hypocrisy in this country that disgusts me
Read this for background.
Supply and demand is at the root of it, as usual, sex is a market - price typically depends on scarcity, and sex is one commodity where supply can be manipulated at will.
Prostitutes provide a valuable service, I don't like the idea of prosecuting Johns, because every guy frequenting a prostitute is one guy who isn't molesting his or someone else child - it is a victimless crime, how she got to be a prostitute is not directly the fault of the John, it's a straightforward transaction, and not all prostitutes are coerced into it, but generally speaking, it is a decision dictated by a lack of other options - drug addiction and early pregnancy play a role, i.e., some women do it to support their habit (although that too is commonly employed as a means of coercion, i.e., deliberate addiction), some do it to support their children, when they are uneducated, and unemployable for all practical purposes.
Marriage creates an artificial shortage, driving up women's value on the market, which is why women typically have historically been against prostitution - a pay-as-you-go system lowers their market value, "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free", as the saying goes, though in this case, why buy the cow if you can just buy the milk when you want it, but in either case, slut or prostitute, the effects on market value are perceived to be the same, although in praxis, women skilled at lovemaking have historically often commanded the highest prices on the marriage market - i.e., why buy a Volkswagon when you can get a Maserati?
i.e., it's really a thing that involves our entire Judeo-Christian value system, not that there is anything wrong with marriage per se, but the value system is set up to create a scarcity of women, forcing men to compete for status females - all well and good as an economic strategy, but sex isn't just about economics, any more than it's strictly about love - it's both of those things and biology to boot - literally, males have to ejaculate on the order of every three days in order to maintain optimal fertility - sperm motility declines dramatically after three days. Women, biologically speaking, need to have sex about once a week in order to maintain optimal fertility, but it doesn't hurt them at all to do it more often, it's a minimum.
The alternative for a man, is masturbation - I'm a man in my late Forties, and at this stage of life, frequent ejaculation cuts my risk of Prostate cancer in half and I've already recovered from one Prostate infection, and being internal, they are difficult to treat.
But, as a culture, we of course frown heavily on masturbation - so heavily in fact that it seems rape, or even doing your own daughter is more acceptable, more manly, much less visit a prostitute, etc.
And, I also don't think anybody promotes that particular value more than women because again, that maintains the bias towards a sellers market.
Biologically, it's fairly simple: men have evolved to have sex at nearly every opportunity, because you never know when the next one might come along, and the biological costs are negligible - sperm, basically.
Women, being in demand for sex, but bearing nearly 100% of the reproductive costs, have evolved to use it as currency to obtain commitment and resources for their offspring, i.e., marriage is a social institution evolved to induce males to share the woman's reproductive costs all well and good, but start manipulating supply for other, abstract non-biological reasons, i.e., pride, profit and power: politics - and the result? Something, somewhere, has to give.
It's like squeezing a tube of toothpaste without taking the cap off - it's gonna eventually squirt out somewhere.
|
|
|
|
