i think that it is only fitting for us to begin a movement to allow all consenting adults to sell themselves to be killed, and eaten, by other consenting members of the society. the government, should, legalize these practices immediately.
while the arguement might run that no one should be able to sell their life away, or that if someone decided that they do not want to be eatern they will have the power (once killed) to eat or even that people who do sell themselves to be eaten have deep psycological problems – this is pish posh!!! everyone should be allowed to be everything, if its concentual.
let’s do away with the anglo-anayltical concept of freedom as the choice to act in a manner that does not compromise (restirct) present freedom, and embrace freedom as doing whatever two consentual adults want. why not? so what if philosophy has disproved this concept? pha!
in closing, the interesting case in germany provides an exquisite oppurtunity to get this ball rolling. i see now possible way that the government allowing this to occurr could possibly lead to horrible abuses (taken advantage of mainly by the lower classes). makes sense to me! after all, its just eating someone’s flesh. see this article for those unawear of the story: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_01_05_04td.html
Trix, I’m out the door, but I hope you were not offended by my sarcastic remark regarding rescinding your gentlewoman status- please alleviate my fears by telling me you’re not hurt.
I’ll have a response to your argument when I return from class.
I know you asked for gentlemen to reply, but I think I’d like to give a crack at this one.
Trix, I agree with your remark…even though it was intended to be a satirical comment towards prostitution.
Consentual cannabalism should be legal.
So should consentual euthanasia.
Now the question is, who gets the dough after they’re dead, and how can a dead man have rights to sue if the transaction goes awry.
Perhaps they should hire agents before hand who take 10% of their income and ensures the money goes to its proper place. I’m torn with what to call these people…should we call them “Grim Reapers” or “Lawyers”?
gasp are you accusing me of having ulterior motives in posting this thread other than attempting to unite those who believe absolutly that consentual acts of all sorts should remain legal?? okay, you got me. it’s true. i am not, however, interested in discussing prostitution but to shift it instead to an examination of the limits of liberity in a democracy.
a certain post that said, yes, absolutly legalize it, is fair enough. it is consistent, i find, in arguing for the legalization of prostitution – liberty should be absolute, according to this reasoning. which is consistent, but is certainly not something that i agree with or something that i would support any gov’t in adopting. nor do i think any gov’t can.
also, i don’t know what bdsm stands for/is. i honestly don’t. is this an irish thing? also, are you irish. and if so, why don’t you post with an irish accent?
matthew e.,
no worries! i can tell that we are both not ‘hooking up’ our ideas very well at all. i wanted to shift the arguement to the limits of liberity, and made the allusion to signal this. i’m impressed that you remembered what i wrote in the gentleman thread some time ago. i look forward to your post.
i think the problem is that absolute freedom is inheriently contradictory. wasn’t this proven with spinoza? freedom is not the ability to do what one wants, whenever, wherever, with no limitations. it is the ability of self-determination. of couse, there are limits impossed on an individual; locke’s example is that a man standing on a cliff can decide to fall to the water or not fall – he cannot decide that he will jump and fly 40 feet in the air. freedom is simply self-determination, and as humans and all creatures in the universe (indeed, the universe itself) there are restrictions. this doesn’t make us less free, as we still have options from this.
consent should not be absolute if one is operating on living in a free society. any government that provides this absolute consent is allow its people to enslaved. this is wrong.
– p.s. that’s for the bother, i thought it might have something to do with s&m, didn’t know what the bd stood for. call me boring, but anal is as exciting as i get.
do you think countries ruled by colonization were free? technically, the native people expressedly gave their consent to the oppressors to live under those circumstances; the only alternative, after all, was for the natives to be killed. still, they choose to enter into those living conditions, on those terms, and by the absolute consent arguement, this was a free society.
by my self-determined freedom arguement, the government is only free if the people can ensure that they always control their lives. allowing people to enter into slavery, being eaten, forced into prostitution, are acts that take away this control. and should be limited.
Paternalism is a peculiar subject and one that does bring with it a lot of seemingly inherent contradiction when discussed in a country such as ours.
There is another thread going in the philosophy section that talks about positive and negative freedom, the question is, I suppose, is the ability to do with your body as you please an absolute positive freedom? Those who argue against euthanasia, voluntary sacrifice and to some extent prostitution would argue to some extent that it is not absolute.
But I think it unfair to tarnish prostitution with the same brush as something like voluntary euthanasia (or the more extreme voluntary sacrifice to cannibalism). There is quite a bit of difference, prostitution doesn’t necessarily involve any self harm.
This argument leads to a rather sticky situation where nothing you do is of your own fruition. Anyone who feels that way, go kill yourself. You didn’t? Hmmm, then there must be something else at work. I don’t believe it’s free will necessarily, but both arguments (free will vs the determinisms) kinda work together at this point.
Ever hear of someone called Epictetus? I’m studying up on him right now, I find his outlook on life interesting…refreshingly stoic. He was a slave in Rome, favored by Hadrian. He had some really awesome quotes.
The way he put’s his idea of free will applies well to this case. He’s famous for being asked by Marcus Aerilus (I think) how it felt to be a slave, what it was like to live one’s entire life in chains…he replied, “What chains?”
The point is, there’s always another direction to go. Whether you consider it best is up to you. If you held a gun to my head and told me to kill my Mother, I would tell you to pull the trigger. If you held a gun to my head and told me to eat a Jelly doughnut, I wouldn’t even bother chewing.
If you’re into that free will thing, then you know you have a choice. If you’re into determinism, you may not have a choice, but you are a “program” with plenty of options. Either way, the possibilities are endless. Don’t limit yourself.
People may act under durition, but they are still able to say “no”. The moment they stop fighting is the moment they stop living.
interesting point, rafa, and you said what would have been my position – death is always an option, and in life there are always options that most people do not consider. ex. i can either go to the store to buy milk now, or go tomorrow – this is the set of my options. while in actuality, i probably have an much larger amount of options that i’m failing to consider: i can buy milk now, later, i can kill myself and never buy milk, i can wear a clown suit and buy milk at 2 am, etc etc etc.
i suppose i would further extend this point (probably in a move that you would disagree with) to say that prostitution is an option that would be considered by people only in extreme circumstances of low socio-economic levels or psychological flaws. i think i woud absolutly enter into prostitution if my life depended on it. the role of government, i think, should be to ensure that my life doesn’t depend on it. and this would mean, to yes, install some negative freedom (as matt points out) to limit such contracts that violate my right to self-determination.
that some people (women mostly) use sex as a tool is something i absolutly agree with. marriage, after all, is still considered by many as a way to be financial secure through depending on their partner, and not theirselves – in return for providing things like sex. is this a form of prostitution? i don’t think so. i think this might be where the confusion abounds.
First of all, yes I do disagree with your other point, but you already know why.
Second, you’re saying it’s fair to equate prostitution with slavery, but not marriage with prostitiution?
Doesn’t this all mean that marriage is slavery? I’m sorry, but I just cannot agree with you. It’s not rationally consistent, nor is it rationally sound.
no, i’m not equating marriage with slavery. but you’re right i’m not clear. my point is that sex can be a tool. if people want to use it to the best of their ability, they should be able to do so. in some instances, this might mean simply being a ‘gold-digger.’ this, of course, should be allowed by the government.
the difference with prostitution is that it is not being a gold-digger, to the point where i equate it with allowing someone to rape you, for money. this is far different from simply ‘playing’ a man into buying you diamonds, a new car, etc., etc. it seems to me that everyone so far who has argued for legalized prostitution has this image pictured in their head; that someone who is in good socio-economic standing freely wants to have sex with certain people but also wants to get money from them – and in this case the big old gov’t shouldn’t stand in their way. i think, however, these peoples lives will be unaffected by the legal standing of prostitution. it’s the young girls who need to support their impoverished families that most often receieve the ‘benifit’ of such legalization, as seen in 3rd world countries were the practice is legal.
You just can’t do what you’re trying to do without saying things like “rape is like theft”. I know, that as a woman, you don’t want to say that, do you?
This just isn’t a fair comparison.
Read the bio of the top new porn star of 2003 at www dot jennahaze dot com (I wont link to porn, as a courtesy). You’ll clearly see, she likes being paid for sex. You also see, she decided to stop doing hardcore b/c of her boyfriend, which shows free will.
Now, I know you really want to say that the difference between prostitution and porn is free will, but I fail to see why.
Go to www dot bunnyranch dot com. These women LOVE their jobs! They are prostitutes. They appear on television ALL THE TIME, and they are sooo enthusiastic, it’s just obvious that they all want to be hookers.
I don’t want to do what I’m probably going to be doing for the rest of MY life. Does this mean I’m a slave?
no, i would say rape is llike murder, or an extreme form of bodily harm. theft is a far, far, far to easier crime to warrent a comparision.
the question could be raised as to how you could have found such porn sites, but i digress…
again, i don’t see why on earth laws should be based on a few exceptions that probably have deep pyschological wounds. i know this is an assumption, that maybe jaheen or the bunnies down in nevade may not have pyschological problems, but they are certainly an exception to the norm. if not, then why don’t all women who have sex indulge in prostitution, perhaps as a form of part-time work, to pick up some cash and have fun?
i’ve read articles that the average length of time at a brothel in america, where people are free to leave, is typically 3 months. obviosly, whatever enjoyment these girls recieve dies out pretty quickly.
the free will thing isn’t my concern unless we agree that free will is a right to self-determination. are you a slave because you’re stuck in a job you hate? if the job you hate strips you of your basic human right to reproduce in the manner of your choosing.
