Becoming an escort/stripper to cope with costs of uni (accomodation etc)

[thushan]

The society that matters to them. To some people, it's the general public. To others, it could be their ethnic community. To yet others, it could be their age group.

[paulsterio]

Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that in the end, you can't always please everyone, you can please yourself, you can please your future employers, you can please your family, you can please your ethnic group, you can please XYZ, but in the end, if you please someone, you end up displeasing another - which might include yourself.

Think about it this way, if I became an escort to help pay for uni, I could be pleasing myself - because I'm getting an education, I could be pleasing my family - because I'm getting a uni degree, I might please future employer A - who respects that I've gone out of my way to make sure I get my uni degree, I might displease employer B - because they think that prostitution is a dirty thing, I might displease my ethnic group, who are against it...etc.

At the end of the day, you have to make decisions which you think will lead to the best future for you. No matter what you do, there's always going to be people who hate on you. Even if you're perfect, there's going to be people who hate on you cause they're not perfect themselves and are just jealous...etc. You can't really run around pleasing everyone, because sometimes it can be mutually exclusive.

[thushan]

Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that in the end, you can't always please everyone, you can please yourself, you can please your future employers, you can please your family, you can please your ethnic group, you can please XYZ, but in the end, if you please someone, you end up displeasing another - which might include yourself.

Think about it this way, if I became an escort to help pay for uni, I could be pleasing myself - because I'm getting an education, I could be pleasing my family - because I'm getting a uni degree, I might please future employer A - who respects that I've gone out of my way to make sure I get my uni degree, I might displease employer B - because they think that prostitution is a dirty thing, I might displease my ethnic group, who are against it...etc.

At the end of the day, you have to make decisions which you think will lead to the best future for you. No matter what you do, there's always going to be people who hate on you. Even if you're perfect, there's going to be people who hate on you cause they're not perfect themselves and are just jealous...etc. You can't really run around pleasing everyone, because sometimes it can be mutually exclusive.

You think so...compartmentalised. Anyway, that's what I mean - the people who matter to you. Some people go to the extent of not putting themselves in situations where other people may talk - for instance, a woman letting a plumber into her house to fix a toilet when her husband is at work. Very innocuous, but if one person sees and they're jealous, they can make a story that the woman is having an affair with the plumber. And aunties thrive on dirt...so the woman may find herself bullied and ostracised by the people who matter to her - her community let's say. Society is unforgiving sometimes.

[slothpomba]

wowowowowow wait, i just read that article in the monash uni student paper, is prostitution legal in victoria?

There's actually a brothel close-ish to Monash too. The first year of uni i thought it was a shitty bar or billards hall or something.

Monogamous relationships may not even be natural.

Doesn't matter. I think what you're essentially trying to say here is that polygamy is natural so it isn't as bad as we think. If we extend that out - X is natural, therefore, X is better or good. You could make the case murder or rape is natural so there's clearly something wrong with that formula.

[Mao]

Doesn't matter. I think what you're essentially trying to say here is that polygamy is natural so it isn't as bad as we think. If we extend that out - X is natural, therefore, X is better or good. You could make the case murder or rape is natural so there's clearly something wrong with that formula.

I don't think that argument applies. Polygamy (so long as safe sex is practiced) doesn't involve causing any physical pains or restricting anyone's liberties or any other moral system you choose to subscribe to. Murder and rape on the other hand does.

What I was trying to say was, a learned behaviour is not necessarily better than a harmless natural behaviour.

[myusernamewastoolong]

If Zyzz did it you can too brah

[JellyDonut]

Zyzz also did a lot of things I wouldn't do.

[QuidProQuo]

Is there a moral problem with exposing children to sex? (Let's say, assuming the 'client' doesn't harm the child in anyway)

It's not so much exposing children to sex that is morally incongruous; it's the exposure to sexual activity that is underpinned by values that are opportunistic, exploitative and therefore immoral. Of course, sex education is vital to the healthy development of children - but when we say 'sex education we surely mean a graduated and heavily moderated scheme through which children can come to understand sexual anatomy and the role of sex in society i.e. to conceive But a full exposure to promiscuous sexuality like stripping without a comprehensive psychological basis is dangerous to the development of the child, because - yes, even if the client doesn't harm the child or the stripper doesn't actively engage the child in any way - it perverts their perspective on sex, and foregrounds the promiscuous in their understanding of what sex means as a fundamental human pursuit and how to approach sexual activity, particularly as they reach puberty. In turn, it's this hollowed conception of sex that leads to teenage promiscuity, complete with unprotected sex, undesired pregnancies and traumatic experiences such as abortions, which are sure to have - especially in such a tender developmental stage - dire consequences of the person's worldview, and prospects both socially and professionally. Moreover, when the psyche breaks down, as it usually does with these instances of underage strife, one often lands up in situations involving substance abuse or violence, breaking the law and so basically ruining their prospects of a stable, healthy lifestyle. Of course, this will not always happen, and probably would only happen to an unfortunate minority - but if it is plausible - which it is - then we must act to prevent it.

So in a word, exposing children to sex is not in itself an immoral action - it's the degree to which it is done and the implications of such an exposure on the child's development that make it something to be avoided.

[Russ]

the role of sex in society i.e. to conceive

Erm...I have some news for you...

[QuidProQuo]

True...but, that I think that would be a misplacement of articles rather than a faulty assessment of the role of sex - a usage of the definite 'the' rather than 'a'. Obviously it is to conceive (unless we're in stork theory hehe) - also, if pleasure/reprieve/escapist mechanism is what you're thinking, then yes of course. In fact, sex for pleasure is religiously sanctioned - Jewish law states that its a mitzvah (commandment) to sleep with your wife on the Sabbath...
Also, sex has become largely an instrument of power - the attractive can become very empowered by it - sad really. But is that better than a 1984 situation, where sex is suppressed to the point where its sole purpose is recreation of Party members - 'the abolition of the orgasm' chapter, for instance? (disturbing stuff, too).

[lala1911]

I think there are too many opinions to be able to come to a resolution of whether this is right or wrong. Obviously, it's wrong, but in a way its right because "gotta do what you gotta do".

If I was to input my opinion on this, it'd go on for 5 pages, however I'm going to have to say that I'm equal sided for this. It's difficult to debate about actually.

[ninwa]

It's not so much exposing children to sex that is morally incongruous; it's the exposure to sexual activity that is underpinned by values that are opportunistic, exploitative and therefore immoral. Of course, sex education is vital to the healthy development of children - but when we say 'sex education we surely mean a graduated and heavily moderated scheme through which children can come to understand sexual anatomy and the role of sex in society i.e. to conceive But a full exposure to promiscuous sexuality like stripping without a comprehensive psychological basis is dangerous to the development of the child, because - yes, even if the client doesn't harm the child or the stripper doesn't actively engage the child in any way - it perverts their perspective on sex, and foregrounds the promiscuous in their understanding of what sex means as a fundamental human pursuit and how to approach sexual activity, particularly as they reach puberty. In turn, it's this hollowed conception of sex that leads to teenage promiscuity, complete with unprotected sex, undesired pregnancies and traumatic experiences such as abortions, which are sure to have - especially in such a tender developmental stage - dire consequences of the person's worldview, and prospects both socially and professionally. Moreover, when the psyche breaks down, as it usually does with these instances of underage strife, one often lands up in situations involving substance abuse or violence, breaking the law and so basically ruining their prospects of a stable, healthy lifestyle. Of course, this will not always happen, and probably would only happen to an unfortunate minority - but if it is plausible - which it is - then we must act to prevent it.

So in a word, exposing children to sex is not in itself an immoral action - it's the degree to which it is done and the implications of such an exposure on the child's development that make it something to be avoided.

This post needs so many citations it's not funny

[Mao]

But a full exposure to promiscuous sexuality like stripping without a comprehensive psychological basis is dangerous to the development of the child, because - yes, even if the client doesn't harm the child or the stripper doesn't actively engage the child in any way - it perverts their perspective on sex, and foregrounds the promiscuous in their understanding of what sex means as a fundamental human pursuit and how to approach sexual activity, particularly as they reach puberty.

Yes. You are the one to judge that promiscuity is inherently a bad thing, because it cannot possibly work in society.

[QuidProQuo]

This post needs so many citations it's not funny

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194503/Children-exposed-sex-screen-promiscuous.html
http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-teen-dating-violence

Here's a start.

[QuidProQuo]

Yes. You are the one to judge that promiscuity is inherently a bad thing, because it cannot possibly work in society.

Promiscuity has it's place, perhaps - for adults. But I'm against exposing children to promiscuity before they are exposed to stable sex. They have to know what sexual and marital conventions are, and what a long-term relationship is before they start breaking these by entering into open relationships.