What's The Big Deal About Sex?

Will Wilkinson, on the ethics of renting your body out for sex:

... absolutely every form of labor involves renting out your body. The language of “selling your body” is generally intended to elicit a “wisdom of repugnance² disgust response, but it just doesn¹t when you consider that folks like Ross and me get paid for things we do with our bodies - thinking, typing. Surgeons rent out their brains, and steady hands, to meet people¹s health needs. Construction workers rent out their arms, legs, backs, brains. Etc. I sell my body for a living. So do you.
I think the real claim is not about bodies, but about vaginas and penises in particular ... But bracket your intuitions about the commercial use of genitalia for a moment and consider that a good volume of trade in sexual services involves renting an expert hand. Couldusing your hand to give another person an orgasm possibly be a form of self-inflicted violence? Delivering manual relief is a great kindness, a sweet thing to do … unless you do it for money! At this level, Ross¹s claim is evidently ludicrous. Sweet charity cannot be transformed into self-inflicted violence by a twenty dollar bill.

Kerry Howley makes a similar point:

There are any number of activities that we classify, in different contexts, as both work and markers of intimacy. You can prepare a meal for your family in the morning as an act of love, and for customers in the afternoon as a source of income. You can take care of a sick spouse and expect nothing in return, and take care of sick strangers and demand a paycheck. Yes, yes, I know - sex is different. But I'm still waiting for a convincing explanation of how and why that doesn’t hinge on the stigmatization of sexually active women.

She’s right: Any distinction between renting out your body for sexual gratification and renting out your body to, say, hammer nails is only persuasive if you accept the contention that there is a significant distinction between sexual intercourse and other kinds of human activity. And she’s also right, I think, that any such distinction has implications for sexual morality in general, not just prostitution. If you think that sex, by virtue of being bound up not only culturally but biologically with emotional attachment on the one hand and reproduction on the other, is a unique kind of physical act, one that’s intimate by its very nature in a way that, say, preparing dinner isn’t, then it makes sense to assign a hierarchy of moral value (and moral stigma) to different kinds of sexual activity – most likely with monogamy at the top, serial monogamy somewhat lower, promiscuity lower still, and activities that treat sex as a commodity to be bought and sold somewhere near the bottom. I don’t think, however, that accepting this sort of hierarchy, and believing that some of the acts at the bottom deserves to be banned as well as stigmatized, requires you to shun any girl with multiple notches on her bedpost as a slut, any more than believing in a moral hierarchy that runs from true generosity to miserliness requires you to show the mildly stingy the same disdain you would bestow Ebenezer Scrooge or Mr. Potter. (Though I will admit that given the history of the sexual double standard, one can certainly see where feminists get the idea that any sexual standard at all is just a stalking horse for misogyny, and that they have to throw out moral distinctions entirely to get rid of the bathwater of patriarchy.)

I have a serious question, though, regarding the point of view that treats the handjob as just another form of manual labor, no different from laying bricks or mowing lawns. There’s been a lot of talk during this whole debate about the fact that many prostitutes were sexually abused as children, and from my point of view, of course, this correlation makes perfect sense: If you’re abused by others as a child, you’re more likely to seek out self-destructive behaviors as an adult. In the Wilkinson-Howley worldview, I presume, the correlation has more to do with our unjust war on sex than with anything inherent to the sex trade: If prostitution is outlawed and pushed to the margins of society, only marginal, damaged people end up becoming prostitutes. You’d have more well-adjusted call girls, presumably, if streetwalking were legalized.

Now this is fair enough so far as it goes, but it seems to beg an important question: Given the premises of the pro-prostitution worldview, what’s so abusive and damaging about incest and molestation in the first place? If there’s no moral distinction between giving a handjob in exchange for twenty dollars and getting paid twenty bucks to wash dishes or mow lawns, then why is there a moral distinction between a father who teaches his daughter how to pound nails and one who teaches his daughter to do something more intimate and (to go all wisdom-of-repugnance on you) disgusting? I understand that the kids involved aren’t “consenting adults,” but if selling sex is just like selling labor, and adults force kids to perform all kinds of menial tasks as part of their education, why can’t adults force kids to have intercourse too – especially if they’re safe about it? If selling sex is no big deal because sex itself is no big deal, what’s the big deal about incest?

Comments

This debate is beginning to resemble the SCOTUS opinion in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

So fumbled was the majority about human sexuality that they could discern no discreet a & demonstrable harm from child virtual child pornography.

How exactly getting ones picture taken of as an actual child would harm that child is never answer either.

The problem is the egregious standard of proof required by libertines.

It is well within our intellectual history and law that the state has an interest in protecting the health safety and morals of its citizenry.

This has always included prominently sexual fidelity & the family. The current illegitimacy rate is all the vindication that “morals” legislation requires.

One excellent and current examination of this topic is Freedom's Orphans:
Contemporary Liberalism and the Fate of American Children by David L. Tubbs

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8569.html

Posted by Fitz | March 13, 2008 8:45 PM

There are a lot of good points here. I do think it's silly to compare sex to more accepted forms of manual labor, given the moral and emotional terms we ascribe to sex, but that distinction doesn't follow that selling sex should be banned. After all, if a father teaches his daughter to drink and smoke at a young age, he's doing something incredibly damaging that indeed, like child molestation and statutory rape, ought to be illegal. But it doesn't follow from that that you outlaw alcohol and cigarettes. Or if a father only has his daughter take her clothes off for him, obviously that is wrong and should be ilelgal, but it doesn't follow that strip clubs should be outlawed.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | March 13, 2008 8:47 PM

Re: what’s so abusive and damaging about incest and molestation in the first place?

Um, forcing yourself on unwilling subjects? The difference here is that between theft and honest trade.
Also, you analogy about household chores falls flat. If a parent literally forced a child to, say, mow the lawn by use of actual physical violence I suspect we would regard that as out of bounds too, and haul the parent away to jail.

Posted by JonF | March 13, 2008 9:34 PM

Also, you analogy about household chores falls flat. If a parent literally forced a child to, say, mow the lawn by use of actual physical violence I suspect we would regard that as out of bounds too, and haul the parent away to jail.

No, the analogy does not fall flat, because a molesting parent need not necessarily use physical violence to get the kid to submit to incest (unless you are simply defining incest as "physical violence," in which case you are begging the question). Would you be okay with incest if the parent used their authority in the child's eyes instead of physical force?

Posted by Glaivester | March 13, 2008 9:46 PM

The distinction between rape and prostitution is the same as the distinction between being paid to hammer nails and being forced to as a slave.

The whole anti-prostitution case is built on the idea that sex is somehow extremely valuable and precious. I'd say that's for individuals to decide for themselves.

Posted by Adam herman | March 13, 2008 9:49 PM

Prostitution, ideally, is consensual. Molestation and incest are not.

Posted by Freddie | March 13, 2008 10:03 PM

The "wisdom of repugnance" is useless unless it can be clearly stated what positive ideal is being repugnantly perverted.

There is such an ideal implicit in the standard argument about the relevance of sex to reproduction.

With the exception of Jesus and test-tube babies, all of us were conceived through a heterosexual sex act with the usual organs.

Treating all forms of sex equally means treating the sex act by which we came into the world as no different than any other. To deny the importance of that act is to deny the importance of its product: every dead and living man.

I hope there is enough humanism left to find that denigration of mankind repugnant.

Posted by Kevin Jones | March 13, 2008 11:13 PM

Hiring a prostitute is a deeply disordered behavior, and the status of prostitution in the criminal law has nothing to do with its immorality. If prostitution were legal, taking part in it would still be shameful and wrong. If Eliot Spitzer had been caught coming out of the Chicken Ranch (a legal brothel), he'd still have been forced to resign. Will Wilkinson makes this sort of argument for the same reason he dresses like a character from Guys and Dolls--his identity as an iconoclast. You really can't take it seriously.

Posted by Aaron | March 13, 2008 11:31 PM

So what does Will charge for a handjob?

Posted by Andrew Sullivan | March 13, 2008 11:32 PM

One of the reasons I'm a liberal rather than a libertarian is that I think sexual autonomy is vastly more important than financial autonomy, at least on the margins at which we actually might start regulating in the United States. (If we plan to institute a full command economy or some sort of hereditary caste system I might reconsider). I want prostitution banned because I want the autonomy of the body protected from the exploitation of the marketplace.

This fight between Douthat, Wilkinson, and Howley is not over whether bans on prostitution are defensible, but over whether they are defensible without a concept of economic exploitation, which none of them seem to believe. Given that people get married for financial reasons all the time (Ross didn't seem to disapprove of this, and given that our state no longer punishes extra-marital sex, why should extra-marital sex for financial reasons be any different? Without a concept of economic exploitation, that distinction seems hard to make.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 13, 2008 11:36 PM

Between Will, Kerry and Ross, there couldn't be just ONE intelligent comment?

Posted by Miande | March 13, 2008 11:57 PM

but over whether they are defensible without a concept of economic exploitation, which none of them seem to believe.

I meant to say none of them seem to believe in a concept of economic exploitation. Will and Kerry might be slightly obtuse about the special nature of sex, but, without using the word "exploit" I can't explain why prostitution is wrong but extramarital sex is okay. (And yes, dammit, extramarital sex is okay).

Posted by Consumatopia | March 14, 2008 12:14 AM

"After all, if a father teaches his daughter to drink and smoke at a young age, he's doing something incredibly damaging that indeed, like child molestation and statutory rape, ought to be illegal."

TR: This is a problem with his phrase "teaches."

Let's say the father doesn't "teach" his daughter to drink and smoke. He just share a glass of brandy with her for her 18th birthday so they can "share the experience." She doesn't like the idea as she's something of a teetotaler, but after pressuring her she relents. She quickly regrets it. From the perspective of the law she is underaged for drinking. What's the punishment?

Now let's say the father on his daughter's 18th instead says that now that she's a woman they should share a sexual experience. She doesn't like the idea, but after pressuring her she relents. She quickly regrets it. There is no state where 18 is underaged for sex. What's the punishment? What do you think the punishment should be? Do you see this as the same as the one above? If so why? If not why not?

That said a problem is that the parent-child relationship is different than others. So to get around that here's another situation.

A man at a barbecue tells a woman to try the hot dog he cooked. She refuses so he pays her to do it. She does it.

A man tells a woman at the barbecue to try a sexual position he's interested in. She refuses so he pays her to do it and they go to a private place to do so. Are these two scenarios no different? Is eating a hot dog you don't want no different than having sex with someone you're not interested in?

Posted by Thomas R | March 14, 2008 12:30 AM

It seems to me that there are three reasons to have sex: procreation, pleasure or power.

If we define the last as sex that is not between consenting equals, we can get past daddy, bosses, rapists and coercive hot dog vendors and then surely we can agree the last is NEVER an acceptable reason, leaving the first two reasons.

Now the pious argue that the first is the only valid reason (with the added caveat that the participants be sanctioned by the church) but the only argument offered against the second is the unfounded premise that the second reason is automatically covered by the last. But many do not accept this premise (or the one that somehow us few (10%?) heathens support a gabillion dollar porn industry all by our lonely selves). This leaves the second reason (pleasure between consenting equals - the key being that the parties be both consenting and equal) still standing and if it stands, how can we draw a moral distinction between a cash transaction and all the other economic hoops poor schmucks go through to get a little?

Since no argument can ever be settled without agreeing to the underlying premises, then we will never sway the pious. Perhaps instead, we should remind them of their "do unto others" clause because I'm not buying that they would consent to "others" peeking into their bedrooms to see if they were doing it right.

Posted by T.H.Reasoner | March 14, 2008 3:08 AM

It seems to me that what Will, et al. are doing is carrying the logic of sexual liberation to its logical endpoint.

Abortion and The Pill have, essentially, succeeded in making sex just another physical act. This is why the Catholic Church has denied the legitimacy of either.

Whether or not you agree with the CC in its decisions you have to admire its consistency. I do, anyway.

Posted by Derek Sutton | March 14, 2008 4:40 AM

somehow us few (10%?) heathens support a gabillion dollar porn industry all by our lonely selves
Men are only 10% of the population?

Posted by matt foley | March 14, 2008 7:49 AM

Fundamentally, there are a lot of people who dont believe that there really is such a thing as casual sex.

Since sexual experiences are serious there is a disconnect with all the rhetoric about how it is similar to other activities, which are less serious. These starting points make no sense.

Lets get silly for one moment. Even in a different culture with different laws, a sex worker may start out as well-adjusted. But after a while she will feel the seriousness of what she is doing and start some sort of substance abuse to get her through the day.

If you already have addictions, this may seem a small thing in your mind, but for the clear headed adult, especially a parent, its serious and sad to see what happens to these girls.

Posted by Kim | March 14, 2008 8:00 AM

Five post about sex and prostitution in under a week, now if we could get equally outraged about the fact that we live in a plutocracy, that most of our industries are oligopolies and monopolies, that we start wars that kill hundreds of thousands at the the drop of a hat, that we sponsor coups that kill hundreds of thousands at the the drop of a hat, that a large proportion of the people in this the wealthiest country in the world live in poverty, that people in this the wealthiest country in the world die of diseases that could be prevented by a couple dollars of expense.

Posted by Don Quijote | March 14, 2008 8:25 AM

Not my blog. I'm not really in a position to steer things here to be about the Measles Initiative

http://www.measlesinitiative.org/index3.asp

Or the Lao/Hmong war or LRA or Congo or Maluku or what have you.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html

Posted by Thomas R | March 14, 2008 9:14 AM

"Abortion and The Pill have, essentially, succeeded in making sex just another physical act. This is why the Catholic Church has denied the legitimacy of either.

Whether or not you agree with the CC in its decisions you have to admire its consistency. I do, anyway.

Posted by Derek Sutton | March 14, 2008 4:40 AM"

Speaking as a guy from Boston, I'm wondering how it's consistent to diddle little boys and get rapist psychologists to sign off on rapist priests' mental health. It's not about consistency. It's about the CC exercising power over people and telling women, gays, lesbians, etc. they suck and will burn in hell. There's a reason why the Catholic Church is losing power in places populated by people of means and is even losing ground in Latin America to other religions.

Speaking as a live and let live, try not to judge others type of guy, I do wonder why smart guys like Ross care so much in general about what other people do sexually.

Posted by Realuty Man | March 14, 2008 10:12 AM

The big deal about incest is that it has the large possibility of harming someone else. If a child is born out of that union, that child will always have a higher probability of genetic disease. Every culture in the entire world, no exceptions, has incest taboos. (How closely related one has to be for it to be incest, varies). It's that basic of a problem.

For underage sex in general, there's the near-certainty that the child will be physically harmed, as well as emotionally harmed. Children are neither physically nor mentally prepared to have sex with an adult.

That issue of harm is the defining difference between forcing a child to mow the lawn, and forcing a child to perform some sexual act.

Posted by Tel | March 14, 2008 11:04 AM

It seems to me that what Will, et al. are doing is carrying the logic of sexual liberation to its logical endpoint.

No, that's not quite right--what they're doing is carrying the logic of economic liberation to its logical endpoint--they think everything should be subject to trade and exchange.

I think people should be able to do what they want with their bodies, so I'm not interested in letting people take money to engage in sex they otherwise wouldn't want to.

Ross mistitled this post--it's not "what's the big deal about sex?", it should be "what's the big deal about money?", since it's the exchange of money, not the sex alone that seems to offend most of modern society.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 14, 2008 11:56 AM

RE: Men are only 10% of the population?

heathens = non-believers

Since 90% of US claim to be believers in God, and God says only have sex with your spouse, that would make any of the non-heathen consumers of porn a bunch of hypocrites.

Posted by T.H.Reasoner | March 14, 2008 12:13 PM

Fitz sez: "This has always included prominently sexual fidelity & the family. The current illegitimacy rate is all the vindication that “morals” legislation requires." As if this is some kind of vindication of his argument for a pseudo-puritan "morality" state, yet he elides the fact that as far as this country is concerned, the states with the highest rates of teen pregnacy, out of wedlock childbirth, divorce, STDs, and various other examples of moral degeneracy are all in the bible-belt. (see Lubbock Texas, and "the Education of Shelby Knox" for further proof.)

Furthermore, all other first-world industrial democracies have far, far lower rates of teen pregnacy, abortion, STDs, etc. and yet all have far more sexually libertine cultures. I would argue all of the stats that are frequently cited as evidence of our decadent out of control culture,(our huge strip club, porn and prostitution industry as examples) are symptoms of the deeply childish attitudes we carry towards human sexuality that are the by-product of our overly-religious culture and puritan heritage.

Posted by dearleader nyc | March 14, 2008 12:52 PM

It's comments like those that make me wonder what planet Wilkinson and Howley (and libertarians in general) are from. They really can't tell the difference between sex and every other form of physical activity? Sex is so devoid of emotion and human attachment that it is no more significant than sneezing or scratching? You'd think they were Martians who had never talked to the many human beings who have experienced sexual intimacy, sexual jealousy, the incredibly strong sex drive (which makes people do quite stupid things), etc.

Posted by John Doe | March 14, 2008 1:10 PM

If you think that sex, by virtue of being bound up not only culturally but biologically with emotional attachment on the one hand and reproduction on the other....then it makes sense to assign a hierarchy of moral value (and moral stigma) to different kinds of sexual activity – most likely with monogamy at the top

Ross, if you want to bring biology into this, and from reading a number of your posts you do seem to place stock in doing so, then it should be pointed out that our biology does not suggest monogamy. It is my understanding that there is a direct correlation between penis size and sperm production in the males of a species and the faithfulness of their females. For instance, Gorillas generally mate for life, and they are, well, poorly endowed. The human male is

Further evidence lies in women's placenta. The placenta determines, through hormone control, how much resources a fetus gets from the mother. Among mammals, the aggressiveness of the placenta is determined by the sperm. In promiscuous species, males ensure their line better if the placenta is more aggressive in securing resources for the fetus. In monogamous species, the couple will have many chances for a baby together, and the placenta doesn't need to be as aggressive. Human placenta aggressiveness doesn't fit crazy-promiscuous, but it doesn't fit monogamy, either.

Third, there's sperm competition. What percentage of a male's sperm is devoted to seeking out and destroying competitors' sperm? Again, human male sperm shows a history that's not monogamy.

The bottom line is that our biology shows that while we don't have a history of wild, wild promiscuity, we don't have a history of monogamy. We're "set up" for what might be referred to as a moderate amount of experience with different lovers.

Posted by Michael R | March 14, 2008 1:38 PM

The discussion on sex services for pay was derailed by Will and Ross putting it in the context of child labor, where we have laws to protect them from a number of activities only consenting adults can do - plus, obviously laws on incest when we put sex work into the "home chores" category.

Moving past the red herrings, suppose your son or daughter is of age. A consenting adult or an age where statutory sex laws say they can't be prosecuted as long as their lover is of similar age. (A 17 year old blowing her boyfriend or an 18 year old hookup in Cancun is something society will not normally make a big deal out of. Her blowing the mayor, though, does violate our norms).

Of adult age or within consent laws, we still mostly have strong expectations on people close to us. We want our sons to date a girl or seek sex in a way not emotionally or developmentally WRONG for them. We curdle inside when we see a sweet office worker with much to offer, somehow ending up in a relationship with an ex-felon drug abusing, gang-banging niggah. We want the only cocks our daughters handle to be attached to a "good lad" and in the context of a good relationship, regardless of whether our daughter is sweet 16 or 26 and on her own. (And sometimes not even then!)

Religion also informs us, as do other cultures where acceptance of prostitution is more tied to them considering surplus females "useless" for other forms of work and to avoid being a burden and help provide for themselves, brothels are an agreeable think. Epidemiology also informs our choices. Many cultures were once isolated from other peoples and could have prostitution with no veneral disease present. Now any global disease of the worst sort spreads fast - and a prime vector is promiscuous people. Gays, hetero, and expecially "sex workers" - amateur or pro.

So men have to be careful to avoid moral condemnation from all those "norming reasons" avoid becoming another Spitzer - and women and men enforce faithfulness in a relationship from purely logical, as well as moral reasons.

Though a gorgeous "amateur" coed showing up out of the blue offering a handjob or blowjob for 20-50 bucks would be quite tempting. I hope I'd turn it down.
I want sex to be in a certain personal comfort zone - and bald, open, sex for pay was outside my comfort zone even before I was married...

Posted by chris ford | March 14, 2008 1:41 PM

1. Regardless of who’s right about the existential meaning of sex, this thread amply attests that the question is obviously complex, controversial, and productive of strong feelings. Why then should the state not only adopt its own philosophy on this topic (already a minefield), but worse, use it to create law that is binding even on citizens who passionately and sincerely disagree?

Health-and-safety justifications for regulating sex work should be given a respectful hearing; philosophical justifications should not. Moral concerns are not unimportant—they simply belong in the cultural rather than legal realm. [cross-posted from an older thread]

That said,

2. Sex carries inherently different meanings for adults and young children; coercion in this area is more damaging to children than adults; and prostitution is not intrinsically coercive anyway, despite often being chosen under terrible economic pressure.

3. One interesting aspect of Ross’s resort to the clearly inapposite child metaphor is its seeming implication that somehow women as a class are akin to children: cognitively and emotionally immature, and highly fragile to boot. Ross may not believe such disrespectful nonsense. But society has long regarded women in these terms, and treated them accordingly, and not just in terms of sex. They couldn’t vote or own property, after all. The background cultural tradition in which this debate arises does not cast this metaphor in a positive light.

Posted by jason | March 14, 2008 2:20 PM

dearleader nyc

“As if this is some kind of vindication of his argument for a pseudo-puritan "morality" state, yet he elides the fact that as far as this country is concerned, the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy, out of wedlock childbirth, divorce, STDs, and various other examples of moral degeneracy are all in the bible-belt. (see Lubbock Texas, and "the Education of Shelby Knox" for further proof.)” Furthermore, all other first-world industrial democracies have far, far lower rates of teen pregnacy, abortion, STDs, etc. and yet all have far more sexually libertine cultures.

Yet these are an argument fro geography and demographics not from near history. The argument that vindicates (what you call) “pseudo-puritan "morality" state” is an argument from near history. That is: the sexual revolution coincides precisely with dramatic increases in illegitimacy and multiple other social ills. Furthermore (as social science is want to do) multiple factors are at play including education & class when one starts comparing regions and cultures. One of the reinforcing norms of secular culture in the bible belt & Europe is a corresponding alienation of the youth from the authority of religion especially on sexual matters.

“I would argue all of the stats that are frequently cited as evidence of our decadent out of control culture,(our huge strip club, porn and prostitution industry as examples) are symptoms of the deeply childish attitudes we carry towards human sexuality that are the by-product of our overly-religious culture and puritan heritage.”

And I may very well agree with on multiple or even all accounts. (especially concerning puritan culture) The important thing is the desirability of goods like intact families – If inadequate cultural means exist within our ethical heritage to meet current challenges, then it is all the more important that the secular currents reconcile themselves to the truth claims of traditional morality. To wit, this seems the bane of its existence. Rather than confront the wreckage of its own revolution and propose solutions it seeks to kill the messenger.

As an illustration: note how many posters on this topic defend legalized prostitution, a dramatic & unlikely forwarding of the sexual libertine culture. Far from reevaluating their position in light of the evidence, they are prepared to further the agenda even into politically unpopular & unrealistic direction. All for the sake of the precious ideology.

Posted by Fitz | March 14, 2008 2:40 PM

Fitz,
You confuse symptoms with causes. The sexual revolution, while still incomplete, was part of a broader feminism, which itself was part of a broader process of cultural change; hallmarks of all three processes are increased independence for people previously subject to discrimination and other forms of inequality.

We see that stability rooted in dictatorship abroad is not sustainable, hence the moral authority hawks have had in foreign policy debates (notwithstanding their deserved loss of moral authority due to their irresponsible response to this observation).

So too, stability rooted in inequality is an inherently fragile one, a problem to be transcended, not a status quo to be fiercely defended.

Freedom is not an ideology, as you claim, but an actual political circumstance whose presence or absence affects people who make choices disdained by those in power. As norms have changed, freedom has expanded, protecting the dignity and capacity to choose and reflect on their experience of people whose desires did not correspond to former models.

We should indeed work to make transitions less painful, but not by a futile attempt to freeze society into the values of the present or past. Freedom matters. I think you are the one blaming the messenger.

Posted by jason | March 14, 2008 3:03 PM

Fitz, it seems a little more politically unpopular and unrealistic that all of secular culture would come to a screeching halt and accept the truth claims of traditional morality. On what basis, for what reason, would this happen? Legalization of prostitution is not at all unlikely - it's already legal in some places in the US - nor would it be dramatic. The foundations of the Republic did not tremble when Nevada made prostitution legal, and the churches don't mark the date as a time of mourning.

The thing I disagree with most, is the issue of "intact families." If a marriage is wrecked just because prostitution is now legal, was that really a marriage? I would think that it had very little love involved - and love is what makes the family. A marriage that was wrecked by the legalization of prostitution was a shell, not a marriage, to begin with.

Posted by Tel | March 14, 2008 3:15 PM

fitz sez the sexual revolution caused: "a corresponding alienation of the youth from the authority of religion especially on sexual matters."

Mission Accomplished! I think what we're expierencing are merely the birth pangs of an adult society, complete with all the messiness that accompanies human agency.

With no irony whatsoever, the alienation of youth from religious authority is unambigious a good thing in my opinion...My only real point was that the more agressively and outwardly religious a community is, the more they try to enforce "religious authority" on sexual morality, the more inwardly perverted, and physically and mentally unhealthy that community is going to be.

When it comes to matters of sexual health and public policy we should be listening to the authority of actual doctors and pyschiatric professionals, not the deeply disturbed purveyors of moral panic and purity.

Posted by dearleader nyc | March 14, 2008 3:25 PM

Jason (writes)

“So too, stability rooted in inequality is an inherently fragile one, a problem to be transcended, not a status quo to be fiercely defended.”

Your equality arguments like your arguments from freedom & autonomy are all fine a well as theory. It is the very point of my argument that they fail authentic human freedom. The right of a child to be born into a raised by their Mother & Father is indeed a recognized human right & is every bit (more so) a argument for equality as any realized “good” that’s resulted from new left feminism.

Giving greater authority to the failure of the left in understanding human sexuality is the diispoprtunate impact this family breakdown has had on racial minorities, women and the underclass.

Tel (writes)

“The thing I disagree with most, is the issue of "intact families." If a marriage is wrecked just because prostitution is now legal, was that really a marriage? I would think that it had very little love involved - and love is what makes the family. A marriage that was wrecked by the legalization of prostitution was a shell, not a marriage, to begin with.”

It often a predilection of conservatism to take humanity as it is, not as a failure of a utopian ideal. Infidelity as egregious as paid prostitution is liable to strain even the greatest of “loves”…

Also – You seem to be falling into the very trap that the original post & my first post commenting on it.

“So fumbled was the majority about human sexuality that they could discern no “discreet & demonstrable harm” from virtual child pornography.”

“The problem is the egregious standard of proof required by libertines”

Likewise your own position and prostitution. The overall moral environment has always been a locust of morals legislation. It’s not prostitutions effect on A (specific) family that justifies the ban but rather the effects on THE family. This is not remotely alien within law and western norms. Your further contention that even A (specific) family that is hurt was never worth saving says more about my “egregious standard of proof required by libertines” then anything I could make up.

dearleader nyc (writes)

"Mission Accomplished! I think what we're experiencing are merely the birth pangs of an adult society, complete with all the messiness that accompanies human agency."

Yes: the old "growing pains on the road to gender equality" while 42% of children are now born single unmarried households with all the attendant pathologies.
It’s no affront to human agency that it take its instruction from a shared moral heritage rather than a libido driven & gender obsessed ideologists. This human agency is given the further affront of being disenfranchised from democratic participation when it comes to the enactment of this singular agenda.

On this matter - Again: Freedom's Orphans:Contemporary Liberalism and the Fate of American Children by David L. Tubbs”
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8569.html

“When it comes to matters of sexual health and public policy we should be listening to the authority of actual doctors and pyschiatric professionals, not the deeply disturbed purveyors of moral panic and purity.”

Well deeply disturbed is your qualifier and not a civil one. As for Doctors I have all you could care for. When talking about individuals physical & mental health psychiatric professionals & M.D.’s are always useful. When discussing societies health and the viability of fundamental social institutions it is social sciences and social institutional studies would seem the preferred paradigm.

It is precisely these fields that ascribe in unanimity the deleterious effects of family breaks down on discreet areas like child well being and the like. The failure of the sexual revolutionaries to account for and ascribe proportional blame in this arena is why social conservatives are rightfully vindicated.

The realization of moral agency is always balanced proportionally with the actual delivery of discernable social goods within a society.

The failure to deliver these tangible goods cannot be dismissed with a simple appeal to some “imminent” utopian flowering.

Posted by Fitz | March 14, 2008 4:47 PM

Jason (writes)

“So too, stability rooted in inequality is an inherently fragile one, a problem to be transcended, not a status quo to be fiercely defended.”

Your equality arguments like your arguments from freedom & autonomy are all fine a well as theory. It is the very point of my argument that they fail authentic human freedom. The right of a child to be born into a raised by their Mother & Father is indeed a recognized human right & is every bit (more so) an argument from equality as any realized “good” that’s resulted from new left feminism.

Giving even greater authority to the failure of the left in understanding human sexuality and equality is the disproportionate impact this family breakdown has had on racial minorities, women and the poor.

Tel (writes)

“The thing I disagree with most, is the issue of "intact families." If a marriage is wrecked just because prostitution is now legal, was that really a marriage? I would think that it had very little love involved - and love is what makes the family. A marriage that was wrecked by the legalization of prostitution was a shell, not a marriage, to begin with.”

It often a predilection of conservatism to take humanity as it is, not as a failure of a utopian ideal. Infidelity as egregious as paid prostitution is liable to strain even the greatest of “loves”…

Also – You seem to be falling into the very trap that the original post & my first post commenting on it points to.

“So fumbled was the majority about human sexuality that they could discern no “discreet & demonstrable harm” from virtual child pornography.”

“The problem is the egregious standard of proof required by libertines”

Likewise your own position and prostitution. The overall moral environment has always been a locust of morals legislation. It’s not prostitutions effect on A (specific) family that justifies the ban but rather the effects on THE family. This is not remotely alien within law and western norms. Your further contention that even A (specific) family that is hurt was never worth saving says more about my “egregious standard of proof required by libertines” then anything I could make up.

dearleader nyc (writes)

"Mission Accomplished! I think what we're experiencing are merely the birth pangs of an adult society, complete with all the messiness that accompanies human agency."

Yes: the old "growing pains on the road to gender equality" while 42% of children are now born single unmarried households with all the attendant pathologies.
It’s no affront to human agency that it take its instruction from a shared moral heritage rather than a libido driven & gender obsessed ideologists. This human agency is given the further affront of being disenfranchised from democratic participation when it comes to the enactment of this singular agenda.

On this matter - Again: Freedom's Orphans:Contemporary Liberalism and the Fate of American Children by David L. Tubbs”
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8569.html

“When it comes to matters of sexual health and public policy we should be listening to the authority of actual doctors and pyschiatric professionals, not the deeply disturbed purveyors of moral panic and purity.”

Well deeply disturbed is your qualifier and not a civil one. As for Doctors I have all you could care for. When talking about individuals physical & mental health psychiatric professionals & M.D.’s are always useful. When discussing societies health and the viability of fundamental social institutions it is social sciences and social institutional studies would seem the preferred paradigm.

It is precisely these fields that ascribe in unanimity the deleterious effects of family breakdown on discreet areas like child well being and the like. The failure of the sexual revolutionaries to account for and ascribe proportional blame in this arena is why social conservatives are rightfully vindicated.

The realization of moral agency is always balanced proportionally with the actual delivery of discernable social goods within a society.

The failure to deliver these tangible goods cannot be dismissed with a simple appeal to some “imminent” utopian flowering.

Posted by Fitz | March 14, 2008 4:52 PM

"Perhaps instead, we should remind them of their "do unto others" clause because I'm not buying that they would consent to "others" peeking into their bedrooms to see if they were doing it right."

The problem is they are forced to pay in taxes for the consequences of behavior they consider sinful. They are forced to pay welfare for children abandoned by fathers, they are forced to pay for treatment of HIV patients etc.

Posted by Mark | March 14, 2008 5:40 PM

One quick thought about Ross's original question..

The point that I would make, granting the equality in theory of handjob=bricklaying=mowing lawn as forms of work while also acknowledging that children are coerced by parents to provide labor--is that these kinds of work, on functional levels, do have a maturity/age requirement.

Asking a teenager, who is 15, to mow the lawn/coercing them to do so is okay in my book, but asking a 4year old to do so would not be okay.

Thus, certain kinds of labor (as specified) above, are not okay in all cases for children--but only under specifications of competency.

In this way, you can justify forcing children to perform certain kinds of labor, but not others, because forcing them to do certain kinds of labor is not personally dangerous to their health, life, etc..

Taking this tact, I think it is not so hard to argue that parental/child sexual contact, empirically, is a form of labor that is dangerous to the child's health/life--because of all sorts of reasons. This would obviously make molestation--which is not only non-consensual, but also mentally damaging--not the same as a 15 year old mowing the lawn.. but perhaps similar to forcing a five year old to use a power-saw..

As for incest--below a certain age--it is the same as molestation--non-consent and damaging.. and I would generally argue that this kind of thing would be true until a person reaches adulthood.. at which point, in the case of incest, you have the problematic health issues of incest--but a lot less of the other kinds.

Only by generalizing and being non-specific about the qualifications needed to do certain kinds of labor, can Ross's Question work. Forcing children to do dangerous labor==labor they are not mentally or physically equiped to do, is abusive and not the same and forcing them to do labor that they are capable of doing and is not dangerous to them, but just might not want to do.

Posted by quick thought | March 14, 2008 6:01 PM

Though I will admit that given the history of the sexual double standard ...

Say what? The "history of the sexual double standard" is that men are attracted to women who do not sleep around, and women are attracted to men who do. In other words, it's not really a "double standard" at all.

Posted by Jon Sandor | March 14, 2008 6:49 PM

Mark,

So much for "Render unto Caesar" and that pesky wall of separation.

Maybe if they hadn't thrown their indignant weight behind the current bunch of plutocrats, we would be closer to a having a place that addresses problems, not just problems that someone can make a boatload of profit from solving.

Posted by T.H.Reasoner | March 14, 2008 6:54 PM

The whole anti-prostitution case is built on the idea that sex is somehow extremely valuable and precious. I'd say that's for individuals to decide for themselves.

Well, who are you to tell "individuals" that?

If you buy into the whole JS Mill line, then sure, people should be able to whatever they like, etc, etc. But the people who swallow that dogma never seem to be aware that they HAVE swallowed a dogma. It's not actually based on anything but your feelings, and has no greater persuasive weight than, say, Christianity or Islam.

Posted by Jon Sandor | March 14, 2008 6:56 PM

"stability rooted in inequality is an inherently fragile one, a problem to be transcended, not a status quo to be fiercely defended."

That is an expression of sentiment rather than of fact. History is chock full of examples of (what you would call) unjust stability which lasted centuries, or even millenia. Who get's to decide which status quo should be overthrown, and which defended?

Posted by Jon Sandor | March 14, 2008 7:02 PM

Who get's to decide which status quo should be overthrown, and which defended?

As long as poverty, exploitation and oppression exist, shouldn't all status quos be overthrown?

Posted by T.H.Reasoner | March 14, 2008 7:15 PM

"So too, stability rooted in inequality is an inherently fragile one.”

Depends on what's meant. Many unequal societies have managed relative stability for extended periods. Pharaonic Egypt, Choseon/Yi Korea, or the Byzantine Empire for examples. Some of the more classless hunter-gatherer societies have proven unstable.

The US is essentially more stable than some of the more egalitarian parts of Eastern Europe. The Gini index of Ukraine or Slovakia is well below ours, but I doubt many would argue they're more stable.

"As long as poverty, exploitation and oppression exist, shouldn't all status quos be overthrown?" THR

If you want a live a life of constant upheaval and revolution maybe.

Minimizing those things is good, but eliminating them entirely is an implausible goal. Probably just impossible. Even Denmark has poor people. It probably has some small element of exploitation and oppression too.

Posted by Thomas R | March 14, 2008 10:48 PM

That is: the sexual revolution coincides precisely with dramatic increases in illegitimacy and multiple other social ills. Furthermore (as social science is want to do) multiple factors are at play including education & class when one starts comparing regions and cultures.

Yeah, it's not like there were huge demographic and economic transformations that coincided with the sexual revolution decades ago confounding our data, were there? No baby boom? No factory closures?

All of those social ills have been tending downwards for the last decade despite secularism being even further on the march. What seems to have much greater explanatory power--across both different times and different places--is a correlation between economic stability and social harmony. It's harder to act responsibly with an eye towards the future when everything you have can be lost in an instant. Countries and regions with high economic instability (like the Bible belt) are thus going to plan for the future badly. And no, you can't just blame all the rebel kids in the Bible Belt for messing up the stats and pissing off their parents. Though the out-of-wedlock conception rate is way higher there, the abortion rate is way lower. The kids there are still Christian believers trying to do as Christ asks. The spirit is willing but the flesh can't make the payments of its subprime mortgage

That's what people are missing here--if you actually read Kerry and Will, they aren't arguing so much for sexual liberation as economic liberation. What's important to them is freedom of trade. After all, a ban on prostitution still allows you to have sex with anyone who wants to have sex with you. Prostitution just lets you pay to have sex with people who don't want to have sex with you. This is not something sexual libertines like myself wish to promote.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 14, 2008 11:15 PM

If you want a live a life of constant upheaval and revolution maybe.

Huh? Rational debate still doesn't have a chance? (Oops. I guess that was my original point.)

Minimizing those things is good, but eliminating them entirely is an implausible goal. Probably just impossible. Even Denmark has poor people. It probably has some small element of exploitation and oppression too.

Too hard, why try. Will it be too hard because the greedy reactionaries are so entrenched? Good enough is never better than better.

Posted by T.H.Reasoner | March 15, 2008 12:39 AM

I may have taken "all status quos be overthrown" too literally. I only had four hours of sleep last night. You probably weren't meaning it's time for total revolution against every imperfect nation from Denmark to Brazil.

Sure improvement can be good. I was thinking you meant trying for perfection or "Heaven on Earth." Despite what you may have read it's probably utopianism that's killed more people than anything in history. The French Revolution, Tai'Ping Rebellion, Communism, Thousand Year Reich, Pol Pot, etc all were working toward some utopian vision. Oh sure so were good things like the Shakers, Martin Luther King Jr, and such. Still the overall record means anything smacking of utopianism unnerves me. At some point you have to accept the reality that a society free of poverty or exploitation will never happen because mankind is imperfect. (Granting this is a conservative premise and I'm a moderate conservative) No biggie though.

Posted by Thomas R | March 15, 2008 2:43 AM

I was in a rush when I wrote my last post with the “stability rooted in inequality should be challenged” point, and wasn’t particularly clear. For one thing, certainly not every kind of perceived inequality should be overturned immediately without any kind of thought to the resulting social outcomes. The point is that social inequality is generally something about which to be concerned, not complacent.

For another, I didn’t elaborate on my brief assertion that Fitz had confused symptoms with causes. I don’t have time fully to do so now either, but one point that should be made is that problems with the poor were caused in large part by major changes in the economy; to isolate for blame increased social freedom is worse than facile; it exemplifies the very ideological thinking Fitz professes to abhor.

And speaking of ideological talking points, increased social freedom isn’t a singular “policy” that can be granted or withdrawn from on high. We can concern ourselves with developing policies that provide children with a measure of structure, with education, and with access to stable, supportive relationships with adults. By contrast, critiquing openness about sexuality is not by itself going to convince almost anyone to change their sexual habits, let alone find a path toward education and fulfilling work. The social conservative effort to will authority into being by sheer aggressiveness is an exercise in wishful thinking. “If I express enough disapproval, or perhaps contempt, for behavior I find irresponsible, my audience will be persuaded to change their lives to models I find agreeable.” (Contrast this vision with the idea that if people feel they are valued in a community that provides them with opportunity, they are more likely to listen, or even to absorb important messages through osmosis from the examples being set by peers and adults with whom they have caring relations. Certainly a good family does this, but the task is too important to be left exclusively to families; in many cases they cannot handle the scope of the task, not least because it often ends up being yet more uncompensated work for women. Society needs to do its part.)

Posted by jason | March 15, 2008 9:57 AM

Re: The argument that vindicates (what you call) “pseudo-puritan "morality" state” is an argument from near history. That is: the sexual revolution coincides precisely with dramatic increases in illegitimacy and multiple other social ills.

But history did not begin in the 1950s. If you go further back you find something very similar to the situation in our Bible Belt was once the norm, on a grand scale, throughout Christendom: a loudly preached sermon on sexual virtue, often backed up by force of (much-flouted) law, and at the same time prostitution and fornication abounded. A ruler like Louis XIV could take his title of Most Christian Majesty quite sincerely, and yet keep a stable of mistresses at Versailles. The lesson I think is that human beings are not perfectable in this life and while we should maintain high standards for private morality, our public laws should aim much lower, seeking mere order and justice not heroic levels of virtue. I would hate to see the day any church worthy of the name did not maintain a strict stance against prostitution, but I do not demand that government should do so.

Posted by JonF | March 15, 2008 10:24 AM

"For another, I didn’t elaborate on my brief assertion that Fitz had confused symptoms with causes. I don’t have time fully to do so now either, but one point that should be made is that problems with the poor were caused in large part by major changes in the economy; to isolate for blame increased social freedom is worse than facile; it exemplifies the very ideological thinking Fitz professes to abhor."

Well, I don’t have a lot of time myself for that matter. However multiple posters have tried to wriggle out of responsibility for family breakdown by citing "economic factors."

Unfortunately it was no less eminent a social scientist and policy maker than Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that overcame this assumption in his now famous report: The Negro Family: The Case For National Action. (no “action” was taken)

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm

That family stability normally tracked with economic stability was the excepted norm. The phenomena now known as "Moynihan's scissors" noted that (starting in the 1960's) this nexus began to diverge.

A rising economy was no longer coinciding with a rising family stability. Rather it was the cultural influences of the sexual revolution, liberal welfare policy, and techno shock that was driving the black family apart.

Roundly ignored (and even called a racist) Moynihan had revealed the ugly side of the sexual revolution when it was unfashionable to do so. To still be defending it 40 years on seems willfully obtuse.

Confronting a sophomoric & libido driven set of cultural assumptions while family fragmentation was still in its infancy would have been the mark of a morally serious left.

To still be defending such a cataclysmic past with the same red hearings and feminist denials marks one as a tired revolutionary clinging to the glories of yesteryear.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html

(for further elaboration on the history of leftist sexual assumptions preventing even serious thought on family breakdown)

Posted by Fitz | March 15, 2008 12:59 PM

That family stability normally tracked with economic stability was the excepted norm.

Which is why family stability and other social goods improved in the late 90s and early part of this decade. It should be noted that a rising economy doesn't necessarily translate into economic stability. Like Moynihan noted,

"In 1963, a prosperous year, 29.2 percent of all Negro men in the labor force were unemployed at some time during the year. Almost half of these men were out of work 15 weeks or more."

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/moynchapter3.htm Note that I see no mention of sexual liberation as a "root of the problem" there.

Or consider the possibility that the new jobs are in different places than the old jobs, that means families will have to relocate or even split to find them.

Moreover, you're ignoring the demographic instability of the baby boom. For whatever reason, the newer generation wasn't behaving as well when there were more of them.

The evidence that economics, demographics, and inequality were the key causes of our social problems seems far more solid than blaming things on sexual libertation--it holds up not only in the decades you talk about, it also holds across multiple regions and countries. To claim that it is others who are wriggling out of responsibility for the data is laughable.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 15, 2008 6:31 PM

Despite what you may have read it's probably utopianism that's killed more people than anything in history.

It seems to me that attempts to realize utopian visions and entrenched conservatives (who've killed their share of heretics and non-conformists) have a couple of things in common: that everyone should conform in thought and action and an elite minority who think they deserve preferential treatment (and exception from conforming) for knowing what those thoughts and actions are.

Since social evolution is a very slow process, your list of attempts to shortcut directly to (some imagined) end state exemplifies why violent revolution would never succeed in getting us to a utopian state; instead of sharing the wealth, they share the poverty and rationalize the coercion (or elimination) of detractors and I agree that a suggestion to try something that has already (brutally) failed would be scary.

That doesn't mean I'm ready to concede "that a society free of poverty or exploitation will never happen." But it won't happen while we cling to short sighted economic and political systems that mortgage the future or in a rather blatant example of utopian thinking, think the future will simply take care of itself (or more cynically, just don't care about the future since they won't be here to face the consequences) or as long as the Fitz's of the world are more worried about telling others how to act (like him - see above) than addressing (or even recognizing) the economic factors that contribute to the social ills that allow him to feel so superior to the immorally serious left for not joining him in his quest for conformity of thought and action.

Anyway, I'm not advocating heaven on earth - that would be boring. I just don't think that poverty and oppression are problems that cannot be solved but they won't be solved until we reach a consensus that recognizes human diversity and the fact that blanket prohibitions are not the best way to deal with every problem.

Posted by T.H.Reasoner | March 15, 2008 10:48 PM

Fitz,
I read the City Journal article to which you linked. It was interesting, but not neither broad enough nor thorough enough an examination of the various economic hypotheses that seek to understand poverty to be persuasive. It mostly seems written to flatter those who already agree with its assumptions.

That said, I find it likely that children benefit a lot from long-term, close relationships with caring, stable adults. To demand that people who do not care for each other get or stay married hardly offers the only way of promoting this goal.

Posted by jason | March 15, 2008 11:00 PM

That's an interesting source Fitz. Although what it seems to blame is

Slavery as practiced in the US and how it started a pattern of unstable black families. (This is put in contrast with Catholic Brazil where the slave family was not to be broken)

Denigration of black men, both in the black family and white society. (A bit of the language is blatantly sexist, but has some degree of truth in it I suppose)

Urbanization of the black community. Rural blacks are seen as having better families. (I don't know if that's still true)

It was controversial at the time and offered no solutions. Although what it seemed to suggest is that black families would be better if they were more rural and patriarchical. I'm not sure if a movement to make more "black small towns" where black women are more submissive is plausible.

Posted by Thomas R | March 16, 2008 5:34 AM

Thomas R.,

Neither plausible nor (I would think) desirable.

I would note that the pattern of family formation among the Brazilian poor, while _better_ than that in American inner cities, and probably one that works decently well, is not the traditionalist ideal either. Women in Brazil typically live with the father of their children, at least for a good number of years, and he helps take care of them, but they may not be officially 'married', and she may move on to a different long term relationship in time. Immorality is typically equated with sleeping with someone outside the confines of such a serially monogamous relationship, not necessarily outside of marriage. See Nancy Scheper-Hughes 'Death Without Weeping'.

Oddly enough, as of last year, Brazil actually has (arguably) a lower total fertility rate than the United States.

Posted by Hector | March 16, 2008 9:45 AM

Sex is so devoid of emotion and human attachment that it is no more significant than sneezing or scratching?

No, I think it's just that they see that other human activities, like cooking and caretaking, are not devoid of emotion and human attachment, so there's little justification for privileging sex simply because those things are present.

And I'd contend that someone who only finds emotion and human attachment in sex is the one who's from Mars.

Posted by Chet | March 16, 2008 5:50 PM

Ross, the mere fact that you attempt to equate sex education with incest shows just how retrograde your conservative thinking skills are. Sexual abuse has to do with loss of power, loss of control. The same loss of power or control exhibited by Johns during the course of their impulsive pursuits, incidentally. However, no child's psychological development will be as harmed by helping with basic housework as it would be by the idea of forcibly relinquishing physical autonomy over one's own body and sexuality, no matter how ludicrously you attempt to equate these two acts.

Posted by Anonymous | March 16, 2008 6:01 PM

There is a world outside the USA, a very large one that contains all sorts of different peoples with all sorts of different customs and all sorts of different attitudes towards sex and sexuality - though not, thankfully, with respect to incest, largely because of the Westermarck effect. I suppose it is natural that this debate should be couched in parochial North American terms, but people might at least have acquainted themselves with the roles of courtesans and actors in East Asian society, of temple dancers in parts of India, and of courtesan-singers in Arab society (see the novels of Mahfouz), and of the position of the brothel in Mediterranean cultures (see Lampedusa's The Leopard, for example)... things that don't fit readily into the North American world-view or into the straitened logical box within which North Americans seem to like to conduct their mostly predictable arguments. I'm sorry if I sound condescending, but I grow less and less willing to make allowances.

Posted by tim harris | March 16, 2008 7:28 PM

There is a world outside the USA, a very large one that contains all sorts of different peoples with all sorts of different customs and all sorts of different attitudes towards sex and sexuality - though not, thankfully, with respect to incest, largely because of the Westermarck effect. I suppose it is natural that this debate should be couched in parochial North American terms, but people might at least have acquainted themselves with the roles of courtesans and actors in East Asian society, of temple dancers in parts of India, and of courtesan-singers in Arab society (see the novels of Mahfouz), and of the position of the brothel in Mediterranean cultures (see Lampedusa's The Leopard, for example)... things that don't fit readily into the North American world-view or into the straitened logical box within which North Americans seem to like to conduct their mostly predictable arguments. I'm sorry if I sound condescending, but I grow less and less willing to make allowances.

Posted by tim harris | March 16, 2008 7:28 PM

Actually, there are child labour laws, in response to your last point, so you don't neccessarily have to view sex as distinct. Putting kids in factories is considered immoral too...

Posted by HappySurge | March 16, 2008 7:32 PM

If there’s no moral distinction between giving a handjob in exchange for twenty dollars and getting paid twenty bucks to wash dishes or mow lawns, then why is there a moral distinction between a father who teaches his daughter how to pound nails and one who teaches his daughter to do something more intimate and (to go all wisdom-of-repugnance on you) disgusting? I understand that the kids involved aren’t “consenting adults,” but if selling sex is just like selling labor, and adults force kids to perform all kinds of menial tasks as part of their education, why can’t adults force kids to have intercourse too – especially if they’re safe about it? If selling sex is no big deal because sex itself is no big deal, what’s the big deal about incest?

Oh, come on, this one is just too simple to answer!

The father is a commander of the child himself! He cannot be seen as anything remotely like a sexual peer to his daughter. His command and his sexual experience taints damn near every motivation involving his child.

Nice try, attempting to agree to the point and then tossing in the unnecessarily inflammatory figure. Try again.

Posted by Chris | March 16, 2008 7:53 PM

Sex acts are considered special and worth circumscribing for good reasons: procreative possibilities and the responsibilities that entails, and the danger of spreading disease (more traditionally virulent than other forms of contact.) There is also the disruptive effect of contact with strangers on existing relationships, especially marriage. "Think."

tyrannogenius

Posted by Neil B. | March 16, 2008 8:00 PM

Has anyone here actually been involved in sex work, either as a buyer or a seller? Or is masturbation of the philosophical kind the only sex allowed in these comments?

Posted by homo superior | March 16, 2008 8:26 PM

"There is a world outside the USA..." tim harris

I took Chinese for a year and pushed for my University to have a Chinese history course. My historical speciality is mostly not the US.

However the idea that the sexual norms of dynastic China or the Mideast are replicable here, or even desirable, is very questionable. In China the courtesans and concubines lived in sometimes precarious positions. Women in general were generally to be submissive at least until they became widowed mothers of sons. Even then by the Song dynasty widows also had a diminished position. This corrected itself by the time of the Qing, but still means most women lived lives of submission. In some dynasties women would even cut off their own noses to avoid forced marriages and sometimes lived virtually as serfs dependent to their parents or husbands house. A partial justification of this is that men also lived in submission. Younger brother to elder brother, elder brother to parents, parents to elders, all to the Emperor, and the Emperor to Heaven. (BTW: I love Chinese philosophy and culture, but on women they were generally kind of retrograde)

In addition the courtesans in Medieval Italy or China, who had some privilege, didn't negate the reality of a lower-class of prostitutes who had little. In both societies this might be expected as hierarchy and inequality were seen as natural/expected. (Which to some extent they are, but they took it to a rather extreme point)

In other societies prostitution did not precisely exist as they were small tribal groups where anonymous sex was not really plausible. Unless you define prostitution in such a way that it includes the woman getting a morsel of food or bauble after sex.

Posted by Thomas R | March 16, 2008 10:11 PM

That we try to imitate imperial China? Good God! This is the country that invented foot binding, after all. The medieval Muslims aren't much better, they are the ones who invented hijab.

All in all, anyone who brings up China or the Muslim world is simply proving my point that historically, prostitution is inseparable from extreme hierarchy, inequality and patriarchy. The reason that the rich and powerful at Peking, Athens or Baghdad were interested in patronizing prostitutes was because all the other women were locked away in subjection.

There is a reason that after the Revolution, the Communists in China were so anxious to wipe out prostitution. (Mao himself was a cynical hypocrite as well as a tyrant, with a stable of women and boys for his pleasure, but I'm sure many of his rank-and-file functionaries felt they were doing something good for the women of China by ending prostitution, which in fact they were.

Thomas R, it sounds like your training is in history- are you a historian?

Posted by Hector | March 16, 2008 10:33 PM

Sex between two consenting adults is not immoral. In fact, it raises no moral question; in other words, it is amoral. And this applies to sex between consenting adults who happen to be relatives.

If the mores of the Taliban appeals to you, why not apply it exclusively to your own life. Some of us neither need nor desire your dogmas. The Taliban-wannabes never cease to amaze.

Posted by Kahl Rahner | March 16, 2008 11:12 PM

"Thomas R, it sounds like your training is in history- are you a historian?"

Aspiring to be. I have my degree and I've been piddling around trying on my Master's thesis for years. I've only attended one history conference and have yet to present any paper. I was going to work on getting a paper on Islamic Law in Sudan in publishable shape, but it's more work than I bargained for.

My University is a small one and I missed the window where we had an Asianist. So my main area has been Europe with Asia as secondary. It might be just as well as I only took a year of Chinese and all I remember is stuff like "I'm going to the bookstore." I've done some work on Islam in Africa though because we have a reasonably good professor on the topic whose offered many classes on it. Africa's interesting in that it has some of the most extreme Muslims, but also some of the most humane and tolerant. In Sudan they had something called the "Republican Brothers" that...that means I'm getting very off topic.

Posted by Thomas R | March 16, 2008 11:41 PM

Mr. Rahner,

Since you stated that as axiomatic, let me reply with axioms of my own, that I think your position is absurd. Incest is one of the two acts, the other being cannibalism, that is almost universally regarded as a sin and a crime across nearly all cultures studied. More universally than robbery, murder or rape. Not only a crime, but a particularly fearful, unthinkable and unspeakable one. You would do well to ponder the reasons why it might be so. Hint...arguments about coercion, genetic loads, etc. might be interesting but they don't get to the bottom of why incest is considered so unspeakably evil.

Your reference to the Taliban makes me think that you're not immoral nor a libertine, you're just a fool. Please read some Plato, then get back to me. If you don't care for Plato, then I would suggest Simone Weil, who was a neo-Platonist.

And yes, you do very much need Someone's dogma, although it's not mine in particular you need. Hopefully, you will discover that in this world, rather than in the next.

Posted by Hector | March 16, 2008 11:45 PM

i've never posted a comment on a blog before. i'm impressed by the thoughtfulness of many of your posts, and by the intellectual rigor or your arguments. i can not hope to match them in the least. however, in reading all the talk on prostitution in the last week i feel like i have to share something of my own experience.

i became a prostitute when i was 20 years old. i still don't know why i did it and that question gnaws at me constantly. as far as i can remember i was not abused as a child. i had experimented with some drugs, but was not hooked when i started (though i quickly became dependent on cocaine). i got out of the house and away from the man i was working for in less then a year, but it took me another 3 years to stop the behavior, as i got used to finding men on the internet whenever i needed money, or felt badly about myself.

while i was in the business i graduated college and then went to grad school. i would not have found my current profession in mental health if i had not made that choice in 2000. however, i still have lasting scars from that time.

i have not been able to maintain a healthy relationship or strong friendships. i am a successful professional but spend most of my free time alone and crying for no reason. i feel certain that something inside me is broken and damaged. i'm desperate to understand why i mad that choice, and wish that i could take it back.

i don't have a strong stance on legalization. i think if it could increase safety that would be good, but i think there would be serious consequences for legitimizing the choice in that way. what i know, or feel for myself, is that sex IS different. it is not the same as other jobs or activities. selling sex IS different. while we are used for many things in the workforce, being used specifically as an empty tool for someone else's pleasure, a receptacle, an afterthought, IS different.

i participated in a student's dissertation project once. it was about how sex workers view their current work vs. other legitimate types of employment. the responses varied, but overall a majority of women felt that sex work was essentially similar to a typical job, but for the illegality. i was one of the few who felt (and the interview was conducted why i was still very much in the game) that it was vastly different from regular work, nearly incomparable.

i don't know if the other interviewees were in some type of denial, or if i am really the minority in terms of the negative effects i felt from prostitution. i don't disparage the choices other women have made and choose to made. i can say clearly that my decision to have sex for money has directly hurt my mental health, self-esteem, ability to relate to other people, and ability have romantic and sexual relationships.

for me, SEX IS DIFFERENT.

Posted by kate | March 17, 2008 1:58 AM

Kate,

Thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent comments. They were also heartbreaking, and it obviously took a lot of courage to share them, even on a message board. From what I have heard, I think that most women who are in prostitution have the similar kind of experience to yours.

Please know that there are good people in life who can be your friends and will help you get to a more happy place in life. And please know that whatever you might regret in life and whatever choices you might wish you could take back, in the deepest sense it doesn't matter. Ultimately, Christ loves you so much that he shed His blood for you to make it as though none of those bad choices ever existed. In his eyes you are still as worthy as love as the purest saint who ever lived.

Posted by Hector | March 17, 2008 7:58 AM

Good luck to you Kate.

And you're right BTW about the whole subject, hang on to your sanity.

Posted by Kim | March 17, 2008 9:03 AM

I, for one, see a handjob and pounding nails as to very different acts.

First off, your grip is completely different...

Posted by SFOtter | March 17, 2008 11:34 AM

Although Kate's story is sad and I hope the best for her with her current career, aren't there many people who's job gives them depression and other mental illnesses? Many business people get shriveled consciences, yet i don't hear anyone wanting to outlaw pushy cold calling stock brokers.

Posted by Data not anecdote | March 17, 2008 12:21 PM

As an old man [late 60s] who admits to having purchased sexual intercourse decades ago, I am compelled to comment on the revelation that occasion was. During and immediately afterward, I had very warm, tender, loving feelings for the beautiful woman I had hired and "used". That's when I realized that the phrase "making love" is an accurate one. Of course, my upper brain -- the one in my skull -- took over quite quickly, and I put it into perspective. I didn't love the girl, I didn't want to see her again, and I've never bought sex again.
Full disclosure: I've been married several times, now happily married to a wonderful and sexy woman my age.

Posted by Nat | March 17, 2008 12:30 PM

Multiple posters elide both the purpose of bringing in the Monyihan Report & seek to cast in the worst possible light elemental social norms of responsible procreation.

The divergence that Moynihan noted was no blip on the sociological landscape. Rather it was a wide & widening divergence between economic stability & family formation. They no longer track in the main – that is, the break was completed and was not addressed when the time was ripe.

“Which is why family stability and other social goods improved in the late 90s and early part of this decade. It should be noted that a rising economy doesn't necessarily translate into economic stability. Or consider the possibility that the new jobs are in different places than the old jobs, that means families will have to relocate or even split to find them.”

It should be noted that that this insistence on economic factors correlating with the level of family breakdown we are discussing, translates what are unprecedented (levels of illegitimacy) to what is expected (minimal rise & fall of family stability with economic stability).

Families in New Delhi stay together on a bowl of rice a day. Entire economic depressions in this country have not correlated with the level of family fragmentation starting in the 1960’s.

“Moreover, you're ignoring the demographic instability of the baby boom. For whatever reason, the newer generation wasn't behaving as well when there were more of them.”

No, I’m pointing it out. It is that demographic boom of babies that championed the moral collapse that multiple posters still defend with abstractions to economic factors that do explain the phenomena. The had what they call & is popularly called a sexual revolution. They do not deny this, nor does popular understanding. Indeed: it is championed within that very same left as a boom to human freedom (rather than an exercise of license).

It is only when accountability is expected – when the dire effects of that cultural change is presented with its effects on woman, children & the poor that a defensive crouch becomes is assumed.

We know the reason for family breakdown. Social change of the at magnitude cannot be simply dismissed as par for the economic coarse when no parallel exists. I prefer (personally) the championing of sexual liberation & the break fro the “patriarchy” as being ”worth the price”extracted on woman, children & society. This allusion as presented by T.H.Reasoner, at least doesn’t deny the obvious.

Instead it pretends that the collapse discernable and demonstrable social goods can be passed off as so many broken black eggs in the new leftist omelet.

Posted by Fitz | March 17, 2008 2:32 PM

Kate,

Just as an afterthought, please remember that it doesn't make you a bad person. Former prostitutes have gone on to be great and good individuals. Remember St. Mary Magdalene and the Empress Theodora. I wish you a long and happy life.

Nat,

Indeed. 'Making love' is an accurate phrase. In a perfect world, there would never be any separation between love and sex. There is a _natural_ connection between them, which is why prostitution is an _unnatural_ act that is against _natural_ reason and _natural_ inclination.

Posted by Hector | March 17, 2008 2:38 PM

Multiple posters elide both the purpose of bringing in the Monyihan Report & seek to cast in the worst possible light elemental social norms of responsible procreation.

The divergence that Moynihan noted was no blip on the sociological landscape. Rather it was a wide & widening divergence between economic stability & family formation. They no longer track in the main – that is, the break was completed and was not addressed when the time was ripe.

“Which is why family stability and other social goods improved in the late 90s and early part of this decade. It should be noted that a rising economy doesn't necessarily translate into economic stability. Or consider the possibility that the new jobs are in different places than the old jobs, that means families will have to relocate or even split to find them.”

It should be noted that that this insistence on economic factors correlating with the level of family breakdown we are discussing, translates what are unprecedented (levels of illegitimacy) to what is expected (minimal rise & fall of family stability with economic stability).

Families in New Delhi stay together on a bowl of rice a day. Entire economic depressions in this country have not correlated with the level of family fragmentation starting in the 1960’s.

“Moreover, you're ignoring the demographic instability of the baby boom. For whatever reason, the newer generation wasn't behaving as well when there were more of them.”

No, I’m pointing it out. It is that demographic boom of babies that championed the moral collapse that multiple posters still defend with abstractions to economic factors that do explain the phenomena. The had what they call & is popularly called a sexual revolution. They do not deny this, nor does popular understanding. Indeed: it is championed within that very same left as a boom to human freedom (rather than an exercise of license).

It is only when accountability is expected – when the dire effects of that cultural change is presented with its effects on woman, children & the poor that a defensive crouch is assumed.

We know the reason for family breakdown. Social change of the at magnitude cannot be simply dismissed as par for the economic coarse when no parallel exists. I prefer (personally) the championing of sexual liberation & the break fro the “patriarchy” as being ”worth the price”extracted on woman, children & society. This allusion as presented by T.H.Reasoner, at least doesn’t deny the obvious.

Instead it pretends that the collapse discernable and demonstrable social goods can be passed off as so many broken black eggs in the new leftist omelet.

Posted by Fitz | March 17, 2008 2:41 PM

Fitz,

I doubt that most of the African Americans whose cause you champion would want to roll back the essence of the sexual revolution, any more than most white Americans. I agree with Yeats (a conservative) when he said 'Marriage is not sacred, love is sacred', or something like that. If you define the sexual revolution as the freedom to tie sexuality to love and not to property, legal marriage or anything else, then prostitution isn't the essence of the sexual revolution, it's the negation of it. The fact that I am critical of _casual_ sex, abortion, gay marriage, illegitimacy and prostitution among other _excesses_ of the sexual revolution doesn't mean that I condemn the sexual revolution itself. To borrow a phrase from Trotsky I would call it a revolution betrayed.

As a South Asian American part of whose family lives in New Delhi, I wouldn't cite the Indian family as an example of anything positive. New Delhi is terrible for women, and is currently in the middle of a proverbially bad rape epidemic. Literally proverbial- it's the first thing most Indians mention when I mention the name of New Delhi. Most of those families stay together only because the husband beats the wife into submission and spends her earnings getting drunk at the saloon, and because her family would shun her if she tried to get a divorce. No doubt family breakdown in America, and excessive casual sex, are serious problems. India has the opposite problems, and I will say that I think Indian women and children would be better off if they had more divorces, more sexual freedom for women, an end to arranged marriages, and more contraception (and of course, less abortion). India needs its own sexual revolution in the same measure as America needs to backtrack on its.

Posted by Hector | March 17, 2008 2:49 PM

Hector:

I don’t think you have said anything I can specifically disagree with. (Although I would indict the sexual revolution & its revolutionaries with more vehemence than you do)

The point of India is not to indorse India but rather to negate the poverty family breakdown nexus presented as a refutation of the cultural agenda at the heart of family breakdown.

However (you do write)
“I doubt that most of the African Americans whose cause you champion would want to roll back the essence of the sexual revolution, any more than most white Americans.”

I work extensively with the urban poor & lecture with too upper class whites and do not find this to be the case. On the contrary I find broad based support for sexual restraint & responsible procreation.

Only when cast as a return to a mythic “bad old days” (1950’s America was no New Delhi & had the same levels of intact families, low divorce & respect for chastity) – can one rhetorically defend the sexual revolution. By measurable standards of social goods realized I find widespread acceptance for the need for serious reform.

Posted by Fitz | March 17, 2008 3:14 PM

"The distinction between rape and prostitution is the same as the distinction between being paid to hammer nails and being forced to as a slave."

Several people gave this or similar reasons why rape deserves special treatment while still claiming sex is no different than other labor. The correct comparison is why rape is treated differently than battery if sex doesn't deserve special consideration.

Posted by mj | March 17, 2008 4:52 PM

I'm a religious person in favor of legalizing prostitution. One can argue that it is a morally degenerative thing to do, that it is sinful, but I am not in favor of outlawing morally degenerative sins that are mutally consensual. I'm not in favor of outlawing immoral behavior for its own sake. I think there is a serious downside to legal prostitution, but I think that is a downside that people have the right to choose. If they don't choose it willfully, then they have not actually chosen to be good, they have merely been prevented from sinning. So in my view laws against sinful behavior are what make our society immoral, by removing the notion of personal choice from the equation. One can decriminalize immorality and sin without approving of them. In fact, one can't actually encourage virtue unless one allows the choice of sin.

Posted by Conradg | March 17, 2008 5:27 PM

It seems like a lot of posters are assuming that either sex is no different from any other daily activity, and therefore prostitution should be legal, or else sex is unique/special/sacred, and prostitution should be a crime.

Sex is psychologically and culturally a totally different kind of connection than cooking someone breakfast, and pretending it isn't to win a debating point is just silly. You can believe people should see sex that way, but you can't seriously maintain they do.

But the fact that sex is of great social, personal, and even spiritual importance is an argument for greater freedom, not greater state control. We don't value freedom of religion because we think religion is an insignificant matter. We value it because religion is at the center of many people's lives. We value it because our very souls may depend on the choice.

If sex and romantic love are equally central to most people's lives, and I think they are, it stands to reason that those choices should be equally free. You may find prostitution abhorrent no matter how safe and consensual it is, just as you may find atheism, Islam, or Christianity abhorrent. Outlawing any of them, however, robs everyone who disagrees with you of freedom of conscience.

Posted by tilts_at_windmills | March 17, 2008 8:46 PM

Hector:

Since you stated that as axiomatic, let me reply with axioms of my own, that I think your position is absurd. Incest is one of the two acts, the other being cannibalism, that is almost universally regarded as a sin and a crime across nearly all cultures studied. More universally than robbery, murder or rape. Not only a crime, but a particularly fearful, unthinkable and unspeakable one. You would do well to ponder the reasons why it might be so. Hint...arguments about coercion, genetic loads, etc. might be interesting but they don't get to the bottom of why incest is considered so unspeakably evil.

The condemnation of certain acts by all cultures tells us nothing about the moral species of the action. I have no right to categorize sexual acts between two consenting adults as immoral. I hope you too will abstain from judging them. And it matters not whether the adults concerned are relatives or not. The essential element is freedom/consent. Relatedness is accidental and irrelevant. It's ironic that the mammals who insisted on monogenesis and thus gave us Humani Generis ignore the necessity of 'incest' to the coherence of their vision of the propagation of humans.

Your reference to the Taliban makes me think that you're not immoral nor a libertine, you're just a fool. Please read some Plato, then get back to me. If you don't care for Plato, then I would suggest Simone Weil, who was a neo-Platonist.

Wow. Is throwing around insults your idea of a conversation? First, on many things, I admit to being a fool. But at least I know when I'm being a fool. I hope my admission makes you feel better. Second, telling people to read X or Y is not a persuasive argument. But if, on this issue, you must recommend classical authors/texts, Aristotle (specifically the Nicomachean Ethics), Aquinas (Sententia Libri Ethicorum, Summa Contra Gentiles, Questiones Disputatae de Malo, and scattered references in the Prima pars, Prima secundae, Secunda secundae and Tertia pars of the Summa Theologiae) and St. Paul are more useful than anything in Plato or neo-Platonists (yes, that includes St. Augustine and your great Weil).

Calling people names and trotting out big names like Plato scarcely helps your case. I hazard it's a sign of insecurity.

And yes, you do very much need Someone's dogma, although it's not mine in particular you need. Hopefully, you will discover that in this world, rather than in the next.

If by someone you mean God, I'd recommend you shove your God and his/her dogmas in your a**. For your edification, there is no next world. "Oh death, where is thine sting?" is an amusing delusion.

Posted by Karl Rahner | March 18, 2008 2:08 AM

Hector:

Since you stated that as axiomatic, let me reply with axioms of my own, that I think your position is absurd. Incest is one of the two acts, the other being cannibalism, that is almost universally regarded as a sin and a crime across nearly all cultures studied. More universally than robbery, murder or rape. Not only a crime, but a particularly fearful, unthinkable and unspeakable one. You would do well to ponder the reasons why it might be so. Hint...arguments about coercion, genetic loads, etc. might be interesting but they don't get to the bottom of why incest is considered so unspeakably evil.

The condemnation of certain acts by all cultures tells us nothing about the moral species of the action. I have no right to categorize sexual acts between two consenting adults as immoral. I hope you too will abstain from judging them. And it matters not whether the adults concerned are relatives or not. The essential element is freedom/consent. Relatedness is accidental and irrelevant. It's ironic that the mammals who insisted on monogenesis and thus gave us Humani Generis ignore the necessity of 'incest' to the coherence of their vision of the propagation of humans.

Your reference to the Taliban makes me think that you're not immoral nor a libertine, you're just a fool. Please read some Plato, then get back to me. If you don't care for Plato, then I would suggest Simone Weil, who was a neo-Platonist.

Wow. Is throwing around insults your idea of a conversation? First, on many things, I admit to being a fool. But at least I know when I'm being a fool. I hope my admission makes you feel better. Second, telling people to read X or Y is not a persuasive argument. But if, on this issue, you must recommend classical authors/texts, Aristotle (specifically the Nicomachean Ethics), Aquinas (Sententia Libri Ethicorum, Summa Contra Gentiles, Questiones Disputatae de Malo, and scattered references in the Prima pars, Prima secundae, Secunda secundae and Tertia pars of the Summa Theologiae) and St. Paul are more useful than anything in Plato or neo-Platonists (yes, that includes St. Augustine and your great Weil).

Calling people names and trotting out big names like Plato scarcely helps your case. I hazard it's a sign of insecurity.

And yes, you do very much need Someone's dogma, although it's not mine in particular you need. Hopefully, you will discover that in this world, rather than in the next.

If by someone you mean God, I'd recommend you shove your God and his/her dogmas in your a**. For your edification, there is no next world. "Oh death, where is thine sting?" is an amusing delusion.

Posted by Karl Rahner | March 18, 2008 2:16 AM

Kate:

I hope you realize that your past choices do not define you. Second, you're right in qualifying the assertion 'sex is different' with 'for me' if the qualification is an implicit acknowledgment that others can sustain a contrary opinion.

Posted by Karl Rahner | March 18, 2008 2:38 AM

Karl,

Why do you insist on qualifying everyones' but your own opinions with "true for you"? I think a lot of people think there is more truth, and certainly more of interest, in Kate's experience than in your easy-going nihilism. Indeed, your insistence on freedom and consent merely begs the question.

Posted by mdk | March 18, 2008 7:31 AM

Karl,

No doubt others have a contrary opinion than Kate. The point is that they would be wrong, and Kate would be right. You casually and callously dismiss Kate because she challenges your freedom based way of looking at the world. Actually, whatever her past choices, she now knows more about morality and truth than you do.

No, I won't abstain from judging many sexual acts (incest, prostitution, adultery, etc.) as fundamentally evil _by their nature_, whether or not the issue of freedom and consent is involved. I don't give to freedom and consent the same importance you do. The reason incest is wrong is because it corrodes and distorts the ordinate affections due to family and to a lover, by breaking down the distinction between the two. Funny that illiterate hunter gatherers on some Pacific island appear to know more about morality than you or your precious 'thinkers' like Martha Nussbaum.

Since you claim to have read Aquinas, your ignorance of natural law arguments astounds me. By the way, there is a next world, and though it's not up to me, I have to say your prospects in it don't look good at the moment. But hey, maybe it's not so bad. Maybe the Christians are wrong, the Buddhists are right, and all that will happen to you is you have to be reborn as a dung beetle.

Posted by Hector | March 18, 2008 8:59 AM

Hector:

You casually and callously dismiss Kate because she challenges your freedom based way of looking at the world.

I do not dismiss her or her opinion. You seem to be talented at finding whatever meanings you want.

Actually, whatever [Kate's]past choices, she now knows more about morality and truth than you do.

She may know about morality and truth than I do but that's irrelevant since it's not the issue. The question here is limited to the (a)morality of a specific acts.

No, I won't abstain from judging many sexual acts (incest, prostitution, adultery, etc.) as fundamentally evil _by their nature_, whether or not the issue of freedom and consent is involved.

You're free to abstain or not in judging other's freely-chosen, consensual acts - theoretically, at least. Even the Taliban enjoys that freedom. The problem arises when you seek to codify your preference or postulate them as a universal maxim disagreements from which compel legal sanctions. By the way, Aristotle and Aquinas are more helpful to your intrinsece malum argument than Plato or neo-Platonists. Plato's Socrates (particularly in the Meno) may help you but his arguments are fraught with more difficulty than those of Aristotle and Aquinas. While you're at it, Veritatis Splendor represents the best synthesis of your position.

Since you claim to have read Aquinas, your ignorance of natural law arguments astounds me.

You read poorly, Hector. Ignorance of a an author/text/idea and disagreement with it are two different things. I wrote my thesis on natural law. I understand natural law arguments well but I believe they belong to the museum of useless, risible ideas.

The reason incest is wrong is because it corrodes and distorts the ordinate affections due to family and to a lover, by breaking down the distinction between the two.

Ordinate affections? Typical natural law terminology. It may have been better had you used Ratzinger's favourite - disordered - though in your defense, "intrinsically evil" suffices.

Funny that illiterate hunter gatherers on some Pacific island appear to know more about morality than you or your precious 'thinkers' like Martha Nussbaum.

I do not begrudge illiterate hunter gatherers or 'angels in heaven' the superior knowledge of morality you've assigned them provided they do not interfere with other people's rights to disagree and act otherwise. I'm glad you mentioned Ms. Nussbaum; I find her refreshing if occasionally too Aristotelian in her aesthetic views.

By the way, there is a next world, and though it's not up to me, I have to say your prospects in it don't look good at the moment.

Ha ha ha...the classic "you'll burn in hell" bleating. It's called terrorism, not an argument. I do not care about what happens after death for I scarcely find it worth the bother. When we die, it's over...despite Hector's propensity to opine on strangers' 'post-death' prospects.

Maybe the Christians are wrong, the Buddhists are right, and all that will happen to you is you have to be reborn as a dung beetle.

Even if I grant your after-life fantasies, I'd say being reborn as a dung beetle is an improvement on being fashioned from dust or returning to it ("Dust we are to to dust we shall return"). Let's toast to that, Hector.

Posted by Karl Rahner | March 18, 2008 11:08 AM

mdk:

Why do you insist on qualifying everyones' but your own opinions with "true for you"?

Because we're dealing with private actions that do not harm anyone. Key words - freedom and consent.

I think a lot of people think there is more truth, and certainly more of interest, in Kate's experience than in your easy-going nihilism.

I don't know when majority opinion became the dispositive metric for morality. That fallacy should be anathema particularly to neo-Thomists and wannabe Talibans.

Easy-going nihilim? Tell me you're joking. Disagreement with an opinion is not, by itself, an indicium of easy-going nihilism. You probably should be more careful with words like 'nihilism'.

Indeed, your insistence on freedom and consent merely begs the question.

That's a new and bizarre extension of the meaning of that venerable fallacy.

Posted by Karl Rahner | March 18, 2008 11:28 AM

"I don't know when majority opinion became the dispositive metric for morality. That fallacy should be anathema particularly to neo-Thomists and wannabe Talibans."

It's not that majority opinion is the metric for morality, but last I heard it was the metric for the law, and it's legality of prostitution that's the topic here.

That's the deal. I get to express my opinion, you get to express yours, and whoever convinces the most people gets to see their views, whether moral or libertarian, embodied in the law as long as they fit within certain broad parameters. If you can convince enough people that sex is no different than anything else, you can embody that belief in the law. That most people would not agree that rape is no more than an instance of simple battery because sex is not different than any other form of physical contact, points to the reason why you're in the minority on this one. You can call the majority Taliban, or dismiss their opinions as "their opinions," but you won't be very persuasive.

It's not just about freedom and consent, or at least freedom and consent as you understand them. What happens when people disagree? Someone has to limit their freedom a bit. That's what we the people consented to -- not to untrammled freedom or consent, but rule of the majority. And not just in the private realm either, or perhaps you think husbands should be able to beat on their wives because that's a private matter.

My last point was to raise the question of why you place such a high premium on freedom and consent. What's wrong with the rule of strong or smart or even the Taliban (other than the resonance of the word)? I doubt that you can answer that without making some sort of argument about what humans are or should be. I will admit, though, that you are quite ingenious in finding ways to end discussions or to stop thinking about things.

Posted by mdk | March 18, 2008 1:48 PM

Karl Rahner (writes)

"That fallacy should be anathema particularly to neo-Thomists and wannabe Taliban’s.

You probably should be more careful with words like 'nihilism'."

You should probably be careful about with words like neo-Thomists and wannabe Talibans. (yet you are not)

". I wrote my thesis on natural law. I understand natural law arguments well but I believe they belong to the museum of useless, risible ideas."

Then why do you continually retreat to the discreet and insular use of their arguments in support of free will and moral agency.

The least you could do when co-opting the achievements of others is try not to rip them from there proper context & go riding off like Sherman through the South.

Especially when that "South" in question is elemental to our humanity.

Posted by Fitz | March 18, 2008 3:03 PM

Mr. Rahner (why do you call yourself after a Jesuit theologian anyway?)

I'll look up Veritatis Splendor, as per your suggestion. I'm an Anglican, not a Catholic, so I confess I don't keep up on the latest encyclicals. I would also object to being categorized as a neo-Thomist, or an Aristotelian or even a natural law believer. It's not that I agree, or feel compelled to agree, with their _conclusions._ Rather, I feel that they often had a handle on a good _framework_ for approaching moral reasoning.

That's why I brought up Simone Weil, who tried to construct her own theory for social organization based on her understanding of human nature, and her vision of what sort of society would best allow us to fulfil our essential natures. That is the appropriate framework for moral reasoning, not blathering about freedom and consent.

Your belief that freedom from coercion is the most important thing is just as much an axiom as anything else. I don't have to share it, and in large part I don't. You can't defend them without ultimately resorting to your feelings about what humans are or should be. And that's kind of my point.

Until you realize this, of course, we have few shared premises in common, and our debates can only be settled by legal compulsion.

For the person who brought up slavery earlier, it's interesting to know that in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, it was permitted to own (Muslim) slaves, and presumably to do to them all the things that men normally did to slaves, save one. A man was not allowed to have sexual relations with his slave, and if he did the punishment was castration. (In this the 12th century Crusaders were more civilized than 19th century Americans). Sex is, indeed, different, and has always been regarded so.

Posted by Hector | March 18, 2008 3:36 PM

Hector:

Until you realize this, of course, we have few shared premises in common, and our debates can only be settled by legal compulsion.

I agree with you that on this issue "we have few shared premises in common...." I may even guess that we have almost none in common.

I abhor a moral system that commands slavery and genocide:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass

Veritatis Splendor is interesting. Most of my Anglican/Episcopalian friends have read it.

I call myself after Rahner because I find it amusing. Just an inconsequential joke.

Posted by Karl Rahner | March 18, 2008 7:13 PM

Rahner,

Actually, neither you nor I may have any idea how many principles we might share in common or not. I'm generally on the Left in politics, on many issues on the far Left.

I am a fairly heterodox Christian and I don't think that the Old Testament is inspired to the same extent as the New. While I would accept the New Testament as literal and historical truth, I believe that much of the Old Testament is simply the mythology of a desert people which like other desert people had their barbaric moments, even if at times they also heard the voice of God.

Posted by Hector | March 18, 2008 11:46 PM

It's possible that we have many principles in common, and that's why I qualified the statement with "on this issue." I too am "generally on the Left in politics, on many issues on the far Left."

Your views on scriptural inspiration seem nuanced, sophisticated and problematic. I doubt there are degrees of divine inspiration as you imply. "God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow." "I am the Lord thine God; I changeth not." How come God inspires A at time 1 and non-A at time 2? It undermines the argument that he/she is immutable.

Posted by Karl Rahner | March 19, 2008 5:27 PM