tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7192791585245093002.post909592711185713897..comments2019-03-18T23:17:32.255-07:00Comments on True Feminism: Prostitution Alternatives Part 1Saviahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05003640516890793019noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7192791585245093002.post-57251414369657691712010-10-03T09:08:05.709-07:002010-10-03T09:08:05.709-07:00St. Ursula,
Yes, this is a sad thing in Ontario, ...St. Ursula,<br /><br />Yes, this is a sad thing in Ontario, and we don't even have high street prostitution to begin with. The Supreme court has put this on hold, because it is being appealed. I am also trying to get in touch with people who could shed some more light on this for me.Saviahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05003640516890793019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7192791585245093002.post-24334360331050610082010-10-02T13:53:37.314-07:002010-10-02T13:53:37.314-07:00Savia,
I just saw this headline today. It looks ...Savia,<br /><br />I just saw this headline today. It looks like things are going Port's way:<br /><br /><i><b> Canada's Slide into Darkness </b></i><br /><br /><i>Pro-family groups are decrying Tuesday’s Ontario court decision that struck down Canada’s prostitution laws, warning that the ruling empowers pimps and human traffickers and threatens to usher in a Canadian sex tourism industry.<br /><br />“The decision reinforces the notion that sex is not an intimate and loving act but instead a commodity that can be bought and sold at will,” said Ruth Ross, executive director and general legal counsel for the Christian Legal Fellowship.<br /></i><br />Ruth Ross certainly has her finger on the pulse. It almost reminds me of a time when those tasked with speaking publicly for the Catholic Church knew how to make clear moral distinctions.<br /><br />http://preview.tinyurl.com/37hhlmaSt. Ursulanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7192791585245093002.post-83102807652598378332010-09-30T16:40:08.345-07:002010-09-30T16:40:08.345-07:00"So what is the objective basis she uses when..."So what is the objective basis she uses when characterizing one activity legitimate and another deeply wrong?"<br /><br /><br />Excellent question St. Ursula. Most people say that one is legal and the other is not. Or that as long as you're not hurting someone that's okay. It's a Libertarian argument that I have seen used often.Saviahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05003640516890793019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7192791585245093002.post-70296283135003786182010-09-26T09:58:46.252-07:002010-09-26T09:58:46.252-07:00We don’t see this as a moral issue, what two conse...<i> We don’t see this as a moral issue, what two consenting adults do sexually together whether it’s for money or not is between the two of them,</i><br /><br />Savvy,<br /><br />I found this interview interesting. Porter seems to take the view that any sexual activity between two adults cannot be immoral so long as it is consensual. Applying this view to, say, a college campus situation, Porter would take the view that college students who have multiple sexual partners are doing nothing immoral so long as those "encounters" are all consensual. Yet we know that the long-term emotional and psychological effects of such activity is deeply damaging to human beings, especially to young women.<br /><br />I don't question that Porter thinks she is somehow helping women, but it seems to me that she has arbitrarily deemed certain activities "legitimate choices" and others "wrong" using a very arbitrary methodology. For instance, if one of her clients said she "felt like" going home and abusing her children would Porter approve of that as a "free choice?" No. She would see that as immoral and criminal. So what is the objective basis she uses when characterizing one activity legitimate and another deeply wrong?<br /><br />If an 18-year old "consents" to sexual activity for money is that OK in her book? What about a 17-year old? A 16-year old? An 18-year old who was herself abused as a child? <br /><br />And what about pornography? Are 25-year olds who participate in the pornography industry which we know contributes to violence against women and children engaging in legitimate, morally neutral activity if they do this freely?<br /><br />You see the problem here.<br /><br />I had to walk away from the greater feminist community when I started coming across this kind of self-contradictory reasoning that led to nothing but more and more confusion.<br /><br />I am being a bit harsh here, but in this instance I think harshness is warranted.<br /><br />St. UrsulaSt. Ursulanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7192791585245093002.post-7971489040456897652010-09-17T13:32:53.107-07:002010-09-17T13:32:53.107-07:00Thanks so much JD. I do appreciate it.Thanks so much JD. I do appreciate it.Saviahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05003640516890793019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7192791585245093002.post-81371534325755979242010-09-17T09:59:06.286-07:002010-09-17T09:59:06.286-07:00Savia,
You are doing a phenomenal job with this ...Savia,<br /><br /> You are doing a phenomenal job with this blog! When you originally described to me the purpose you had in mind, I thought that it might take some time to build a forum discussing such variant issues. From the interviews to articles you have produced, the quality of what you are doing here is amazing.JDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04920090468134075271noreply@blogger.com