No Ground Beneath Their Feet

``From this it would seem that the boys find security in what is expected of them and the girls in what they expect. ``

Very important observation. Most violence and aggression, lack of sensitivity comes from the assumption that women are /ought to be passive.

Men do and women are done.

Aisha Sarwari

Re #76.
OK. I see your point. Let`s just agree to disagree on the legalization issue.

Re: # 77 by Khurram.

Done.

By the way, it was very nice having this conversation with you. Hopefully, over time, we get to know each other. In that case it will be nice to have a beer with you.

Re #74,

Sometimes coercive criminal acts (theft, robbery) can also be ``least ethically wrong`` choice. That is not an argument for thier legalization. Society has to work to correct such situations, not accept them.

Re: # 75 by Khurram

Sure. But again there is already a market there. The price that you have to pay for a crime is the bribe that you pay the authorities. If you want to reduce crime you can surely increase punishments. But how about monopolizing the `authority`. That way bribes are very high and crimes low as compared to a situation with ``competitive authority`` where bribes are small and crime high.

Khurram, do not get me wrong. I think we agree to a large extent. Furthermore, I am ethically averse to the `trades` we are talking about here. I am also stretching things a lot to get my point across. However, I want you to see the other side of the picture too. Cigarettes are bad, but there is a market coupled with collective action in terms of dissipating information. As a result, in countries where collective action is strong we have a decline in smoking. As the same time smokers like me do not have to stop smoking and go off our bonkers :-) I do not want society to stop me from smoking. Yes, because of campaigns, I am aware of its bad consequence on me and I am trying to stop on my own free will.

Re # 72 by GT

Thanks for a very thoughtful reply. I think there are 2 related issues that should not be confused. First, should some things be excluded from designation as private property? I think there is a consensus in most societies that our body parts,our children , our liberty and our sexualty are not to be traded as commodities. You have not really argued against such an exclusion. You have considered the 2nd issue, which is what happens when these exclusions are violated. You have correctly identified the root cause as the failure of collective action by society to provide a safety net to the individuals who resort to selling themselves. Legalization, for you, is a practical solution because it partially relieves the suffering of the victim i.e. the seller. But it also gives the buyer a free hand to create a market where the vulnerable can be exploited. That is why I prefer the Swedish approach. Selling is decriminalized, giving relief to the seller. The buyer is punished for his role in creating the market. And, society as a whole tries to correct it`s failure by allocating funds and efforts to rehabilitate the victim. And as for the practical side of it, the approach seems to be successful in its goals.

Simple legalization would be an abdication of responsibility for creating the conditions in the first place. Also, once you legalize prostitution you would be on the slippery slope to legalizing much else that is considered beyond private property.

Re: # 73 by Khurram,

You are right, I have not argued against certain exclusions. However, I have highlighted a paradox regarding ethics imposed by a society with heterogenous constituents. It is as follows: How can a society select on the behalf of an individual when all the options facing the individual are considered to be ethically wrong? The individual, by himself, can make such a choice - he choses that which is the least ethically wrong. But the society cannot! This is because the constituents of the society would have different ethical rankings over the options. But if we are to leave individuals to make the choice then, under certain conditions, we know that welfare will be optimized (in a certain sense) under markets.

#62, I have heard it called many things, but never a tomatoe. Apparently, Punoos have their own unique vocabulary. :)

Re: # 63
Salim
A tomatoe is a toe that is given to a tom, from the olde Englyshe law , a tom, a toe. I do not know if a toe is given to a tabby.

I also really like the Swedish social democratic solution to the problem of prostitution:

``One is allowed to sell the tomatoes, but others are not allowed to buy them``


(scratching head)

I have a question:

Is slum prostitution and its implications much different from other inhuman physical labour such as running a cycle-rickshaw? And Why? Is it because labour of the private parts is immoral while labour of the lungs is not?

Just a silly question since I`m curious. If the issue is being dissected, let`s dissect the tissue.

Swarrier?

Re: # 58
Zeemax
I wouldn`t think so. I mean both professions are really resorted to only to put food on the table so to speak in most cases.

However it is a good comparison. I was going to write that cycle-rickshaw pulling, in fact one step worse rickshaw-pulling should be abolished, when I saw the parallels. How could you take away the perhaps the only bread-winning way that is open to some people? I mean, what right does the state or society have, to do something like this without providing an alternate means of existence.

The one single difference in terms of controlling prostitution would be for the health benefits alone. A rickshaw puller puts, to a large extent, only his own health at risk (lets forget contagious diseases TB etc for the moment). A prostitute , male or female can pose a lot of health risks to society. That would be perhaps the only point where I would differentiate between the two.
I cannot moralise on professions. Who knows what any of us would do to live, to survive, to eat?

Nasah
You are right. But the logistics of such an operation in a country such as India will be quite overwhelming. I think the children would benefit, especially if the mothers or even fathers were allowed to visit.

Re: # 60

``But the logistics of such an operation in a country such as India will be quite overwhelming.``(Swarrier)

now that is another matter -- can India and Pakistan afford it? -- do they have money to spend on social services? -- the bane of civilized living.

yes they can --

if they can afford those good for nothin Nukes -- the Maharajas White Elephant and the missiles -- they can afford the logistics of a MUST social services system for the protection of women and their children from all kinds of abuse -- not only of sex workers children but children of all families all classes....

the question is what are India`s and Pakistan`s urgent priorities -- building roads. building schools improving rural and urban health, fighting AID, an all encompassing department of social services with power to prosecute -- to prevent social and economic abuse....?

or to build Nukes?

social services do requires money and lots of money -- but this money spent is worth the effort -- because it creates millions of jobs and provides a civilized humane clean living for the men women, children and elderly of the impoverished subcontinent.....

what purpose those goddam nukes serve -- except rotting in the sun or degrading in the silos for years and then becoming obsolete....the immoral unconscionable sinkholes of our subcontinent`s precious and scarce financial resources.....?

well I know the answer is security security -- but not the security of the sex workers children....that has to wait -- then what`s the use of talking about it....

Re: # 61

Nasah, I see where you are going, and this is something most of us have looked at, at some time or other . However it will not be considered practical. I do not know of any nation that has scaled back it`s defence expenditure unless it is under the umbrella of a much larger protector.

Neither India nor Pakistan will do it. When China exploded it`s first nuclear device in exchange for the death of around 30 million Chinese peasants it set into motion the nuclear fiasco. All our nascent nations have one thing in common. Deep rooted suspicion and distrust of each other. So forget abandoning the arms race.

Secondly if the government actively steps into this social service scheme you can bet that it will grind to a shuddering halt. The social services scheme even in the US is nowhere as good as in Scandinavia, and they are always short of money. In a large disparate nation like India it will be far more difficult to reinforce such a scheme. If anybody has to step up it is the social service organisations and the people on the street corner who must support them. Here I will agree with GT, if there is no grass roots involvement the government will be of no use. It will become another sick PSU. And I think a lot of our public are still too medieval in their thoughts to support this scheme. But in time and with more compassion ... who knows.

Our nuclear elephants are there to stay. Now I would take far more pride in the Konkan railway project. Or in the Jabalpur protheses, or the artificial heart valves made in Trivandrum . However these did not make half the news story that the bombs did.

Re: # 64

swarrier -- I know -- as Faiz would say -- youN nu thaa maiN nay fuqut chaaha thaa youN ho jaaye

Re: # 66
What does ``fuqut`` mean? My knowledge of Urdu leaves much to be desired.