Would you accept it, truthfully and supportively, if your mother, daughter or sister chose to go into prostitution?

世界上最古老的职业吗?人们是这么说的。和某人睡觉是用词不当，因为人们不会躺在一起睡觉。请。让我们跳过人类中心主义的象征。每个人都会以这样或那样的方式为性买单。任何否认这一点的人都是傻子。这完全是一个视角的问题。

我为什么不养他们呢，珍妮?如果你不这么做，你会是个大混蛋。
You don't get to choose what your mother, sister, or daughter do.
But you can be a part of making sure they can do what they decide to do safely.
That they won't be harassed by cops.
That they'll be able to access the health and support services they need.
That they can report abuse and exploitation to the police without being treated like dirt; so that they can report the crimes against sex workers that would otherwise go unreported.
还有，你为什么只问女性家庭成员?
What about fathers, brothers, and sons?
是因为你认为男人有能力自己做决定，而女人不行吗?
And what about all the other things people may not want their mothers, sisters, or daughters to do?
What about washing toilets for minimum wage?
BDSM呢?
What if your daughter realized that she enjoyed being fucked in the ass?
Or having her face fucked until she gagged?
Would you support that?
If not does that mean it should be illigal?
回答你的问题;是的，我绝对支持他们。
My only reservations about sex work is because of the stigma against it.
I'd be worried that they would be targeted for abuse by intolerant and judgmental people.
The kind of people who hide their misogyny and sex negativity behind feminism.
But the answer to that is to promote sex worker's and indeed women's rights;
而不是将性工作定为犯罪。

Some thoughts on today's program ?
I think the points that Ken was making (and I'm not sure to what degree they are his actual positions on the issue) sum up a certain strain of Second Wave feminist argument against the sex industry that relies on the idea of "inherent disgust" and "moral intuition" and has more than a slight degree of subjectivity to it. Why is it that sex in a commercial rather than relational context is "cheapened", "degrading", etc? It seems to me that the anti-sex industry argument can't ever really get beyond its own intuitional sexual morality ? the view that since one could not imagine oneself doing such work and being anything other than disgusted and traumatized, it must be harmful for all people, or at least all women. That's a very subjective view that one needs quite a bit of additional justification to universalize.
Indeed, most of what I see said about the "telos" of sex are mere pronouncements. Statements of "ought" based in subjective moral judgements rather than remotely objective moral arguments. The claim that sex is "for" the advancement of loving "mutual" relationships and therefore sex work should be outlawed is as much of a kneejerk moral judgement as the idea that the "telos" of sex is ultimately to bond man and wife and produce children, and in turn using that as a basis to argue against rights for gay people. (And, BTW, I've heard San Francisco's new Archbishop make a variation on that argument within the last month as justification for the Church's active support of Prop 8.)
The argument that the sex industry is upheld by "disgusting males" is similarly weak. Again, so what? This seems to be a cheap appeal to the idea that female sexuality is somehow higher and more noble than male sexuality, and is a foolish basis for real social policy. (And as a "disgusting male" myself, if I was feeling less diplomatic, I'd go on at length of how contemptible I find such judgements.)
更重要的是，虽然我同意男性确实是性产业的买家，但我认为男性性工作者以大量存在这一事实的真正含义并没有在讨论中得到真正的探讨。我认为这明显破坏了关于卖淫的“父权制”观点——即男性物化女性，并把女性托付给性产业，因为男性对女性有权力。问题是，男性性工作者的存在比例与同性恋和双性恋男性人口比例成正比。“父权制”和性别权力的不对称在哪里?异性恋和同性恋之间的不对称性在哪里?当然，其他种族、年龄、收入等方面的权力差异可能仍然存在，但有太多成熟的白人男性性工作者将男性性工作简化为简单的权力差异。因此，如果性工作和“物化”确实存在于相对平等的社会中，那么“不平等”的论点会发生什么?在很多情况下，女性同样可以在与男性相对平等的环境中从事性工作，这种说法是否有些牵强?
另一方面，也许是时间的限制，权翠西没有深入探讨的一点是，如何帮助那些被迫、被困在性行业或不愿意从事性行业的人。当然，这也给了观众的提问空间，让他们自以为是地提出“性奴隶怎么办?”的论点。然而，她说的有道理，在性产业中，许多人没有发言权，相对来说没有权力。然而，提问者论点的弱点在于，它似乎对向这些人提供能让他们发声的解决方案抱有敌意，相反，它似乎更愿意让他们扮演被拯救的受害者的角色。(这种反卖淫运动与反堕胎或动物权利运动几乎属于同一类，它们同样强调拯救那些无助的受害者，让他们免受可怕的暴行。)
I think there are many ways that the pure victimization point of view fails actual victims (witness the rhetoric from some feminists that sex workers are all "brainwashed"), and there's really much more that a rights- and empowerment-based activism has to offer even the most downtrodden, but too often, sex worker rights activists don't address that area because they are forced to spend so much time defending the voluntary nature of much of sex work against naysayers.
(OK, that was more than a few thoughts.)

Seems the morality theme is continuing. I suspect someone is working on a book---but, that is only a suspicion. I think there is nothing much new to say about this issue.So, I will not try. I'll only repeat, briefly, what has been said about sexuallity for years since Kinsey and Masters and Johnson. The substance is an interpretation. The words are, I think, my own: Sexuality and sexual behaviour are among the most fundamental of human instincts. And they are, instinctual-educational and cultural influences, notwithstanding. Maslow constructed his hierarchy of needs many years ago. We can parse, examine and analyze these things until we can no longer parse, examine and analyze them. Is it all so complicated? No, not really, yet, I am sure, we will continue to parse, examine and analyze. This is how we are.

Prostitution must be a very tough way to make a living,
But if your body is all that you have to offer,
Then who am I to judge,
Or take their livelihood away.
Be One,
=

Armchair Philosopher - I'd take serious issue with the idea that there's nothing new to say about sexuality since Maslow and Masters & Johnson! A great deal has been researched or discussed in a number of sciences, in the arts, and in philosophy. And I think we've barely scratched the surface of what makes us tick sexually!

Bleah! Let's get back to philosophy, shall we? Thanks.

John and Ken (especially Ken) -- for a couple of feminist guys you really monopolized the discussion. I wish you would have let the guest talk more. She was certainly trying to, but you kept interrupting.

Long time listener first time commenter.
You sure did prove the point tonight about our male dominated patriarchal society by constantly interrupting your guest, talking over her, scolding her choices and not allowing her to answer many of the audience questions.
先生们，这概念很好地展示了。

I have never heard our moderators ignore and not allow to participate or express views less than on this podcast. That to me is Ken's patriarchal domination over their GUEST like never before. Very long time listener, never moved to blog, This was true travesty.

在我看来，珍妮提出了一个被不恰当地驳回的观点。我对珍妮观点的理解大致是这样的:如果卖淫被完全合法化，它就像其他任何正常职业一样，那么那些接受社会援助的人，作为接受援助的条件，必须接受任何提供给他们的工作，否则就会失去援助，他们将成为事实上的性奴隶。我想大多数没有被灌输到这种体系中的人会觉得这是可悲的。虽然我支持卖淫合法化，支持采取社会行动打击对强迫或自愿卖淫者的剥削，但不应该允许卖淫发展成为一种不受管制的职业。
By the way, the statement that prostitution is legal in Canada is misleading. As I understand it, the specific law against prostitution was declared unconstitutional and, in the absence of a replacement, prosecution is impossible. However, "communication for the purpose of prostitution" remains an indictable offense, seeming to serve little purpose except to facilitate police stings.

Iamcuriousblue,
我想感谢你关于女权运动反对卖淫的观点。我在听，我想在礼堂里挑战肯纯粹的女权主义动机。据我了解，在同性恋性产业中，大多数男性性工作者都是主动选择加入这个行业的。事实上，他们中的大多数人都非常喜欢这份工作。
If one wanted to solve Ken's moral feminist dilemma but legalize prostitution, the obvious solution is to legalize male prostitution. Then "disgusting" men only degrade themselves instead of women. Problem solved. But I strongly suspect Ken would reject this proposal for some "new" reason.
Overall I really liked this episode. The guest was perhaps a little dogmatic. But I really liked how John challenged Ken on his Protestant and Catholic background as influences.

You can dress it up however you like but it's sickening moral relativism to feel entitled to have a portion of society be disposable for men's use.

参考帕特里克R的评论，所有西方社会的平等主义理想使得只允许男性卖淫合法化的想法行不通。然而，自愿和非自愿卖淫之间的区别对于道德健全的解决办法至关重要。

Good points on all sides.
I think one of the real ways this could hurt women - and why I would dissuade a sister or friend - is the social stigma.
1. How does "prostitute" or "sex worker" look on a resume?
2. How would a date react if you tell him you were working as a prostitute?
这可能会给你的简历带来一些积极的影响:妓女通常非常专业，非常能掌控局面(管理)，擅长人际交往，有吸引力和魅力，有处理现金交易的经验，有时是在高压和有限的安全条件下。这是工作!所有这些似乎都表明，我们讨论的往往是高质量的人力资本。在西欧旅游城市，你可以补充说，在那里工作的东欧女孩也练就了很好的英语技能。一旦这些女士们“老了”，回到索非亚或布加勒斯特那种就业前景黯淡的地方，有没有人有商业想法去占领她们?
The more serious question is to what extent, once a woman becomes a prostitute, she can re-integrate into society. Marry, have kids. In many societies she will nonetheless be either seen as lesser than a woman who hasn't engaged in prostitution, more "used", less "moral", lower class, and looked down upon (also by prospective husbands), or a prospective husband will have trouble trusting her with monogamy. Maybe she'll revert to that profession if he gets fired from his job? Maybe she'll do so even if they have kids?
对于大多数男人来说，这些都是可怕的场景，即使他们在乌克兰三十五岁左右，想要安定下来，并且刚刚遇到了一个美丽、甜美、会多种语言、自信和有才华的女人……她向他透露，她在某个比基辅有钱的地方从事性交易，磨练了自己的才能。

Arvoasitis -
如果卖淫合法化或完全合法化，那么贫穷的妇女将被福利机构强迫在性行业工作，这种说法只是反性工作运动所延续的神话。Snopes has a very good article debunking the oft-mentioned claim that women are forced to take brothel jobs in Germany:http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp.
应该指出的是，大多数非伊斯兰国家已经有一些合法的性产业子集。即使在卖淫不合法的地方，脱衣舞、色情表演或网络摄像也经常是合法的。虽然确实有一些女性、男性和跨性别者可能出于经济上的绝望而选择从事这些工作，但没有哪个国家的福利机构会强迫人们从事这些工作。
There is *no* necessary incompatibility between full decriminalization of sex work (including prostitution) and having a society where people are not forced into the sex industry, and sex workers are offered real ways to transition out of it, if and when they decide they no longer want to do that kind of work. This is in fact what sex worker activists like Tracy Quan are calling for.