Log in

View Full Version : Good Idea or Not: Legalizing Prostitution



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12

bem401
08-07-2009, 03:17 PM
Since prostitution is legal and regulated in Nevada & Rhode Island, and they haven't spontaneously combusted (as far as I know), I think it could be a good idea IF properly executed. No forced, child or immigrant prostitution though. Only consensual, victimless buying & selling of sexual services. Tax it and improve our school & health care systems for cryin' out loud!


Be careful what you wish for regarding this, particularly if you are a dancer. I live in RI and every single dancer I have discussed this with wants to see the loophole closed because of the way it affects their careers as dancers. Less money for dancers and the presence of extras are bound to be ramifications of decriminalized prostitution.

And regarding healthcare, we have the best healthcare in the world. Its expensive but nobody leaves America to have procedures done. Its the other way around.

Almost Jaded
08-07-2009, 04:07 PM
And regarding healthcare, we have the best healthcare in the world. Its expensive but nobody leaves America to have procedures done. Its the other way around.

"We" being teh Americans that can afford it. We all know someone who's life was saved by a medical procedure or series of treatments - who will live the rest of their lives essentially destitute as a result, or people who are desperately in need of treatments that are denied them because of poor insurance or because they have none and simply cannot afford it. As it relates to dancers, very few clubs provide even cursory health care benefits; I say very few because I know of zero and benefit of the doubt says I don't know every club in merica so I'll assume that one or two out there somewhere do.

jack0177057
08-07-2009, 04:31 PM
And regarding healthcare, we have the best healthcare in the world. Its expensive but nobody leaves America to have procedures done. Its the other way around.

Not true, some people in Texas drive South to Mexico to see U.S. trained doctors and dentists to get dentistry and medical procedures done by qualified top-rated Mexican doctors that charge a fraction of what their U.S. counterparts charge.

Also, when I lived in NY, I knew senior citizens that drove up to Canada in bus loads to buy medicine there. (Same medicine as in the U.S., just a lot cheaper.)

bem401
08-07-2009, 08:32 PM
My comment had nothing to do with benefits provided by strip clubs, AJ, and anybody travelling from the US to either Mexico or Canada would only have done so if they werew covered there and not in the US. That being said, if it was an emergency, hospitals in the US do not turn away people in need of urgent care.

Almost Jaded
08-07-2009, 09:09 PM
My comment had nothing to do with benefits provided by strip clubs, AJ,

But that was a big aprt of the discussion up till now.


and anybody travelling from the US to either Mexico or Canada would only have done so if they werew covered there and not in the US.

Or if they simply couldn't afford to ssee one here. This happens a LOT.


That being said, if it was an emergency, hospitals in the US do not turn away people in need of urgent care.

LOL - I assure you, this is NOT TRUE. I've been on teh wrong end of it, I've witnessed it with other people, I've heard still more stories. "Stabilizing" someone in a life-threatening situation is VERY different than treating someone who isn't i danger of dying. Even when the danger IS present, you would apparently be (since you don't think it happens) be SHOCKED at how long they can delay, or how often they will flat pretend there is no life threatening condition. It's appalling, and it happens EVERY DAY in America.

bem401
08-07-2009, 09:19 PM
Health care is not a right. You want it, you buy it, just like I do, even though it is provided by my employer.

Anybody who thinks they'll be better cared for elsewhere should seriously consider moving there.

It's nobody's responsibility to subsidize the health care of anyone else.

Jake39
08-07-2009, 09:52 PM
I think legalization would be great (POP would go down - yea!) and many SC could be converted to more reflect what they are already doing / allowing. What I would like to see would be an SC where a guy could take the girl to a private enjoyment room where there is a bed or air mattress. Sex on air mattress is really kinky and I enjoyed this a lot with this one stripper / mistress I saw for 3 years as I got a good deal on a trailer where I could meet girls. It was so exciting laying naked with her on air mattress and seeing her sexy tats, then getting it on. What I would like to see is a special complex in either Galveston or Florida where a man could see bikini girl prostitutes with no restrictions, just individual enjoyment rooms where couples could go. I believe there would be so many women lining up to work there they would have to turn some away. It would be a sorta prostitution Disneyland where guys could solicit prostitutes and vice versa. I think a lot of students and housewives (so exciting doing them) would partake in this on a part time basis adding to the fun. I have discussed this with my ATF and she thinks its a great idea - of course why not she has two arrests for prostitution LOL. I think if it were legalized and allowed to freely operate at least in special sex enjoyment parks the POP will go down. Imagine being able to get it for $50 or $60 - one day this dream will be realized. I do think a lot of SC would be put out of business....In states like Montana where the legal age of consent is 16 I wonder if they would allow these young gals practice prostitution. Can you imagine the furor it would raise if these young gals were out in bikinis flagging down cars..... There would be all sorts of issues opened up by legalization but I think a good start would be sex enjoyment theme parks with lots of prostitutes and allowing indepent escorts to operate freely. My ATF is specially gifted and says she was built for lots of sex and does not believe in monogamy. She is a 3 min girl who will orgasm every 3 min. I think prostitution just comes natural to a lot of these gals and basically was evolution's way of spreading the gene pool around. It is natural and normal for humans to want different sex partners - unfortunately this need has been repressed by misguided individuals. My ATF is sexy young housewife who loves stripping and being my mistress. I am sure she is probably practicing some prostitution in the club. It is sick our society would try to control or repress her gift of loving to give and receive sexual pleasure.

brina182
08-07-2009, 11:32 PM
I dont not think legalizing prostitution should be legalized or ever think it will be legalized,unless Its in a llegal brothel.I like the show Cathouse pretty entertaing.

Almost Jaded
08-08-2009, 02:28 PM
Jake - I don't even know how to respond, lol. Some of what you say makes sense; some of it is... Well, duck and cover, dude...

threlayer
08-09-2009, 11:05 AM
Women promote their sexuality with clothes, makeup, facial expressions, etc. Yet when a typical man expresses his interest, they very often quickly close up and pretend they did not intend that ever was a promotion. Yet those same women promote it for capturing a mate for financial security purposes, or those in the sex industry for direct monetary gain. Selling one's sexuality for fun and profit is at least an honest thing, though I'm not very comfortable with that any more. But giving it away to attractive, safe and respectful people is lots more fun and can make for lasting friendships, but selling it is eventually just a commercial transaction devoid of anything lasting, including repeat fun.

----
at least in my experience

yoda57us
08-09-2009, 11:21 AM
And regarding healthcare, we have the best healthcare in the world. Its expensive but nobody leaves America to have procedures done. Its the other way around.

Actually BEM this is not always the case. There are thousands of people who travel overseas every year to have surgical procedures done in countries where the costs are a fraction of what they are in this country. This topic has been covered in both televised news and in the print media for a few years now. The quality of healthcare is just dandy here in the US but that doesn't mean it is not just as dandy and somewhat cheaper in other parts of the world.

I personally know two Brazillian sisters dancing in the great state of RI who have had boob jobs, tummy tucks, but jobs, lip jobs (upper and "lower"), nose jobs and thigh jobs done by going back home to Brazil. It is cheaper to fly down there, take two or three weeks off from work and get the procedures done (and done very well) than it is to have them done here in the US.

Of course, in the interest of fairness, there are, as you said, folks who come here to the US for often life-saving procedures as well.

Elvia
08-09-2009, 01:19 PM
My comment had nothing to do with benefits provided by strip clubs, AJ, and anybody travelling from the US to either Mexico or Canada would only have done so if they werew covered there and not in the US. That being said, if it was an emergency, hospitals in the US do not turn away people in need of urgent care.


This is completely false. There are many cases of people being denied treatment in an emergency due to lack of insurance.

Elvia
08-09-2009, 01:22 PM
Women promote their sexuality with clothes, makeup, facial expressions, etc. Yet when a typical man expresses his interest, they very often quickly close up and pretend they did not intend that ever was a promotion.

I've never understood this argument. Basically, it seems to suggest that unless I leave the house everyday in sweats, no makeup, and unkempt hair, I have no right to be displeased with sexual advances that strange men make towards me.

xdamage
08-09-2009, 01:50 PM
I've never understood this argument. Basically, it seems to suggest that unless I leave the house everyday in sweats, no makeup, and unkempt hair, I have no right to be displeased with sexual advances that strange men make towards me.

It is a common point of contention but also not super complex.

The situation is similar to say I go into the city well dressed, driving an expensive car with the intent that I attract women who I also find attractive. There is simply no way for me to pick and choose exactly who in society will show interest. The more wealth I exhibit, the more likely I am to attract those looking for hand outs.

I can control my mind but I simply do not have the right or entitlement to demand the whole world think in a way that pleases me. Having made the choice...

Chances are it will be some of the women I am trying to attract, and many more who I do not want the attention of including perhaps even some requests for hand outs (similar to requests for free sex). I will need some way to respond to those I am not trying to attract including ignoring, turning away, closing off, etc. These are non-confrontational ways to communicate non-interest.

People get all confused because they see it strictly from their PoV.

Sometimes those trying to attract others wish that they could wave a wand and selectively decide who will respond (the world doesn't work that way).

Sometimes those who are attracted may feel they have nothing to lose by trying and may even take some pleasure in doing so, knowing that it makes the other squirm. Sort of like, if I'm poor and someone has a lot of money, it may make me feel envious, and a bit better on some level if I can bring them down a notch (on the grounds that I may feel it was insensitive of them to wave their wealth around reminding me of my poorer state of being). And some times they are just dense and really think that the attraction signals were meant for them personally.

Elvia
08-09-2009, 01:59 PM
^^^ I would object to the assumption that putting some effort into my appearance means I'm looking to attract anyone at all. I may have a bf, or I may just not be interested in dating. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing my hair, or wearing makeup, or just generally making an effort to look nice. Because I don't feel nearly as good about myself if I just role out of bed, throw on a baggy sweatshirt and call it good. I understand men may still try to talk to me- as most women will tell you, that sometimes happens even on those days when you are looking a little slovenly. But what I object to is the attitude of "Hey, you know you went out that way looking for attention!" Uh...no.[/I]I wouldn't assume that your car is necessarily about attracting me. I would assume you just enjoy having a nice car.

xdamage
08-09-2009, 02:17 PM
^^^ I would object to the assumption that putting some effort into my appearance means I'm looking to attract anyone at all. I may have a bf, or I may just not be interested in dating. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing my hair, or wearing makeup, or just generally making an effort to look nice. Because I don't feel nearly as good about myself if I just role out of bed, throw on a baggy sweatshirt and call it good. I understand men may still try to talk to me- as most women will tell you, that sometimes happens even on those days when you are looking a little slovenly. But what I object to is the attitude of "Hey, you know you went out that way looking for attention!" Uh...no.

I know and you may not like my reply.

I think people follow a lot of instinctive patterns of behavior without being aware of them.

Because truly if there was no one else but us on the planet, we would have no sense of what it means to look nice. Who/what we are is deeply intertwined with our interactions with others.

The thing about instincts is that just as we assume animals have them without having any developed any sense of why they do them, I see people doing the same endlessly. We just aren't born with an awareness of our instincts wired into our brains because we don't need to be aware.

The brutal implication of that is people still go through attraction rituals (even if they have a mate) because on some level they are trying to be attractive to others, they get something out of it.

But you are right, you may not be looking for a new mate, so that wasn't the best example, but there are other benefits as well. Use google and search for "are attractive people treated better" - another area where socio-biologists are asking tough questions about human nature. Even if you aren't looking for a mate, people do not live in vacuums. They do get something out of how they interact with others including possibly better treatment, internal re-assurance of their own value, and more.

Pretty_Penny
08-09-2009, 02:18 PM
I'm not a prostitute, but honestly, I find the fact that one consenting adult can not pay another consenting adult for sex incredibly offensive.

I'm all about personal freedom and choices and IMO, prostitution is a victimless crime. There is no way that someone can justify it's illegality to me.

That being said, I agree that legalizing it could help keep it out of strip clubs. Why do I think that's important? Because they are SEPARATE SERVICES. Having prostitutes inside the club confuses what the industry is about. Plain and simple.

Almost Jaded
08-09-2009, 02:20 PM
Elvia - I don't think it's about no makeup and sweats; but when you're not interested in attracting attention, would you wear a micro miniskirt with a belly shirt that kept your bust in by the power of prayer - and then match it with a pair of nearly SC-appropriate heels and makeup?

And if you did, would you then be astounded and upset when you got hit on and cat called? Or even sstopped by a cop and questioned to see if you were a prostitute (actually happened to my ex wife and freind here in Vegas, lol)?

Not taking sides - trying to shine light on the gray...

Elvia
08-09-2009, 02:26 PM
^^^ I think most women here will tell you that you don't have to dress like a hoochie mama to be the recipient of inappropriate sexual attention. Most of us don't dress like that, and yet most of have experienced men hooting and making gross comments and just generally behaving like we are.

Elvia
08-09-2009, 02:36 PM
Xdamage-

I understand what you're saying, but remember,my post was in response to this:


Women promote their sexuality with clothes, makeup, facial expressions, etc. Yet when a typical man expresses his interest, they very often quickly close up and pretend they did not intend that ever was a promotion.

Yes, a man can think that perhaps and attractive woman who's put time and effort into her appearance is maybe interested in meeting men. But to continue to insist that that is the case and that she must just be "pretending" when it appears she's not interested seems to much. The assumption seems to be that women only tend to their looks to attract a mate, and that's just not true.

I once read an interesting article on the psychology behind how women dress. It said men tend to think that women are always thinking about the effect it will have on men when they get dressed. Whereas women really aren't considering that exactly. Basically, men tend to think "she's wants sex" when a woman dresses up, and women think "does this make me look nice?" Which, while related to sex appeal, isn't entirely about that.

xdamage
08-09-2009, 03:17 PM
Xdamage-

I understand what you're saying, but remember,my post was in response to this:


Yes, a man can think that perhaps and attractive woman who's put time and effort into her appearance is maybe interested in meeting men. But to continue to insist that that is the case and that she must just be "pretending" when it appears she's not interested seems to much. The assumption seems to be that women only tend to their looks to attract a mate, and that's just not true.


Agreed.

princessjas
08-09-2009, 03:53 PM
Xdamage-

I understand what you're saying, but remember,my post was in response to this:



Yes, a man can think that perhaps and attractive woman who's put time and effort into her appearance is maybe interested in meeting men. But to continue to insist that that is the case and that she must just be "pretending" when it appears she's not interested seems to much. The assumption seems to be that women only tend to their looks to attract a mate, and that's just not true.

I once read an interesting article on the psychology behind how women dress. It said men tend to think that women are always thinking about the effect it will have on men when they get dressed. Whereas women really aren't considering that exactly. Basically, men tend to think "she's wants sex" when a woman dresses up, and women think "does this make me look nice?" Which, while related to sex appeal, isn't entirely about that.

I remember an article from years ago about this. It said that most women actually dress more to impress other women than to attract men. I'm not sure what is actually behind it, but for me, it is a complex mix of making myself feel good, impressing others and maintaining a positive image at work/with friends, and yes to an extent about exuding a certain level of attractiveness. To say women only have one motivation behind any behavior shows an enormous lack of understanding of the female mind and psyche.

Almost Jaded
08-09-2009, 03:53 PM
I was using an extreme example to, as I said, illuminate the gray. I fully grok what you're saying, and I'm about 90% on your side of this topic. But I also know many women - MANY women - who know DAMN WELL the effect they're going to have with a given outfit, work for it even - and then bitch at the attention. That doesn't make the guys who call out to any woman who looks nice right, but different guys will read into different levels of appearance differently.

Say they're married to a woman who always looked amazing while they were dating who stopped making herself up the day after the wedding. Maybe they know a couple of gals like that (it's frighteningly common, actually). In their minds, any woman dressing up is seeking a mate. :shrug:

The men in that example need an argument like this as well so they understand the flaw in their perspective, but this isn't "construction worker web", LOL.

threlayer
08-09-2009, 06:31 PM
^^^ I would object to the assumption that putting some effort into my appearance means I'm looking to attract anyone at all. I may have a bf, or I may just not be interested in dating. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing my hair, or wearing makeup, or just generally making an effort to look nice....

I think you're taking what I said, or meant anyway, too far. There are many ways to dress well, but yet not 'advertise'; also to an extent it is in the 'eyes of the beholder.'

But I'll readily admit that is a serious issue for women. Following this comment...


^^^ I think most women here will tell you that you don't have to dress like a hoochie mama to be the recipient of inappropriate sexual attention. Most of us don't dress like that, and yet most of us have experienced men hooting and making gross comments and just generally behaving like we are.

And this...

...I'm about 90% on your side of this topic. But I also know many women - MANY women - who know DAMN WELL the effect they're going to have with a given outfit, work for it even - and then bitch at the attention. That doesn't make the guys who call out to any woman who looks nice right, but different guys will read into different levels of appearance differently.
Most men, even polite ones (like myself), have encountered such situations. I myself, with my optimistic and constructive attitude, attribute most such encounters to bad experiences on the woman's part, but it still smarts. I learned years ago to keep my polite comments to myself or only to women who already know me pretty well. That includes strippers.

threlayer
08-09-2009, 10:15 PM
I'm not a prostitute, but honestly, I find the fact that one consenting adult can not pay another consenting adult for sex incredibly offensive....Most, but not all, women I've encountered of all knowledgable ages, but outside of the stripping or harder core sex industry, regard exchanging money (in any form) for sex as degrading to themselves. That is because they regard sex is something intimate and fun between people having some degree of mutual respect, at least. Putting money into that relationship (of whatever kind) greatly lessens that respect because the sexual activity then becomes only a secondary motive, whether explicitly stated or hidden.

Though that's an understandable principle, many women would gladly exchange an exciting sexual, and maybe loving, relationship with a person of little future prospects for a comfortable upper middle class life involving only an adequate sex and love life.

This sort of leaves many men confused and just looking for what they can get out of a relationship

jack0177057
08-10-2009, 08:41 AM
I was using an extreme example to, as I said, illuminate the gray. I fully grok what you're saying, and I'm about 90% on your side of this topic. But I also know many women - MANY women - who know DAMN WELL the effect they're going to have with a given outfit, work for it even - and then bitch at the attention. That doesn't make the guys who call out to any woman who looks nice right, but different guys will read into different levels of appearance differently.

I think women need to look beautiful and sexy for their self-esteem. We have images of sexy beautiful woman all around us in tv commercials, billboards, magazine and billboard ads, etc. So regular women want to be able to look in the mirror and look at least a little like the women on those images. Also, women have the age issue - they know that their looks are fleeting and begin to decline after mid-30s. (Men's do also, but its not so much of an issue for us because looks are less important in males and other attributes compensate for aging in males, like experience, wisdom and financial power). Put all these things together and you have a lot of pressure to look beautiful and sexy, even if a woman is not looking for a mate. It could be completely internal and have nothing to do with attracting guys. On the other hand, male attention is always the best validation for a woman, and I think even happily-married women enjoy getting some - if subtle, respectful and non-obtrusive...

Having said that, people will always be judged based on their choice of clothes,... that's a fact... I might be equally attracted to two women - one is dressed in classy sexy clothes and the other is dressed in slutty sexy clothes. My assumptions, expectations and approach for each of them will be different.

Pretty_Penny
08-10-2009, 10:27 AM
^^^ I think most women here will tell you that you don't have to dress like a hoochie mama to be the recipient of inappropriate sexual attention. Most of us don't dress like that, and yet most of have experienced men hooting and making gross comments and just generally behaving like we are.

Exactly. I've had that shit happen when I'm in a baggy tshirt, jeans, no make-up, and pumping gas or something.

Although (a little off topic) I gotta admit... the most weird in-public stares/whistles/etc I ever got from men was one day after I left work and went to the grocery store. I kept thinking "WTF am I desperate-dick magnet tonight or what?" I mean, I -was- wearing make-up and whatever.. but I had on jeans and a tank top. Hardly "trashy". One guy even did the "yo baby, how you doooiiinnn??" thing.

It wasn't until I got home that I realized I'd left my bright neon yellow thong on and that the back and one side was a good 2 inches above my jeans.

Awesome.

bem401
08-11-2009, 07:09 AM
I personally know two Brazillian sisters dancing in the great state of RI who have had boob jobs, tummy tucks, but jobs, lip jobs (upper and "lower"), nose jobs and thigh jobs done by going back home to Brazil. It is cheaper to fly down there, take two or three weeks off from work and get the procedures done (and done very well) than it is to have them done here in the US.

I was referring to non-elective procedures, not cosmetic procedures which are virtually never covered by insurance. I doubt many people are travelling out of the US for heart surgeries and the like.

JayATee
08-11-2009, 11:53 AM
Women promote their sexuality with clothes, makeup, facial expressions, etc. Yet when a typical man expresses his interest, they very often quickly close up and pretend they did not intend that ever was a promotion. Yet those same women promote it for capturing a mate for financial security purposes, or those in the sex industry for direct monetary gain. Selling one's sexuality for fun and profit is at least an honest thing, though I'm not very comfortable with that any more. But giving it away to attractive, safe and respectful people is lots more fun and can make for lasting friendships, but selling it is eventually just a commercial transaction devoid of anything lasting, including repeat fun.

----
at least in my experience

Anytime anyone says something like this I automatically think that they must be bitter that women don't appreciate their advances so they project fault on the woman.

To me, this is like saying that Im asking to be raped when I go running because Im wearing a sports bra and tight shorts and it's making guys look at me.

yoda57us
08-11-2009, 12:17 PM
I was referring to non-elective procedures, not cosmetic procedures which are virtually never covered by insurance. I doubt many people are travelling out of the US for heart surgeries and the like.


Bem, you chose a personal anecdote that I placed at the end of my post to sum up my entire post. I know better than to make that my only point.
I suggest that you actually do a little research before you continue on insisting that the US is the only place in the free world where good medical care exists.

http://www.seattlepi.com/health/278630_medtour24.html

I'm not suggesting that anyone would book a vacation to France if they needed emergency bypass surgery but there are folks who do not have medical coverage who ARE taking advantage of lower fees for many non-elective surgical procedeures. The link above is just one of dozens. In addition I have seen news reports as recently as this week covering the same topic.

Hey, I have insurance and I live in one of the medical research capitols of the US. I'm not going anywere but right here for my medical care. Everyone is not so fortunate.

threlayer
08-11-2009, 03:12 PM
Anytime anyone says something like this I automatically think that they must be bitter that women don't appreciate their advances so they project fault on the woman.

I'm telling you what I've seen many times, over many years, in many situations not even involving me. You're telling me what you feel about what I've written

For what it is worth, I am not bitter; I'm not even involved; so I can be objective.


To me, this is like saying that Im asking to be raped when I go running because Im wearing a sports bra and tight shorts and it's making guys look at me. No, different situation. You're being a bit extreme IMO.

JayATee
08-11-2009, 09:16 PM
No, different situation. You're being a bit extreme IMO.

Of course it's a different situation, but it's the same concept, extreme or not.

xdamage
08-11-2009, 11:21 PM
So everyone should read Steve Pinker's "The Blank Slate : The Modern Denial of Human Nature - if it was up to me it would be required reading for EVERYONE.

At one point in the past we attributed every difference between men and women to nature; now our society has gone and done the extreme pendulum swing the other way.

Let me say it like this. Chickens feel better when they sit on eggs. That right there is the essence of instinct. Put another way, chickens who had feelings to sit on their eggs survived better (I lie, not really but the point is correct) and passed those feelings on via brain wiring.

My cat, like me, has feelings to eat when hungry; he gets sexually turned on when other cats engage in certain behaviors; he gets angry. He doesn't understand anatomy and physiology but survival doesn't require it either. Whatever works, works, and feelings that work survive in the gene pool.

The essence of instinct is feelings that work. It is a 100% luxury to have conscious awareness of instincts, to understand why it works, to have an intellect. Whatever works, works.

I do agree that chances are women often are unaware of trying to consciously attract males, but that instinct to change their behaviors when in public doesn't require them to be aware of why. Beavers go through damn building behaviors even in laboratories because that is how theiir brains are wired; they need not know why, just they do it.

The other thing is it has gotten to be ridiculous. Humans are apologizing for feeling. My cat does the whole in-heat thing; yet no apologies for it. His mind is at least more coherent then most humans that deny their instinctive drives.

Back to the key point... I do agree women often do not consciously change their behavior to try and attract new mates but that doesn't preclude doing it out of instinct, with no more awareness then animals. Every instinct has two components... the feelings that work, and the behaviors it leads to which statistically increases the odds of the genes surviving. I have sex for me because of the feelings, just like my cat has feelings, but that works because those who do so are more likely to reproduce and pass on their genes.

Bottom line... both things are true... women don't consciously seek out new mates but they instinctively engage in behaviors to improve their sexual desirability; men instinctively respond. One day hopefully this extreme view that humans have no nature, no instinct, will pass. Instinct is not an excuse to behave badly, but not facing the truth about ourselves, our true nature, is causing endless more problems for our society and people. It is incredibly unhealthy and sort of like if we wish really hard and lie to ourselves about what we are it will come true - it doesn't work that way.

xdamage
08-11-2009, 11:52 PM
p.s. One thing that is additionally concerning is the current generations use of yelling "witch burn them" that results in Pinker spending nearly 75% of his book making logical appeals too.

The logic goes like this -

"Some women experience postpartum depression" (a fact about human nature) to which the current generation responds with "So you are saying it is okay for women to murder their kids?" The leap in logic is absolutely terrifying and reminiscent of why humans are capable of massive evil, including movements like the Nazi movement, which works because of pure appeal to emotions at the most basic level, yet... of course nobody actually thinks that facing that postpartum depression exists (fact about human nature) actually means it is an excuse to murder one's own children.... but the emotional appeal is so strong that the logic is lost. Scary. Well humans are scary because they are capable of both being extremely brilliant and yet.. so readily willing to believe in anything no matter how nonsensical.

bem401
08-12-2009, 06:24 AM
Bem, you chose a personal anecdote that I placed at the end of my post to sum up my entire post. I know better than to make that my only point.
I suggest that you actually do a little research before you continue on insisting that the US is the only place in the free world where good medical care exists.


Where did I insist this? I merely wrote that Americans are not traveling overseas for essential ( life-saving ) medical procedures. Your article didn't disprove that. It mentioned Americans going for a deviated septum and a colanoscopy, and other unidentified people from who-knows-where going for more serious procedures. I am sure there are some who have traveled abroad for medical care but my guess is that number is statistically insignificant.

threlayer
08-14-2009, 08:00 AM
Xdamage, you could have written about the instincts of males. I find these more questionable, and in some cases actually nefarious.

xdamage
08-14-2009, 01:04 PM
Xdamage, you could have written about the instincts of males. I find these more questionable, and in some cases actually nefarious.

In animal populations they often are though it is complicated. Since nobody blames animals for being aggressive it is complex when we judge humans for aggression, but in a way a judgment is not needed either. I don't judge wild animals for their instincts but I don't trust them either. I say it doesn't matter because it doesn't affect how I respond. With or without judgment my response is the very same.

The way I see it, our animal instincts are regulated by social training but not everyone learns equally well. When all else fails we have a system of restraints and punishment for those who can't restrain themselves, but I do think people need be realistic too. I don't personally believe people are born angels (or demons) but like animals they are potentially dangerous. Societies can improve the odds, but the danger remains as long as our DNA contains the same codes as wild animals.

threlayer
08-14-2009, 02:31 PM
Because tigers or baboons or gorillas or bonobos behave in certain ways, apparently acceptable in their societies, that does not give humans any such equivalent rights, even in pre-history.

I think the most important area is how people behave considering acceptable behavior norms. I suppose some people are never taught that and some are just too aggressive / rebellious / angry / independent to accept them. And when they misbehave in ways over a limit, society reacts (thru police or other ostracism).

In spite of this, there are extreme variations in behavior in men seeing a woman. If there is a woman, not provocatively dressed at all, some guys will act on their imaginations, because it directly reminds him of something sexual. If a guy sees another woman, still not provocatively dressed but her breast shape or rear-end shape not disguised, probably more guys will respond. This keeps on progressing in an obvious way. But some women will never excite men, almost regardless of their exposure. And some men will not overtly act out on their imaginations. Of course the genuinely homosexual ones may well be exceptions to this rule of thumb. The rules of attraction are very complex and the ensuing behavior is also complex.

xdamage
08-14-2009, 03:43 PM
Because tigers or baboons or gorillas or bonobos behave in certain ways, apparently acceptable in their societies, that does not give humans any such equivalent rights, even in pre-history.

Right smites. I don't believe in any God or Rights. I do believe we can collectively agree as a society how should treat each other and try to each other that, but societies are fragile. I think it is a serious flaw of our society that we don't realize how fragile our society is (yet another point of entitlement) and that even a small catastrophe (remember hurricane katrina) can have people rapidly falling back on basic primitive (and aggressive) survival patterns.

It is up to us to teach people how we want each other to behave and it starts over again with every new person born because their fundamental nature is really no different then the animals.

p.s. and if you really want to see human nature at it's finest, try not teaching your kids right from wrong for many many years; take away LE and put people in stressful situations and watch what happens. It's not pretty. It might be possible to change human nature, to genetically weed out much of the aggression but that just won't happen. It would require aggressive males stop breeding and yet the problem is those same males invariably have children ; aggression is not always a bad trait. In survival situations and stressful times it can be quite attractive, which is why it is a trait that remains strong in the gene pool. Sort of like owning a guard dog. Nobody wants a guard dog to turn on them or their families but they are comforting to have around as long as they are on your side, and you know that there are others around you that might be aggressive. It is why pacifism fails. Even if you agree among yourselves to be pure pacifists, it depends on all of your neighbors doing so too; it only takes one to decide to be an aggressor and force the hand of all others too. I.e., Aggression survives in the gene pool because it works. Nobody said evolution or nature is kind (or cares about our rights). Our rights exist because we have to constantly work to keep them alive - that can be done without viewing humans are fundamental angels (or demons), just they are essentially survivors.

threlayer
08-15-2009, 06:33 AM
Did you read "Lord of the Flies" ?

xdamage
08-15-2009, 10:40 PM
Did you read "Lord of the Flies" ?

No (well yes, but long ago), but I read quite a lot of Dawkins and enough Darwin to see a picture painted of survival of the fittest that is pretty much that, survival, a lot of competition, on very rare occasion some cooperation, but in the larger picture, to compete.

Besides, if you find yourself enjoying a meal of meat, wearing a pair of shoes made of leather, benefiting from medicines made of cultivated animal extracts, swatted a bug recently, or even just enjoy goods made for pennies a day in some other part of the world, well... welcome to exactly why aggression works. These are all forms of aggression we hardly even think about because we have such the large upper hand.

We think about ourselves mostly, even at the expense of others of our own kind and certainly any other creatures not like us. But even among our own kind, even those of a different tribe, race, sex, are often candidates to aggress against if it will move us ahead. Men aggress directly, women often more indirectly by choosing mates who are aggressive (not all, but enough to keep those types of males alive, well, and adding to the gene pool).

It takes an incredible amount of social training to teach people the concept of compassion for others not like us. Some people do seem to feel it more then others, maybe some true feelings of altruism, but it is not something we are born with in spades.

And yea I know all about little kids... and babies... how they are seemingly less agressive (though often selfish). But just like I don't expect them to commit all out war when their cells are split into 2, it takes time, but as their hormones change, as their bodies finish maturing, people are not inherintly angels. They are just as capable of aggression as any other animal lacking social training to reign it in.

Like I said, everyone should read the Blank Slate : The Modern Denial of Human Nature no matter how much it pisses them off. The whole notion that people are inheritly good, that all that is bad can be blamed on the Devil, or on Society (which is just us people) is sad. We honestly believe that if we face our own nature head on, see the ugly side, that we will use it as an excuse to act badly. That simply is false.

It is false in the same way that it is false to say that if women learned that it is normal, instinctive, to enjoy sex, that they will use that as an excuse to act irresponsibly.

But it takes people a lot to get past that and only then, if they can do that, can they see why it is simply not true. That nothing changes. That just like Aetheists have morals (no matter how fearful the religious were that Aetheism would result in a world of no morals), that we humans will strive for improving human rights even if we learn that our nature is really no different then the animals.

Cyril
08-15-2009, 10:50 PM
It takes an incredible amount of social training to teach people the concept of compassion for others not like us. Some people do seem to feel it more then others, maybe some true feelings of altruism, but it is not something we are born with in spades.

I disagree with you very STRONGLY. I have seen numerous people who sacrifice their own well being for the sake of others on a daily basis. I think you are hanging out with the wrong kind of people, who probably mistake altruism for stupidity.

threlayer
08-15-2009, 10:58 PM
We think about ourselves mostly, even at the expense of others of our own kind and certainly any other creatures not like us. But even among our own kind, even those of a different tribe, race, sex, are often candidates to aggress against if it will move us ahead. Men aggress directly, women often more indirectly by choosing mates who are aggressive (not all, but enough to keep those types of males alive, well, and adding to the gene pool).

It takes an incredible amount of social training to teach people the concept of compassion for others not like us. Some people do seem to feel it more then others, maybe some true feelings of altruism, but it is not something we are born with in spades.


Funny that we are so interdependent for vital items like food, shelter, protection, healthcare, transportation and yet we can be so uncompassionate. I think in small communities that is not the case, particularly when people know they have to depend on others for some basic needs. In larger communities of when services or items can be only be obtained from multiple sources competition (and aggressiveness in some) makes itself known.

xdamage
08-15-2009, 11:04 PM
I disagree with you very STRONGLY. I have seen numerous people who sacrifice their own well being for the sake of others on a daily basis. I think you are hanging out with the wrong kind of people, who probably mistake altruism for stupidity.

And since you believe I am wrong, it makes me even more sure that people like Pinker, Dawkins, Darwin, and so many more people who I admire greatly for taking the risk and asking what is our real human nature, are in fact correct!

Also you apparently do not know how to read. Yes, you've met people who have been heavily socially trained to overcome their animal nature. I also saw some Tigers once who can jump through hoops and do other various tricks as a result of a LOT of training, punishment for undesirable behavior, rewards for desired behavior. Doesn't mean I think Tigers are inherently Disney characters whose nature is sweet and kind. Like I said, that you believe I am wrong makes me even more sure I am right.

Cyril
08-15-2009, 11:08 PM
And since you believe I am wrong, it makes me even more sure that people like Pinker, Dawkins, Darwin, and so many more people who I admire greatly for taking the risk and asking what is our real human nature, are in fact correct!

Also you apparently do not know how to read. Yes, you've met people who have been heavily socially trained to overcome their animal nature. I also saw some Tigers once who can jump through hoops and do other various tricks as a result of a LOT of training, punishment for undesirable behavior, rewards for desired behavior. Doesn't mean I think Tigers are inherently Disney characters whose nature is sweet and kind. Like I said, that you believe I am wrong makes me even more sure I am right.

Darwin talks about evolution. Our transformation, from acting like savage animals to acting like compassionate humans is a testament to his theory of evolution. So, please do not hide behind Darwin.

xdamage
08-15-2009, 11:17 PM
Funny that we are so interdependent for vital items like food, shelter, protection, healthcare, transportation and yet we can be so uncompassionate.

People (and animals) do seem to be able to cooperate to some degree when it benefits them.

And that is of course what drives our desire for human rights. In theory if we can all agree, to treat each other fairly, we can all benefit. Good enough. It's just that it only takes one to screw things up; one aggressor and so it makes becoming overly trusting/pacifistic dangerous. Without checks and balances we have a way of abusing power.

Just group cooperation it is still done because we are benefiting, not out of some altruism for everyone else (though it strokes our egos to believe so and that too is another kind of self-centerdness where we benefit from believing we are especially kind).

When you are really being altruistic is when you do something like the following:

Agree to work for $1 an hour, so that others in another country can enjoy a better life then you because you enjoy seeing them live a fruitful life you know you can't both enjoy, but feel someone should.

Then you're showing something like true altruism, but if you are simply trying to make an arrangement where you and the other have about an equal share of the resources, that is just self-centered survival strategy like any other.

Not that we are use to thinking of ourselves in that way. It doesn't make us feel good and again we worry that if we faced our not so bright side that the world will fall apart, but it won't. In the end it is still best if you, I and others can come to some type of arrangement where we all live in peace, but having said that, does that include all the animals on the earth as well? Does it include those whose lands are being deforested? Those who are earning less then us in other countries for the same work? Or does the arrangement we make between us depend on some other living beings receiving the short end of the stick so you and I can live better? Cause if so that is just plain old symbiotic aggression.

xdamage
08-15-2009, 11:18 PM
Darwin talks about evolution. Our transformation, from acting like savage animals to acting like compassionate humans is a testament to his theory of evolution. So, please do not hide behind Darwin.

Incorrect! Cyril talks about romantic notions like transforming into compassionate human beings. Darwin and others in the field do not. The Tiger who survives by becoming stronger and killing other animals more effectively is every bit as evolved as any other survival strategy that works. Please do not hide behind ignorance.

Cyril
08-15-2009, 11:23 PM
Incorrect! Cyril talks about romantic notions like transforming into compassionate human beings. Darwin and others in the field do not. The Tiger who survives by becoming stronger and killing other animals more effectively is every bit as evolved as any other survival strategy that works. Please do not hide behind ignorance.

Nope. You are reading it wrong. I said an evolution has occurred where humans have started to think in terms of altruism which is a testament to Darwin's theory of evolution. Try to understand the difference before spouting your mouth and calling names. It is your own inability which fails to see the underlying subtlety here.

xdamage
08-15-2009, 11:38 PM
Nope. You are reading it wrong. I said an evolution has occurred where humans have started to think in terms of altruism which is a testament to Darwin's theory of evolution. Try to understand the difference before spouting your mouth and calling names. It is your own inability which fails to see the underlying subtlety here.

Again, incorrect.

People much more knowledgeable then you have shown that the altruism you think you see is an illusion; that the genes have survival agendas that are much greater in scope then individuals (e.g., Beavers build dams together so that the common genes they share will survive, so that they can compete against others so that the genes as a whole are sustained and competing to get better across all species). But since even fish, insects, and simpler cells organisms do so, apparently cooperate, in a race for survival, sometimes sacrificing individuals for the group, humans are hardly unique in this regard.

Don't even bother trying to convince me you see something that new in this field. You're spouting Cyrilisms the equivalent of your beliefs that most women are whores and pussy should be free - yes I know these are all "popular" beliefs, but it doesn't mean they are exceptionally brilliant beliefs, nor does it mean they are an honest truthful view of the world. Just more beliefs that benefit yourself.

Cyril
08-15-2009, 11:51 PM
Again, incorrect.

People much more knowledgeable then you have shown that the altruism you think you see is an illusion; that the genes have survival agendas that are much greater in scope then individuals (e.g., Beavers build dams together so that the common genes they share will survive, so that they can compete against others so that the genes as a whole are sustained and competing to get better across all species). But since even fish, insects, and simpler cells organisms do so, apparently cooperate, in a race for survival, sometimes sacrificing individuals for the group, humans are hardly unique in this regard.

Don't even bother trying to convince me you see something that new in this field. You're spouting Cyrilisms the equivalent of your beliefs that most women are whores and pussy should be free - yes I know these are all "popular" beliefs, but it doesn't mean they are exceptionally brilliant beliefs, nor does it mean they are an honest truthful view of the world. Just more beliefs that benefit yourself.

Now you are hiding behind the Beaver.

“Beaver building the dam” argument is pointless because I am not denying survival of the fittest. We all read that stuff in school. You are not breaking any news here.

I am simply pointing out the latest trend in human evolution – altruism. There are people who truly sacrifice their well being for others on a daily basis. There are some people who are born that way and there are some who are not born that way.

Someone who claims to be so wise should know this.