I was thinking about the “Prostitution” thread the other day (I’m always thinking, you know - it’s amazing) and a thought occured to me. But to be honest I’m not entirely sure what to make of it. So I will tell you. In our world, more often than not, people must resort to unattractive sources of income, e.g. manual labourers, who earn our sympathy. But when people resort to unattractive sources of companionship, say the customers of prostitutes, they earn our contempt.
Maybe that means we should rethink at least one of those attitudes. Should we?
Stand upright, speak thy thought, declare,
The truth thou hast that all may share,
Be bold, proclaim it everywhere,
They only live who dare.
[quote]
Originally posted by Renaissance:
**I was thinking about the .......In our world, more often than not, people must resort to unattractive sources of income, e.g. manual labourers, who earn our sympathy. But when people resort to unattractive sources of companionship, say the customers of prostitutes, they earn our contempt.
Maybe that means we should rethink at least one of those attitudes. Should we?
**
[/quote]
I am curious what makes you think that manual labor is an unattractive source of income.
Secondly, I think you will agree with me that its the "champions" that have the means; and those who have the means usually control actions and hence the consequences.
I do not mean to condone those who become the tools of people who have the means either.
I am curious what makes you think that manual labor is an unattractive source of income.
[/quote]
Apologies. I should have pointed out that I was thinking in relative terms. Allow me to rephrase the question again.
In our world, more often than not, people must resort to relatively unattractive sources of income, e.g. manual labourers, who earn our sympathy. But when people resort to relatively unattractive sources of companionship, say the customers of prostitutes, they earn our contempt.
Maybe that means we should rethink at least one of those attitudes.
Stand upright, speak thy thought, declare,
The truth thou hast that all may share,
Be bold, proclaim it everywhere,
They only live who dare.
I remember when years ago phone connections were hard to come by a neighbour was boasting how clever he was because these "These corrupt Italians" accepted his big bribe and put in his phone first. And all I could think was, don't preach your moralism to us, who's the first corrupt person here?????
mangelo, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate a little more. I'm not sure what to make of your thoughts and how to apply it to the situation in the question.
Shirin. It is inded a pity when such a neighbour rationalises about this sad state of affairs, at the expense of his moral dignity. I'm sure he wouldn't be laughing if he was the last person on the street to obtain that phone connection.
Is there anyway to reconcile the above paradox I outlined? Or will it remain forever as an example of cultural bias?
Stand upright, speak thy thought, declare,
The truth thou hast that all may share,
Be bold, proclaim it everywhere,
They only live who dare.
[quote]
Originally posted by Renaissance:
*mangelo, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate a little more. I'm not sure what to make of your thoughts and how to apply it to the situation in the question.
*
[/quote]
I am sorry Ren, I thought I was quite clear, but let me elaborate. The "champions" defined by you are the rich people, they have the money, no there are many others who want that money; many for basic living needs, and some out of greed. Now, the cash flow is going to be towards the services that the rich person want, and the greedy or the poor person can provide. So, it is the action of the champion that leads to some consequences, which include prostitution, and so on. That is why, we show more dissent towards the so called "champion" and less towards the person who became his tool; and might I add, rightly so.
You assert that the nature of the attitude levelled at the individual in question, whether it be sympathy or contempt, is dependant upon, and therefore a reflection of, class differences. Manual labourers are from the poor class and customers of prostitutes are from the rich end of society. In your opinion, this would constitute a valid reason for the differences in attitudes. Am I right?
[quote]
Originally posted by Renaissance:
**A clarification:
You assert that the nature of the attitude levelled at the individual in question, whether it be sympathy or contempt, is dependant upon, and therefore a reflection of, class differences. Manual labourers are from the poor class and customers of prostitutes are from the rich end of society. In your opinion, this would constitute a valid reason for the differences in attitudes. Am I right?**
[/quote]
Actually, let me explain even more, and I understand that my last response was lapsed. The point I am trying to make is that one who wants the service is always the instigator, and then someone wants to provide that services as a consequence. So, the initiator has to see more blame as well.
And nomaan, you might be right actually, I should phrase my comment as whoever is willing to pay for sex, and not rich necessarily.