![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 44. Go back in thread:
Posted by TexasChic on November 16, 2005, at 18:26:45
In reply to no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by MichaelJr on November 16, 2005, at 12:42:52
First and foremost, I have a VERY strong opinion about prostitution, but probably not what you think. I believe it is incredibly WRONG for it to be ILLEGAL to have sex with someone and give them money. This is a MORAL subject that the government should have no jurisdiction over.
That being said, dude, if it were as easy to get straight male prostitutes and not be scared they're a serial killer or something, I would so be there. Unfortuntely, its just not the same for women.
And THAT being said, anything, no matter what it is, that you get obssessed with and it begins to effect your life, is something to be concerned about. It sounds as if you're substituting for a real relationship. You're still young and I think you will eventually want something more, but why waste all this practice time? You've got to practice being social with regular girls. I put off a romantic life for much the same reasons, and now I'm 35 going through all the dating dilemas I should've gone through at 25. Believe me, get the imbarrassing stuff out of the way NOW. Because if you ever want a real relationship, you will have to go through it all eventually anyway.
-T
Posted by TexasChic on November 16, 2005, at 18:32:43
In reply to no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by MichaelJr on November 16, 2005, at 12:42:52
Oh, and about the meds thing, sexual problems are a very common side antidepressants. But you don't need to put up with it. Let your doc know immediately of the problems you are having so he can switch your meds. If he is the one giving you Viagra, I would go to someone else for a second opinion.
-T
Posted by Tamar on November 17, 2005, at 3:55:02
In reply to no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by MichaelJr on November 16, 2005, at 12:42:52
I’m not going to judge your behaviour. But can I ask you to think about a couple of things?
I also have a very strong opinion about prostitution; it’s a bit different from TexasChic’s. I’ve known women who worked in prostitution and none of them wanted to do it.
Almost all women in prostitution (especially those working in brothels) are doing it because they have no other way to survive (e.g. they have debts or they’re very poor or they can’t get other jobs that would pay enough to feed their kids).
Many women in brothels in South America and Asia (and other places) have been forced into prostitution or sold into it as children, often as soon as they reach puberty. Being forced or sold into prostitution usually means the girls have been violated and abused to make them co-operate.
Many women working in brothels will die before they reach their forties, often from sexually transmitted diseases. Some are murdered, either by clients or brothel owners. It’s a terrible life.
I hope you will consider the fact that many of the women you are having sex with are severely traumatised and basically don’t want to be doing it.
I think you would probably find sex to be a much more pleasant experience if you find a partner who is able to enjoy it. You say you have social problems and you’re shy… Therapy can help with that, and is considerably cheaper than flying around the world to visit prostitutes!
And I agree with TexasChic that if your meds are causing sexual difficulties you can try switching meds. You don’t need to give up on the idea of having a girlfriend or having great sex with a partner! I’m sure that you are *not* socially or sexually inadequate, and some therapy might help you realise your potential as a boyfriend.
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 17, 2005, at 5:33:00
In reply to no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by MichaelJr on November 16, 2005, at 12:42:52
Ya know...if a guy gambles once in a while in Vegas or, heck, plays Bingo - no problem. But if a guy gambles so much that he goes into serious debt & it impacts his relationships - that's a problem...gambling addiction.
It sounds to me that your issue with prostitutes has become dangerously addictive behavior. IMO, you need to talk to a therapist about this. Seems like you are losing control of your behavior if your need for prostitutes is putting you into so much trouble.
Take care and be safe, emmy
Posted by Susan47 on November 17, 2005, at 11:46:04
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » MichaelJr, posted by TofuEmmy on November 17, 2005, at 5:33:00
I agree with Tamar, about the status of prostitutes, both male and female.
As a woman, Michael, I find your behaviour unbelievably depressing.
How do you find it? Does it fulfill you? Is this the way you want to treat your fellow human being? Is it the way you want to treat yourself? Perhaps it's not accepted in America because .. it's degrading. My opinion only, if you're offended so be it .. and I hope you're using protection. Not only for yourself but for those who you are doing.
Posted by TexasChic on November 17, 2005, at 19:57:06
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » MichaelJr, posted by Tamar on November 17, 2005, at 3:55:02
>Many women in brothels in South America and Asia (and other places) have been forced into prostitution or sold into it as children, often as soon as they reach puberty. Being forced or sold into prostitution usually means the girls have been violated and abused to make them co-operate.
You are of course right about the fact that many women are forced into prostitution and it's unbelievably tragic. The children especially get to me. I'm pretty much a passivist, but when children are involved, that's the one time I think I could get physically violent with someone. I think that if prostitution were legal however, that would help to change things. But that's just my humble opinion. I'm by no means a socialogist or phychologist, I'm a graphic artist. So take it for what its worth.
-T
Posted by Susan47 on November 18, 2005, at 11:05:22
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » Tamar, posted by TexasChic on November 17, 2005, at 19:57:06
There are parents who sell their children into prostitution to pay off debts. That's an example of being forced into it. Personally I don't understand how any person could be so selfish as to look only at his own needs and use another person like that, once they know how horrible that person's life really is ... wake up, there's nothing romantic about prostitution, guys, there's nothinhg fulfilling about it for anybody you're using, because no matter the price you pay in dollars, you're using and abusing someone else for your own sexual gratification. Love and affection don't enter into it and if you think they do you're delusional.
Posted by Tamar on November 18, 2005, at 19:21:26
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » Tamar, posted by TexasChic on November 17, 2005, at 19:57:06
Hi TexasChic,
Thanks for raising an interesting question. It’s one I struggle with.
Would legalizing prostitution make things better for the women who work in it? Certainly I agree that criminalization of prostitution drives it underground, and that can be harmful for the women.
However, prostitution is legal in the Netherlands, and therefore women are brought to Amsterdam from other places (Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe…) simply because there’s a legal market.
Many of the women who have been trafficked from outside the Netherlands have been forced into prostitution in their home countries and then brought to a place where prostitution is decriminalised. So legalising it doesn’t necessarily improve conditions for women.
I was in Amsterdam 18 months ago and I was a bit shocked when I saw women behind huge windows, rather like mannequins in department store windows… They seemed to be arranged to appeal to various fantasies. There was an African woman behind one window; a Chinese woman behind another window; blonde women and brunette women behind other windows. Apparently men could go ‘window shopping’ and decide which woman they wanted.
I found it strange to be confronted with prostitution in such an overt manner. But although it wasn’t what I’m used to seeing, I wondered whether life is significantly better for those women even though they’re working legally.
My personal belief is that if women had better choices, most of them wouldn’t choose prostitution. Prostitution is incredibly risky: from what I’ve read, I think probably all prostitutes have been victims of violence at some point in their working lives. Even more chilling is the statistic that various studies have confirmed: between 75% and 95% of women working in the sex industry (from strip clubs to brothels) have been sexually abused as children. To me, that seems to detract from the idea that these women are making an entirely free choice to engage in prostitution. It looks as if girls who are abused in childhood are much more likely to end up selling their bodies than women who haven’t been abused. What does that say about their sense of themselves?
And yet… are they better off where prostitution is legal, or where it’s illegal? Would a better solution be to criminalize the men who are their clients (as can happen in Scandinavia, if I remember correctly)?
I honestly believe that prostitution could only be safe for women in a world where all men respect women as people and don’t judge them according to their sexual behaviour; where men could value prostitutes as good, kind, decent people and not as b*tches or wh*res. We don’t live in that world… yet. I hope one day we will.
Just my two cents.
Tamar
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 20, 2005, at 9:19:24
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by Susan47 on November 18, 2005, at 11:05:22
> it's degrading. My opinion only, if you're offended so be it .
> Personally I don't understand how any person could be so selfish as to look only at his own needs and use another person like that ... you're using and abusing someone else for your own sexual gratification. Love and affection don't enter into it and if you think they do you're delusional.
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
The last time you were blocked it was for 2 weeks, so this time I'm making it for 4.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
One possibility is to ask another poster to be your "civility buddy" and preview posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on November 20, 2005, at 15:56:49
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by TexasChic on November 16, 2005, at 18:26:45
prostitution is legal in new zealand.
legal in brothels
legal in your own home (though there is haggling over whether it should be commercial zoned)the thought was...
i think it used to be that... it was illegal to accept money for sexual acts. it was not illegal to give money to someone to perform sexual acts. that meant... the girls (or some guys) got prosecuted, and the people giving them money weren't even considered to be breaking the law.
the trouble was...
safety. it is safer to work through a brothel than it is to go 'independent' on the streets, or in your own home. because... of security. with prostitution illegal you had to trust your brothel to protect you. now... with brothels being legal if things get out of control then the brothel owner can call the police (without fear of them or their workers being prosecuted). before that... they had to take matters into their own hands.
are conditions better for the average working girl with legalisation???
yes and no
yes and nobetter in the sense that you can now report crimes...
better in the sense that the law is now fairer with respect to the providers and the takers of the servicei have known a fair few people involved in prostitution...
some people did it because they needed the money and couldn't see another option...
some people continue with it because they come to rely on that money and can't see another option...
some people don't seem to have a problem with what they are doing...
other people do have a problem with what they are doing...i don't approve of prostitution
(those who offer - but even more than that those who pay for the service)
but then i don't approve of pornography
(those who model - but even more than that those who condone the sex industry by viewing the material)
but then i don't really approve of 'toys' and stuff eitherbecause to me...
what all these have in common...
is OBJECTIFICATION
that means... treating a person as a 'thing'
(or in the latter case associating sexual response with a 'thing')a thing whos purpose is to meet ones own needs and desires
a thing whose own needs and desires and preferences are cast aside for ones own
(or in the latter case training oneself to get off on 'a thing')but i guess i'm fairly conservative about that...
but i think it should be legalised
yes
(for people who are of the appropriate age)what i think the problem lies...
is in those who keep the sex industry alive...
but that being said...where would the internet be without the sex industry?????
i dunno.
Posted by TexasChic on November 20, 2005, at 19:21:10
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » TexasChic, posted by Tamar on November 18, 2005, at 19:21:26
> I was in Amsterdam 18 months ago and I was a bit shocked when I saw women behind huge windows, rather like mannequins in department store windows… They seemed to be arranged to appeal to various fantasies. There was an African woman behind one window; a Chinese woman behind another window; blonde women and brunette women behind other windows. Apparently men could go ‘window shopping’ and decide which woman they wanted.
Whoa! That's crazy! But I can't help but think how that mirrors the way women are treated everywhere. Its just more blatant.
> I honestly believe that prostitution could only be safe for women in a world where all men respect women as people and don’t judge them according to their sexual behaviour; where men could value prostitutes as good, kind, decent people and not as b*tches or wh*res. We don’t live in that world… yet. I hope one day we will.I guess that's what I think of in my head too. I know its not like that or likely to be anytime soon. But it makes me think maybe the negative conotations come from men's disrespect for women rather than the work itself. And that disrespect is rampant outside the sex industry as well. I just feel like our society is so hung up on the immorality of sex for hire, that it becomes the focus rather than one of many 'immoral' acts. Why aren't people so outraged about people cheating on their taxes, or embezzlement, or any of the 'lesser' immoral acts?
But mainly I don't understand why people care what 'other' people are doing sexually. I mean, I know prostitution isn't exactly the healthiest of professions (mentally or physically), and I would love to see every single one of them in therapy, but I think those issues should be separate from whether or not it is legal. I mean, people aren't causing a big uproar about infidelity. People who cheat aren't ostracised and arrested. Why is 'paying' for sex so stigmatized. I mean, you know there are women that do that under the guise of being a girlfriend. They're just in it for the money. But because its more under the table rather than just coming out and admitting what it really is, society doesn't view it the same.
There was a really cool series called Firefly (it only lasted one year). It was set in the future and one of the main characters was a 'Companion'. She was a prostitute, but treated like royalty. The women in her profession studied many years on how to help people with psycological problems and many other things as well as the sex stuff. The sex just seemed to be a small part of it. And of course, she chose her clients from the many, many who sent requests for her services. So she was able to choose only those who were decent, upstanding citizens. I just think, why can't it be like that? And if someone wanted to do that, who am I to pass judgement on them?
I know I don't know everything, I just like to try to think of things from different angles. Where I am now in good ole' boy country, nobody would even listen to a discussion like this (of course I'm generalizing, but it feels that way). So I'm really grateful that you did in spite the fact that our views are different.
-T
Posted by TexasChic on November 20, 2005, at 19:56:28
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by alexandra_k on November 20, 2005, at 15:56:49
> ... with prostitution illegal you had to trust your brothel to protect you. now... with brothels being legal if things get out of control then the brothel owner can call the police (without fear of them or their workers being prosecuted). before that... they had to take matters into their own hands.
Wow, that seems like a step in the right direction. Its not like its going to go away any time soon, so it would be nice to see some protection. And like you said, the people who hire them are just as responsible. I think all women deserve to be treated humanely even if they aren't exactly making the best life decisions.> i don't approve of prostitution
> (those who offer - but even more than that those who pay for the service)
> but then i don't approve of pornography
> (those who model - but even more than that those who condone the sex industry by viewing the material)
> but then i don't really approve of 'toys' and stuff either
>
I respect that. I firmly believe people are intitled to their own opinions. I mean, how else would you be able to intelligently think about things if you were never given an alternative viewpoint?>because to me...
>what all these have in common... is OBJECTIFICATION
>that means... treating a person as a 'thing'(or in the latter case associating sexual response with a 'thing')
Isn't sex pretty much using each other's bodies to 'get off?' I mean, I know with love its much more meaningful than 'just that'. No disrespect intended toward you alexandra_k , I know things can be easily misinterpreted in chats like this. I'd really want to hear your viewpoint of what sex is if it isn't that. I really don't have that much experience one way or another.> what i think the problem lies...
> is in those who keep the sex industry alive...
> but that being said...
> where would the internet be without the sex industry?????Yeah, I don't really see any of that ever going away.
Like I said to Tamar, I know I don't know everything, I just like to try to think of things from different angles and discuss them. So I'm really appreciate you expressing your viewpoint with out put downs in spite the fact that our views are different. It gives me hope that someday all people can express different opinions and beliefs without all the hate you see nowadays.
-T
Posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 3:53:34
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » alexandra_k, posted by TexasChic on November 20, 2005, at 19:56:28
> Wow, that seems like a step in the right direction.
Well, it is good that the girls are more protected yes.
> Its not like its going to go away any time soon, so it would be nice to see some protection.
Yeah, I agree with you there.
> And like you said, the people who hire them are just as responsible.
I think they are more so...
But I guess I'm not really sure...> I think all women deserve to be treated humanely even if they aren't exactly making the best life decisions.
Yeah. All people. Some people don't seem to mind doing it. Not many... But some. They consider they are indeed making the best life decision. Where else are you going to (reliably) get so much money for so little time???
> Isn't sex pretty much using each other's bodies to 'get off?'Ah. In todays society you would think so, wouldn't you...
> I mean, I know with love its much more meaningful than 'just that'.
Yeah. But is love just a 'patch' that doesn't really solve the underlying problem of objectification???
Hmm.
> No disrespect intended toward you alexandra_k , I know things can be easily misinterpreted in chats like this. I'd really want to hear your viewpoint of what sex is if it isn't that. I really don't have that much experience one way or another.
No offence taken...
I went to a seminar a few weeks back...
It was on what Kant had to say about sex.
And about how feminists etc have interpreted that...
And about what Kant might have had to say if he hadn't had to be so very careful about the church.
(I'm not Kant scholar and this is the first I've heard abotu this so I might get some of it wrong)Kant seemed to think sex was wrong because he thought it pretty much did involve objectification.
He thought it was wrong to a) treat another person as an object and he thought it was wrong to b) offer yourself up as an object for another.
In fact... He considered that we could not freely give ourself up as an object for another. That this was something akin to giving part of yourself away... Akin to suicide...He said that marriage changed that...
(But given the church influence we might want to replace 'marriage' with 'love')
He seemed to think that love meant that both allow themself to be an object for the other but that this was acceptable because they were gaining that part of the other person. So basically... If the relationship is reciprocal then things are okay, and sex is morally acceptable.The feminists have critiqued the role of marriage with respect to helping / harming that kind of transaction...
But other people have thought that this seems to be an attempt to 'patch' up the objectification problem, and it doesn't really seem to do very much of a good job....
I think...
I don't think sex has to involve objectification.
But I think that society teaches us that it does.
We seem to get up in arms about men treating women as objects - but what seems to be happening (IMO) is that women are attempting to gain 'equality' by turning the tables and returning the favour. I'm not sure that that solves the problem...I don't think it has to involve objectification if it is an act of love in a loving context.
And I don't think that is a 'patch' that fails...
I think that is a very different thing indeed...
But I'm not really sure...
I think what happens is that people train their sexual responses so that they have sexual responses to objectifications. This is something that can happen... But it seems to be something that people also actively encourage to happen. Viewing porn to get off etc.. Thats considered fairly much socially acceptable. The kinds of things they show on TV even... The way they encourage us to think of certain things as appropriate / inappropriate. They way they encourage... pornography and objectification. If you train your body to get off on that kind of thing then you are training your body to get off on something when you view it as an OBJECT.
I dunno...
I'd rather someone would go buy themself a blow up doll
Than make use of a person
But I think...
Either one is a bit of a shame...But I don't really know either...
Maybe I'm just talking...
I guess I just think that release is one thing...
And sometimes, yeah, its best to do that.
Masterbation... I don't have a problem with that.
But... Well... Maybe people don't really think about how they are training their body to respond to various things when they are doing that.I don't know.
Posted by Damos on November 21, 2005, at 15:34:01
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by alexandra_k on November 20, 2005, at 15:56:49
Yeah the laws here are pretty similar. We've had a few court cases recently to do with people being charged over bringing in overseas women on the promise of jobs in restaurants and stuff only to turn them into 'sex slaves' in brothels. I think it was quoted that they needed to sleep with around 600 men to earn their passport back and repay the debt to the brothel owner for their airfare, visa, upkeep etc.
At least being legal they have some rights and protections that they otherwise wouldn't have. Which is something I guess.
Posted by TexasChic on November 21, 2005, at 16:44:58
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » TexasChic, posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 3:53:34
Whoa. Now you've got me thinking all deep and everything! I agree that casual sex and sex when in love are two very different things (at least I'm hoping so!). But if someone's okay with being objectified, so be it.
Its interesting the points you make on training ourselves to be aroused by a certain object. I've always felt that all sexual feelings are taught (I know that's not what you were saying). I believe that people are basically born bisexual and every aspect of their lives figures in to what they end up finding arousing. I think if our society wasn't so gender fixated, things would be alot different. But that's just my theory.
>He seemed to think that love meant that both allow themself to be an object for the other but that this was acceptable because they were gaining that part of the other person. So basically... If the relationship is reciprocal then things are okay, and sex is morally acceptable.
I think this is a good point, although I might substitute 'psychologically healthy' for 'morally acceptable'.
>We seem to get up in arms about men treating women as objects - but what seems to be happening (IMO) is that women are attempting to gain 'equality' by turning the tables and returning the favour. I'm not sure that that solves the problem...
That is definitely true. I know I'm guilty of that myself. Its an easy thing to fall into, and I don't know yet how I feel about it. Its never even occured to me that it isn't the the best way to go, so you've given me something to think about. This reminds me of something I ironically heard on the radio today. Heidi Fleiss is talking about opening a brothel with male prostitues servicing straight women. H-m-m, I have to admit, getting a taste of the sort of freedom that men have had for years (centuries?) is appealing.
-T
Posted by TexasChic on November 21, 2005, at 16:53:01
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by TexasChic on November 21, 2005, at 16:44:58
Posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:03:42
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by TexasChic on November 21, 2005, at 16:44:58
> Whoa. Now you've got me thinking all deep and everything!
Hmm. I think thats because I really should be doing my thesis... But I do keep on Babbling... But I'm in thesis writing mode. Sorry peoples...
>I agree that casual sex and sex when in love are two very different things (at least I'm hoping so!).
Do you mean having sex when you are in love with someone as opposed to having sex when you are not in love with someone? Because I'm thinking... Can't casual sex be loving too??? I mean... It typically isn't, but wouldn't that be possible? Because I'm thinking that you can have loving sex with someone who you aren't in love with...
> But if someone's okay with being objectified, so be it.
One thing I forgot to mention...
Kant thinks that it is morally wrong to treat a person as a mere object. But we do treat people as objects sometimes (can you come here and open this for me?) and that isn't problematic. Its just problematic when we treat people as *mere* objects (so demanding that they do that I suppose without respecting that they may be up to something else). And so...For Kant... It would seem okay to treat someone as an object, so long as you didn't treat someone as a *mere* object.
I don't know...
Do you like to be treated as an object?
I have to say...
That that was my problem with sex. I had this 'arrangement' thing going on with one of my friends. We would sleep together sometimes. Sometimes... It was loving and I felt fine about that. But othertimes... I felt like he was treating me like an object. And thats why I ended the 'arrangement' because I didn't like how I felt. Like a tupperware container or something...
> Its interesting the points you make on training ourselves to be aroused by a certain object. I've always felt that all sexual feelings are taught (I know that's not what you were saying).Yeah, I think that is fairly much right...
But then some associations are easier learned than others. For example... It is easier to associate snakes with fear than it is to associate cups with fear. We seem to be 'hard-wired' to learn the snake-fear association more than the cup-fear association. And I suppose... Sexual responses might be a bit like that too. And different people may have more or less of the hard-wired thing going on which in conjunction with their experiences...>I believe that people are basically born bisexual and every aspect of their lives figures in to what they end up finding arousing. I think if our society wasn't so gender fixated, things would be alot different. But that's just my theory.
Yeah, I think thats probably right... I wish we were both genders. That way there wouldn't be any gender as we know it. Other animals and insects and fish and stuff are, so why not people? I think that would be pretty cool.
> >He seemed to think that love meant that both allow themself to be an object for the other but that this was acceptable because they were gaining that part of the other person. So basically... If the relationship is reciprocal then things are okay, and sex is morally acceptable.> I think this is a good point, although I might substitute 'psychologically healthy' for 'morally acceptable'.
Yeah, I take your point there.
> >We seem to get up in arms about men treating women as objects - but what seems to be happening (IMO) is that women are attempting to gain 'equality' by turning the tables and returning the favour. I'm not sure that that solves the problem...
> That is definitely true. I know I'm guilty of that myself. Its an easy thing to fall into,Yes, it is. I think... I went through a bit of a phase with that too.
> and I don't know yet how I feel about it. Its never even occured to me that it isn't the the best way to go, so you've given me something to think about.
:-)
> This reminds me of something I ironically heard on the radio today. Heidi Fleiss is talking about opening a brothel with male prostitues servicing straight women. H-m-m, I have to admit, getting a taste of the sort of freedom that men have had for years (centuries?) is appealing.
Hmm.
I don't think I like that idea...
But then I don't particularly like the status quo...I think you are right. Its not so much a 'moral objection'. I really don't think I judge people who do this stuff... I just think... Yeah... It is about psychological health, like you said.
Objectification.
All I know is that I don't like to feel like I'm being treated as an object.
And especially...
When it comes to sex.
But yeah, maybe it is about the *mere* object...
And I guess relationships are about give and take...
I don't know...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:04:14
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:03:42
hmm.
i think its catchy ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:04:46
In reply to Re: above for texaschick, posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:04:14
Posted by TexasChic on November 23, 2005, at 19:37:26
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:03:42
All good points!
I wonder what happened to the guy who started this thread. I guess we kind of highjacked it.
;-)-T
Posted by zeugma on November 24, 2005, at 23:07:43
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » TexasChic, posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 3:53:34
i don't know about Kant's rather absolutist (IMO) ethics.
I will say that the experience of depersonalization is one in which one views oneself as an object. Body parts are disconnected in the sense that there is no organic sense of 'belonging to oneself.' Experience is perceived as discontinuous, rather like Edelman's 'splinter selves', except that the splinters are not autonomous at all, albeit they are not felt to make a whole. I suppose Dennett would say they are like a set of drafts competing for primacy- the difference with DID being that the drafts are not autonomous at all, they lack the feeling of being a set of mutually coherent drafts but they are not autonomous at all.
it makes relationships in the sexual asense impossible. I don't perceive others as objects at all- but perceiving oneself oneself continuosly as an object is not conducive to entering into relationships at all. It's not even a sense of being a coherent object, which I think is the sticking point. I know Kant has some interesting things to say about the first person, and I think that is the crucial point for this matter. if one simply has a shaky sense of the first person, then the relations one can enter into with others are ambiguous at best. One has trouble relating to oneself. I suppose everyone has trouble with that, to some degree.
-z
Posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 18:44:30
In reply to reverse objectification » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on November 24, 2005, at 23:07:43
> i don't know about Kant's rather absolutist (IMO) ethics.
Hmm.
I guess I prefer 'universal' to 'absolutist' but yeah, I guess...
I don't know much about ethics in general...
But I do remember having to read about Kant...For example...
If you are thinking about performing an act then you need to decide which maxim / law captures the act.
(Problems here with respect to how you DESCRIBE the maxim).
So... Suicide. Lets say you are deciding whether it would be morally acceptable to top yourself.
The relevant maxim is supposed to be UNIVERSAL (to apply to all people, situations, times etc)
So... One description of the relevant maxim may be...
'It is morally acceptable for someone to kill themself'.
Now...
The criterion...
COULD YOU WILL THE MAXIM TO BECOME A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW???
(aka: could you will (intend) that everybody live by that maxim?)
Kant thought that IT WAS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to will that maxim to be a universal moral law because...
If everybody killed themself, then there wouldn't be any people left to act on the universal moral law.
And thus... He considers that the maxim would be CONTRADICTORY.
And... That is his criterion. If you can will the maxim to be a universal moral law (that everybody followed) WITHOUT CONTRADICTION then the maxim is a universal moral law. If you are led to contradiction then it can't be a universal moral law (so you SHOULDN'T do the act covered by the maxim because you (logically) CANNOT will the maxim to be a universal moral law.(Hence ethics is a matter of logic / reason, not of desire / emotion)
Works best for promise breaking IMO.
You can't will 'it is okay for people to break their promises' because if everybody broke their promises then there wouldn't be any such thing as promises. The very notion would self-distruct becasue of the contradiction...Thoguh... We can surely imagine cases where someone might need to be later than they promised in order to save a drowining person on the way to the meeting...
> I will say that the experience of depersonalization is one in which one views oneself as an object.Yes.
I have read something (a while back now) on borderline personality disorder... more specifically... on de-personalisation - objectification - and self injury.I remember reading about how in de-personalisation you don't see yourself as a 'subject' (of experience) rather you see yourself as an object.
But who is the 'yourself' that is being objectified?
It seems to be an experience of ones subjectivity being dissociated / split off from ones physical body. Typically ones experiecne of ones subjectivity embraces ones body. Sometimes... Ones experinece of ones subjectivity becomes narrowed. The boundary or limit of ones subjectivity becomes restricted. The physical body is seen as 'other' or 'foreign' or 'ego alien' or... as an object. The subjectivity has been split from being intimately associated with the body.
Self injury... One function of it can be to help 'ground' oneself back in ones body. The experience of bodily pain... Is hard for ones subjectivity to ignore... And thus self injury can function to enlarge the boundaries of the subjectivity to encompass the body once more...
(I'm not recommending that as a strategy. Though some people finding holding a cube of ice... A less injurous way of achieving the same thing).
But other people... Depersonalise in the face of bodily sensations of pain... Perhaps most interestingly... When the pain is a result of someone else treating their body as an object... Hmm...
> it makes relationships in the sexual asense impossible.
Hmm.
Yeah. I'm not sure what Kant was thinking... But what I took from the seminar seemed to be a little different to what most other people took.
Most people came away thinking that mututal objectification (between consenting parties) was just fine and Kant was a little too uptight.
I came away thinking that IT IS possible for sex to be an activity between two subjects rather than two objects.
And Kant just didn't quite manage to get himself to there...
Though I'm still thinking about the *object* / *mere object* thing...
> if one simply has a shaky sense of the first person, then the relations one can enter into with others are ambiguous at best. One has trouble relating to oneself. I suppose everyone has trouble with that, to some degree.
Yeah. I have trouble...
So... You think of other peoples bodies as 'containing' (or being intimately associated with) subjectivity...
But... You don't think of your body as 'containing' (or being intimately associated with) subjectivity...?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 19:07:49
In reply to no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by MichaelJr on November 16, 2005, at 12:42:52
Hey there. Sorry for my part in 'hijacking' the thread...
I want to say... That I don't judge you... Really.
Sounds like... It is becoming a bit of a problem in your life. The expense etc. And that a huge part of the problem is to do with your self-confidence. Not feeling able to talk to girls. To ask them out etc. And so... Prostitutes become a realtively safe way of getting what you need without taking the risk that someone will say they don't want to go out with you or something.
I would say... That therapy is likely to be your best bet. To talk to someone about the problem. Because... Sexual activity can become 'addctive' in much the way that drug taking and gambelling etc can be 'addictive'. You know you are spending more than you can afford... But there is a compulsion to keep doing it. And why is there that compulsion? Thats where you could chat to someone about what you are getting from these prostitutes that you aren't getting in your life.
And you said about your self-esteem and confidence etc. And so... Working with someone on that would probably help you. And could help you gain the confidence to meet more people (including women) and ask them out etc.
Congradulations on graduating :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 21:59:06
In reply to Re: reverse objectification » zeugma, posted by alexandra_k on November 25, 2005, at 18:44:30
though maybe this is more about dissociation than depersonalisation...
?
(sorry it was awkward and rambly)
Posted by caraher on November 26, 2005, at 8:37:07
In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by TexasChic on November 16, 2005, at 18:26:45
> That being said, dude, if it were as easy to get straight male prostitutes and not be scared they're a serial killer or something, I would so be there. Unfortuntely, its just not the same for women.Yesterday I read that Heidi Fleiss (of "Hollywood Madam" fame or infamy) was joining a partnership to start a brothel with male prostitutes in Nevada (where such things are legal).
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Relationships | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.