GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Does Firefly promote Prostitution?

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Sunday, January 25, 2004 19:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12703
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:56 PM

SUCCATASH



When I tell a hooker to wear a long black wig and call me Mal, should I blame Joss?

It seems like Inara is pretty great, and maybe prostitution should be legalized.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:16 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:

When I tell a hooker to wear a long black wig and call me Mal, should I blame Joss?




I always do-

He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:22 PM

CIARA


god I love you guys. Yes--I think you should take pictures of YOU and the Inara-hooker and send 'em on over to Joss--I'm sure he would be quite sympathetic. Don't send 'em the pics of the hooker dressed as Simon, though...that might weird him out.

Prostitution yay--let's lobby to legalize it. Mostly in space

Just a humble supplicant in service to all things Joss

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:34 PM

SUCCATASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Ciara:
Prostitution yay--let's lobby to legalize it. Mostly in space

Do you mean we should fly into space and lobby for legalized prostitution or do you mean we should fly to the moon for sex?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:37 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:

Originally posted by Ciara:
Prostitution yay--let's lobby to legalize it. Mostly in space

Do you mean we should fly into space and lobby for legalized prostitution or do you mean we should fly to the moon for sex?



Kinda gives new meaning to the song lyrics "fly me to the moon, and let me play among the stars," dontcha think?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:44 PM

SUCCATASH


Jayne did say, "Let's moon 'em."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:51 PM

SHIROGOMA


The space program would have more support if they realized there's no laws established on other planets that would every hold weight. Hence, no laws banning lunar prostitution. In fact, it would be quite quite legal.
That would be a good start... see if Las Vegas & Reno hotel corporations can front the cash for some good ole' houses of ill repute in the sea of tranquility. No FDA regulations or work standards to base the pay scale or health codes.
Maybe they'd get some special credit cards made up with little incentives like frequent flyer miles for lunar shuttle trips and room upgrades for earthside views.
All very shiny and happy, no?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:56 PM

SAINT JAYNE


Didn't Joss have a term for these people? Spookers, wasn't it? Space + hookers.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:00 PM

HERO


I don't know if it promote's prostitution. However I remember seeing a Pepsi commercial aired during a broadcast of Firefly back when it was on the air. So I'd say it promotes Pepsi.

As for Prostitution, if a healthy, and respectified approach to whoring is called promotion, then you could say it also promotes ministers, mechanics, smugglers, doctors, and crazy girls. But not sell out mercenaries with big guns and a small brain. (I told my little sister that if she ever did drugs and joined the marines she'd end up like Jayne. She told me to leave her alone or she'd kill me with her brain.)

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:13 PM

SUCCATASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
I remember seeing a Pepsi commercial aired during a broadcast of Firefly back when it was on the air. So I'd say it promotes Pepsi.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring to the DVD set.

I say going to the moon for sex is fine, but B jobs should still be allowed on earth.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:27 PM

SERENITYNOW


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:

Originally posted by Ciara:
Prostitution yay--let's lobby to legalize it. Mostly in space

Do you mean we should fly into space and lobby for legalized prostitution or do you mean we should fly to the moon for sex?



Kinda gives new meaning to the song lyrics "fly me to the moon, and let me play among the stars," dontcha think?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.



Actually--I always thought that /was/ the original meaning of the song. Sort of a tongue-in-cheek-closeted-fifties-sexuality thing.

Anyway, Inara is *way* not a prostitute. That's like calling a master artist a housepainter, or a five star chef a fry cook.

Prostitution /should/ be illegal--it degrades women *and* men. But geishas should be legal--they elevate sex to an art form.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:38 PM

GUNRUNNER


Legaly I think prostitution is legal in space. I think there was a treaty signed by a bunch of nations in the 60's that said no nation's airspace can extend in to space so I guess any laws regarding what can and can't be done on or above a nations land do not extend in to space. And like a ship at sea it concidered the territory of the nation that owns it. So if a space station or something is owned by a nation where prostitution is legal or by a person who is not affilated with a goverment prostitution would be legal.

Kinda makes me with I had a few billion and purchased Mir back when it was up there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:50 PM

STEVE580


Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:

and maybe prostitution should be legalized.



Gotta talk politics...just for a second...

Prostitution, along with gambling, and anti-drug laws, are all illegal for one reason, and one reason only: the 'general public' views them as 'wrong'. They fall into the category of "moral crimes" - actions that do not risk harming others in any way, and shouldn't be illegal for any reason.

In Nevada, prostituion is legal. This means that their are strict health codes enforced - obviously including the use of condoms. This means that prostitution actually causes much less of a problem in Nevada than in other states: fewer STDs, unwanted pregnancies, prostitutes on the streets...not to mention the increased money for the government - I'm sure there is some sort of tax.

Sorry...just...I'm a libertarian. Hate the government overstepping its boundries, like it does all the damned time. I'm no anarchist; it's just, when the government comes into your house, and starts telling you what to do...

Anyways, you can get back to talking about Firefly-related stuff now...
-Steve

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:16 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY


Ever actually been to Japan? Geishas are not prostitutes. What they actually do is to elevate cultured feminity to an art form. They are in essence charming and attentive hostesses. They are schooled in graciousness, hospitality, and gentility. They smile, listen attentively, and gently laugh at your jokes.
(And yes, I would have to hire someone to laugh at mine.)

Prostitution is illegal in Japan. There some prostitutes who masquerade as Geishas, but geishas they are not.

As far as "promoting" prostitution is concerned, in my view, Firefly doesn't! Although he seems to be quite fond of Inara, Mal is very contemptuous of her profession. At least that's the way I read it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:23 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY


Prostitution is a combination of two things: sex, and free enterprise. Which one do you think most people object to.

(An anarchist is someone who believes in less government than you do.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:00 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by Steve580:
Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:

and maybe prostitution should be legalized.



Gotta talk politics...just for a second...

Prostitution, along with gambling, and anti-drug laws, are all illegal for one reason, and one reason only: the 'general public' views them as 'wrong'. They fall into the category of "moral crimes" - actions that do not risk harming others in any way, and shouldn't be illegal for any reason.

In Nevada, prostituion is legal. This means that their are strict health codes enforced - obviously including the use of condoms. This means that prostitution actually causes much less of a problem in Nevada than in other states: fewer STDs, unwanted pregnancies, prostitutes on the streets...not to mention the increased money for the government - I'm sure there is some sort of tax.

Sorry...just...I'm a libertarian. Hate the government overstepping its boundries, like it does all the damned time. I'm no anarchist; it's just, when the government comes into your house, and starts telling you what to do...

Anyways, you can get back to talking about Firefly-related stuff now...
-Steve



While I agree with your sentiments, I do think there was a problem with prostitution. Sex causes babies, as well as is a great avenue for disease transmissions. Also you have to worry about hubby chasing hookers, and spending his money on them rather than on his family.

[It is interesting that the Midevil Catholic church saw prostitution as a "necessary evil" and allowed it to prevent widespread homosexuality, which they felt was a greater sin.]

Drug use can lead to violence, or other irresponsible behavior that society is left to clean up. Gambling can lead to bankrupting a family, leaving the wife and kids to starve.

All these prohibitions were put in place when they were seen as a problem. Morality is a function of our environment and the potential consequences of our actions. If someone has to clean up the mess you made, well that someone is gonna make sure you don't do whatever it was that created that mess in the first place.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:45 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Steve580 wrote:
Quote:

Prostitution, along with gambling, and anti-drug laws, are all illegal for one reason, and one reason only: the 'general public' views them as 'wrong'. They fall into the category of "moral crimes" - actions that do not risk harming others in any way, and shouldn't be illegal for any reason.


I agree that they fall into the "moral crimes" area, but I think part of the reason they are illegal is the fact the a government can not tax them. The gov't does not like being left out of it "fair" share of any money or service changing hands. You can rest assured that the legalized prostitution in Las Vegas is monitored and taxed. If the gov't could do that w/ prostitution and drugs across the country, and the moral uproar of voters could be quelled, they would do it in a minute.


"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 6:05 AM

STEVE580


Quote:

Originally posted by Drakon:
Quote:

Originally posted by Steve580:
Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:

and maybe prostitution should be legalized.



Gotta talk politics...just for a second...

Prostitution, along with gambling, and anti-drug laws, are all illegal for one reason, and one reason only: the 'general public' views them as 'wrong'. They fall into the category of "moral crimes" - actions that do not risk harming others in any way, and shouldn't be illegal for any reason.

In Nevada, prostituion is legal. This means that their are strict health codes enforced - obviously including the use of condoms. This means that prostitution actually causes much less of a problem in Nevada than in other states: fewer STDs, unwanted pregnancies, prostitutes on the streets...not to mention the increased money for the government - I'm sure there is some sort of tax.

Sorry...just...I'm a libertarian. Hate the government overstepping its boundries, like it does all the damned time. I'm no anarchist; it's just, when the government comes into your house, and starts telling you what to do...

Anyways, you can get back to talking about Firefly-related stuff now...
-Steve



While I agree with your sentiments, I do think there was a problem with prostitution. Sex causes babies, as well as is a great avenue for disease transmissions. Also you have to worry about hubby chasing hookers, and spending his money on them rather than on his family.

[It is interesting that the Midevil Catholic church saw prostitution as a "necessary evil" and allowed it to prevent widespread homosexuality, which they felt was a greater sin.]

Drug use can lead to violence, or other irresponsible behavior that society is left to clean up. Gambling can lead to bankrupting a family, leaving the wife and kids to starve.

All these prohibitions were put in place when they were seen as a problem. Morality is a function of our environment and the potential consequences of our actions. If someone has to clean up the mess you made, well that someone is gonna make sure you don't do whatever it was that created that mess in the first place.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"



Yes, sex can cause babies. However, as it is, prostitution in most areas is unmonitered by anyone; therefore the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies is a common problem amoung hookers. Legalizing prostitution, though, makes these issues go away. I'm sure that more than one form of protection is used, so the chance of either of the above happining is slim to none. So really, this first argument of yours is one supporting legalization, in disguise. And sure, there is the chance that a man will use prostitutes rather than spend money on things for his famialy...but is that a reason to make it a *crime*? To arrest people? People can become obsessed with movie stars, which can cause problems...but does this mean we should ban movies?

Drug use can lead to violence and irresponcable behavior...but alchohal never does? You need to ask yourself: alchohal causes so many problems in society, so why is it legal?

The reason alchohal is legal is because banning it creates a worse situation. Remember Prohibition?

Now the thing is, the same is true of drugs. They have all the same properties of alchohal, and cause all the same problems in society...yet like alchohal, illegalizing drugs creates even *more* problems. Check out the website "Truth - the Anti-drugwar". It provides many charts and statistics about the effects of drug illegality, from greatly increased homicide rates, to the formation of gangs. The lucrative drug-trade market lures young kids into a life of crime. And drug illegality makes them so expensive, crime is the only way to afford the habit. Ever wonder why people don't kill eachother over an alchohal war, or why teens addicted to tobacco don't mug pedestrians for cash? Because these substances, though dangerous, are legal.


Hey, if there was a third option, a "remove prostitution and drugs from society" option, I'd gladly choose that. But we have to live in the *real* world. Politicians need realize this. Hey, if I wanted to, I could obtain almost any type of illegal drug. I could find a hooker for you, too.

Fact is, making something illegal doesn't make it go away, no matter how much you want it to. It only takes away freedom from the law-abiding citizens.

-Steve

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 6:08 AM

HARDWARE


Quote:

Originally posted by Drakon:


While I agree with your sentiments, I do think there was a problem with prostitution. Sex causes babies, as well as is a great avenue for disease transmissions. Also you have to worry about hubby chasing hookers, and spending his money on them rather than on his family.



Wow, uhm, not quite sure where to begin disassembling this argument.

Sex causes babies, not prostitution. Sex, in marriage, out of marriage and outside of marriage by married folk is still going to go on with or without prostitution.

Sex is a great avenue for disease. However, as one of my isntructor's graduate thesis was done on prostitution and the spread of AIDS in Camden NJ I can tell you what she found. After 2 years of living side by side with the working girls of Camden all of them used condoms with their johns. They then took the money they made, either gave it to their boyfriends who then went to a shooting gallery, injected drugs with a shared needle and then had unprotected sex with their girlfriends, or the hookers also went to the shooting gallery and used the same needle. No johns contracted AIDS from sex with prostitutes. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

Quote:


It is interesting that the Midevil Catholic church saw prostitution as a "necessary evil" and allowed it to prevent widespread homosexuality, which they felt was a greater sin.



The same medievel church that slaughtered 100,000 people in a French town because they were protecting approximately 1,000 cathars, a goodly folk whose sin against God was believing that the pope did not represent the voice of God on earth? The same church that waged a "holy" war on to reclaim the holy land but was really all about lining their pockets with loot?

Quote:


Drug use can lead to violence, or other irresponsible behavior that society is left to clean up. Gambling can lead to bankrupting a family, leaving the wife and kids to starve.

All these prohibitions were put in place when they were seen as a problem. Morality is a function of our environment and the potential consequences of our actions. If someone has to clean up the mess you made, well that someone is gonna make sure you don't do whatever it was that created that mess in the first place.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"



Morality is a function of the wealth of an individual in a given environment. If you don't know where your next meal is coming from you don't give a damn about how prisoners in jail are treated. We here in the western world live a very wealthy lifestyle. As a result we have a very high moral standard. In poorer societies the moral standard is comparatively lax.

For example, on the American frontier a woman who had a child out of wedlock would have been ruined in the east, but men on the frontier were more than willing to take in the woman, and in some cases her bastard child. Were they morally superior or inferior to the people in the eastern cities? It could be seen either way depending on your point of view.

My final point; why is it illegal to sell something it is legal to give away?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:28 AM

CAPTAINCDC


Quote:

Originally posted by Steve580:
Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:

and maybe prostitution should be legalized.



Gotta talk politics...just for a second...

Prostitution, along with gambling, and anti-drug laws, are all illegal for one reason, and one reason only: the 'general public' views them as 'wrong'. They fall into the category of "moral crimes" - actions that do not risk harming others in any way, and shouldn't be illegal for any reason.

In Nevada, prostituion is legal. This means that their are strict health codes enforced - obviously including the use of condoms. This means that prostitution actually causes much less of a problem in Nevada than in other states: fewer STDs, unwanted pregnancies, prostitutes on the streets...not to mention the increased money for the government - I'm sure there is some sort of tax.

Sorry...just...I'm a libertarian. Hate the government overstepping its boundries, like it does all the damned time. I'm no anarchist; it's just, when the government comes into your house, and starts telling you what to do...

Anyways, you can get back to talking about Firefly-related stuff now...
-Steve





Well, I was going to post something like that but you beat me to the punch. So I will say ditto!!!!!

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:36 AM

CAPTAINCDC


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Steve580 wrote:
Quote:

Prostitution, along with gambling, and anti-drug laws, are all illegal for one reason, and one reason only: the 'general public' views them as 'wrong'. They fall into the category of "moral crimes" - actions that do not risk harming others in any way, and shouldn't be illegal for any reason.


I agree that they fall into the "moral crimes" area, but I think part of the reason they are illegal is the fact the a government can not tax them. The gov't does not like being left out of it "fair" share of any money or service changing hands. You can rest assured that the legalized prostitution in Las Vegas is monitored and taxed. If the gov't could do that w/ prostitution and drugs across the country, and the moral uproar of voters could be quelled, they would do it in a minute.


"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."






I disagree. Look at Amsterdam. They could do it if they were not too busy being on their moral high horse. They are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:23 AM

RAINE


That would be too simplistic to say Firefly promotes prostitution. Whedon depicts that world's morality with a lot of complex shades.

Inara's smart, beautiful, classy. She's from an elite geisha-type background. Yet, it really gets under Mal's skin when she "spreads", as he so crudely puts it, for other men. And Inara cried her eyes out after Mal bedded down with her prositute friend. (This was the episode about the Firefly crew helping out a group of whores who were fighting a big baddie intent on claiming "his" baby).

I like the way Firefly shows the tension of Mal and Inara's longings, that they would like to have exclusive claims on each other, experience romance and fidelilty. But they don't believe they can, or want to. This kind of romantic tension is pure gold, so that's why Whedon probably wouldn't have had them consummating their desires anytime soon.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:58 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE


Firefly doesn't really promote prostitution, it's more of a showcase for it. Like it's a showcase for smuggling.
Neither are really looked upon as great things by all, but just the way things are and have to be for the moment.
Now guns! Firefly promotes guns.

And as for the great and satisfying argument about what is a prostitute versus companion, mmmm, wow. To me it's easy to define. I think of it like genus and species in the animal or plant world. Not all dogs are Spaniels. But all Spaniels are dogs. They are like a sub-classification of a basic understanding of dog. Even though they don't all look or act the same, they have some very basic similarities, which group them.

Not all prostitutes are companions. They can be like those in Heart of Gold. Lesser breed of companion, but still a prostitute, because the basic definition of a prostitute is someone giving sex for compensation. Regardless of whatever training (breeding) they might have, however they may dress themselves up, (as Atherton Wing would say) they still perform that basic defining fucntion. Give 'em all the tea, witty conversation and red curtains you like, can't change the basics.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:50 AM

WYDRAZ


Yeah, right.

Firefly promotes prostitution just like it promotes smugglin', cattle rustlin' and shootin' guys in hats. I suppose your next argument will be that video games promote murder.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:42 PM

SPIKESPIEGEL


Video games TOTALLY promote murder. Mostly they make me want to murder the people who hog the controller.

I'd say the show does not promote ANYTHING except good storytelling. Companions, the Alliance, smuggling, emotional wounds left untended or unacknowledged, marital struggles -- it's all grist for telling good stories. After all, Joss is on record as being an atheist, but Book is a positive character of strong faith ... clearly Joss is in it to tell stories, not to push any agenda.

On the related discussion ... I think prostitution should be legal and licensed. There would always be unlicensed street prostitution to some degree, just as there is still illegitimate traffic in alcohol and cigarettes. But a whole lot less since the end of Prohibition ...

If being a licensed prostitute included, say, health education, counseling, sensitivity training and an illustrated copy of the Kama Sutra, plus regular medical checks to renew the license, we'd have a lot fewer problems. Add to that restrictions on where and how it's practiced, just as liquor stores and porn shops are controlled, and you have even fewer problems.

And it might even promote stratification ... it might start the evolution to more refined forms, more educated and skilled practitioners ... true companions.

Plus, you know, sex is good.



"Bang."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 7:32 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE


Quote:

Originally posted by wydraz:
Yeah, right.

Firefly promotes prostitution just like it promotes smugglin', cattle rustlin' and shootin' guys in hats. I suppose your next argument will be that video games promote murder.



ha ha ha ha ha... yer funny.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:28 PM

SUCCATASH


Quote:

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Quote:

Originally posted by wydraz:
Firefly promotes prostitution just like it promotes smugglin', cattle rustlin' and shootin' guys in hats. I suppose your next argument will be that video games promote murder.

ha ha ha ha ha... yer funny.

Is Wydraz telling a knee slapping joke or is he making a point?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:03 AM

PANIC


Quote:

Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
Video games TOTALLY promote murder. Mostly they make me want to murder the people who hog the controller.



That is quite possibly the funniest thing I have read in the last month.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:47 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by Steve580:
Yes, sex can cause babies. However, as it is, prostitution in most areas is unmonitered by anyone; therefore the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies is a common problem amoung hookers. Legalizing prostitution, though, makes these issues go away. I'm sure that more than one form of protection is used, so the chance of either of the above happining is slim to none. So really, this first argument of yours is one supporting legalization, in disguise. And sure, there is the chance that a man will use prostitutes rather than spend money on things for his famialy...but is that a reason to make it a *crime*? To arrest people? People can become obsessed with movie stars, which can cause problems...but does this mean we should ban movies?



The point I was really arguing with was that morality and politics (or law) are somehow disconnected from reality. That morality is nothing more than some religion's idea of how things "should" be or a means of controlling a population. All may be true, however, morality does affect the real world and more importantly the real world affects morality.

What morality is, is a set of rules that govern behavior. And behavior is actions, and actions have consequences. Real world consequences including life and death.

If a particular moral system or rule does not work, does not result in less death, dismemberment or misery than an alternative, the original rule will be abandoned, and the alternative will be adopted.

But even that is not quite right, because folks act on what they THINK the world is, rather than how it really is. Sometimes people are wrong, and it don't matter if its one man, or a billion. Inaccurate mental models of reality will result in actions that develop unexpected consequences.

So, if the general public perception is that say, drinking, drug use, gambling or prostitution causes more problems than is solves, these things will get banned, and moral taboos will be placed on those actions. Even if it makes no rational sense, or if the causitive mechanism is not understood, that is the way people will act.

Quote:

Drug use can lead to violence and irresponcable behavior...but alchohal never does? You need to ask yourself: alchohal causes so many problems in society, so why is it legal?



The prohibitions against alcohol and other drugs developed at the same time, and for roughly the same reason. Too many drunk hubbies were coming home and beating their wives. So the wives got together, formed temperance unions, started smashing saloons, and finally got alcohol prohibited by constitutional amendment.

But unlike say pot, too many people were drinking to make prohibition effective. The result was political corruption, and the rise of the mobs, especially in Chicago and New York, but everywhere as well. Because too many folks were violating the prohibition against alcohol, the attempts at enforcement of that ban failed miserably.

In fact it can be argued that all such prohibitions did was not solve the problem, but forced it underground, making the problem harder to see. Again in the case of alcohol, too many folks were openly violating the ban to make the ban anything but a joke. So the prohibition on alcohol eventually got repealed.

The real difference between the prohibition of alcohol and other drugs, like pot, coke, etc. is more a matter of demographics rather than rational principles.

Quote:

Hey, if there was a third option, a "remove prostitution and drugs from society" option, I'd gladly choose that. But we have to live in the *real* world. Politicians need realize this. Hey, if I wanted to, I could obtain almost any type of illegal drug. I could find a hooker for you, too.


I don't know about that last part. I've been told I am powerfully ugly. (Even if you could, keep it quiet, in case my wife sees this.) You are right, we do live in the real world, whether we have to or not, we do.

There is another aspect that you point out, and that is illegal businesses do not want these prohibitions removed. It would cut into their profits, they would have to pay taxes, and create an incentive for competition.

Quote:

Fact is, making something illegal doesn't make it go away, no matter how much you want it to. It only takes away freedom from the law-abiding citizens.


For some folks if its the choice between prohibitions on drink, or get beat up by a drunk husband, they'll sacrifice liberty to avoid getting killed. And when you think about it, freedom don't mean a thing if you're dead.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:21 AM

STEVE580


Quote:

Originally posted by Drakon:
But unlike say pot, too many people were drinking to make prohibition effective. The result was political corruption, and the rise of the mobs, especially in Chicago and New York, but everywhere as well. Because too many folks were violating the prohibition against alcohol, the attempts at enforcement of that ban failed miserably.


But the ban on marijuana has not failed? I disagree...

Even if it hasn't, that isn't a reason to outlaw it. If driving was prohibited, surely we would see fewer cars on the road...but is that a *reason* to ban driving? Likewise, outlawing drugs reduces drug use - but that doesn't justify a ban on drug use.
Quote:

In fact it can be argued that all such prohibitions did was not solve the problem, but forced it underground, making the problem harder to see. Again in the case of alcohol, too many folks were openly violating the ban to make the ban anything but a joke. So the prohibition on alcohol eventually got repealed.

Again, I beleive the same could be said of marijuana. So why hasn't that law been repealed, I wonder?
Quote:

For some folks if its the choice between prohibitions on drink, or get beat up by a drunk husband, they'll sacrifice liberty to avoid getting killed.

But should they be able to sacrifice my liberty, because they married a drunk? I vote 'no'.

I'm generally in favor of freedom over protection. The only things that should be crimes are actions that violate the freedoms of others, in my mind. Homicide, rape, arson - these all affect others. More minor things like public drunkeness, or assualt also affect others, just less so (BTW, for anyone who didn't know, assualt is threatening violence). But I were using herion right now, alone in my house...that affects no one but myself.

...I'm not, by the way.
Quote:

And when you think about it, freedom don't mean a thing if you're dead.

Ah, but what is it to live, without freedom?

-Steve

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA


"Those willing to sacrifice liberty for security shall not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Benjamin Franklin.

-frem
diefuxdie

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:49 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
I don't know if it promote's prostitution. However I remember seeing a Pepsi commercial aired during a broadcast of Firefly back when it was on the air. So I'd say it promotes Pepsi.



I had some Pepsi last night even though I much prefer coke and Dr. Pepper. What's happening to me?

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:02 AM

CAPTAINCDC


You took the words right out of my mouth Steve580. I could not have said it better myself.

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 9:38 AM

DORAN


"Ever actually been to Japan?"

Yes.. lived there for three years.

"Geishas are not prostitutes. What they actually do is to elevate cultured feminity to an art form..."

Japan has a word for "prostitute posing as a geisha" that literally means "uneducated female entertainer".. inferring that they haven't received the full cultural training of a geisha.
This being said, it's important to note that the education of sex and pleasure was and I believe still is a part of traditional geisha training. Geisha are not required to have intercourse with clients. But neither is it prohibited

I feel a little qualified to discuss this only because I used to have a girl friend who was a geisha and quit to move to the USA. She and I discussed this topic to death. (I miss listening to her play her koto late into the evening)

Though rank and file prostitution is illegal in Japan, there is a fine line between that and the sex that is legal to pay for there.

Promoting protitution is certainly something that Mal did not do. He didn't discourage his crew from participating in it.. in "Heart of Gold". The fact is, it appears that the legalized protitution in the Firefly world is actually Alliance sponsored.

So the answer to the question, "does Firefly promote legal prostitution" I'd say would be no.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 9:57 AM

HOTPOINT


Interesting thread. Morals and ethical arguments are a fascinating arena, I'll inject a touch of my own thoughts via a couple of quotes because they say it better than I ever could


"There are no moral phenomena there is only a moral interpretation of phenomena" Freidrich Nietzche - Beyond Good and Evil

"The only justifiable limit of liberty is when the exercise of that freedom infringes on the liberty of others" J.S. Mill - On Liberty


Philosophy - The subject you study at University and get to use maybe three times a year


...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:14 AM

LTNOWIS


Quote:

Originally posted by Drakon:


Drug use can lead to violence, or other irresponsible behavior that society is left to clean up. Gambling can lead to bankrupting a family, leaving the wife and kids to starve.




Plus, there's all those competing drug lords. In the 1990s, murder and robbery rates plummeted, and one theory says that's because people stopped using crack, and started using marijuana. If you don't believe me, check out the latest Scientific American.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:53 AM

LTNOWIS


Be aware that I'm playing devil's advocate in my post, and don't neccesarily support all these extreme measures.

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve580:
The only things that should be crimes are actions that violate the freedoms of others, in my mind. Homicide, rape, arson - these all affect others.



But what if you lived in Canada, or somewhere else with a socialized health care system? Consider this scenario: Some Canadian smokes ciggarettes, inhaling cancer-causing nicotine. The tar and carbon monoxide probably don't help either. Eventually he gets cancer, and 5 doctors have to slice a tumor out of him in a giant operation. The Canadian taxpayer unfairly has to pay the bill due to someone's negligence.

Also, when you say that bans don't work, you may be right. But we could make them work by raising the penalties until they violate the Constitution. If we had all illegal drug possesion punishable by death, we'd have a lot less drug addicts. Of course, we'd also have to give our cops M-16s and bulletproof vests.

One way to stop the tobacco problem completely would be to ban it for everybody born in the 21st century. Then everybody born after 2000 would know that if they smoked they'd get 150 years in jail. For addicted immigrants, you'd just deport them.

But that's just babble. I say legalize drugs, prostitution and gambling, but you'd need a permit for the first two, and you'd need to pass a class about the risks. Of course, you'd also need to let me have an assault rifle for defense against drugged-up theives.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:53 AM

LADYJAYNE


Quote:

(An anarchist is someone who believes in less government than you do.)


And the definition of "promiscuous" is someone who's getting laid more than you do.

Interesting discussion. It's nice to hear one with strong opinions that doesn't resort to name calling.

--Kala

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:31 PM

LTNOWIS


Quote:

Originally posted by ladyjayne:

It's nice to hear one with strong opinions that doesn't resort to name calling.



Yeah, but after a few days of word-twisting and opinion differences, things might get ugly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:29 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY




And the definition of "promiscuous" is someone who's getting laid more than you do.
--Kala


So everyone on the planet is more promiscuous than I am?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:39 PM

HARDWARE


Quote:

Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:


And the definition of "promiscuous" is someone who's getting laid more than you do.
--Kala


So everyone on the planet is more promiscuous than I am?



Nah, there's monks and nuns and virgins everwhere.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:46 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY


Thank you for your insight DORAN. You were closer to the situation than I was.

As for "promoting" prostitution, I don't see that Firefly really promotes anything!

As I see it, Mister Whedon has created a futuristic situation, and is merely showing how a certain set of characters deal with it.

I think the reason we are all here is because he has done it ... ummmm ... rather well!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:05 PM

STEVE580


Quote:

f you lived in Canada, or somewhere else with a socialized health care system? Consider this scenario: Some Canadian smokes ciggarettes, inhaling cancer-causing nicotine. The tar and carbon monoxide probably don't help either. Eventually he gets cancer, and 5 doctors have to slice a tumor out of him in a giant operation. The Canadian taxpayer unfairly has to pay the bill due to someone's negligence.

True, that would be a problem. But if you compare the cost of healthcare for drug users vs the cost of banning drugs...far cheaper to treat, rather than prevent.
Quote:

But that's just babble. I say legalize drugs, prostitution and gambling, but you'd need a permit for the first two, and you'd need to pass a class about the risks. Of course, you'd also need to let me have an assault rifle for defense against drugged-up theives.

Yes, permits for drug use is a good idea, one I'd support. Same goes for prostitution.

And I'm all for the second amendment...but...an assualt rifle?
-Steve

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:34 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY


I know you are saying this tongue-in-cheek, but the practical fact is that smokers cause LESS of a drain on a Socialized medical system than non smokers. They die much earlier.

As far as raising the penalties until they violate the Constitution! Drug and smoking laws themselves are in violation of the Constitution.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:55 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY



"Yes, permits for drug use is a good idea, one I'd support. Same goes for prostitution."

Steve, when someone else can tell you what you may or may not do with your own body -- through "permits" or any other device -- they are claiming a property right in, and ownership of, your body. This is in short ... slavery.

"And I'm all for the second amendment...but...an assualt rifle?"
-Steve

I don't care what you own ... only how you use it! In short; every man, every woman, every responsible child, has an absolute, innate, inherent, inalienable, natural, civil, Constitutional, and human right to acquire and own any handgun, any rifle, any shotgun, any machine gun -- ANYTHING! -- and to carry it, openly or concealed, any place, any time, without asking anybodys permission.

In my view, you are the absolute owner of your own life. And you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. Provided, that you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 7:14 PM

WULFHAWK


All ladies, not just prostitutes, should be allowed to negotiate their sexual fee at any time...this would encourage both parties to maintain health and fitness.

All adults should have the right to keep and bear arms...under thier arms, on their belts, on their shoulders...this would encourage politeness and discourage overt criminal acts.

All adults who wish to indulge in drugs should receive their fix free from the government pharmacy...so long as they qualify for and maintain their license...qualification including a reasonable amount of hours caring for drug-related victims (AIDS, accident victims, babies, etc.).

Ain't gonna happen, but a fella can wish, can't he?

Take my love
Take my land

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 7:34 PM

SUCCATASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
All adults who wish to indulge in drugs should receive their fix free from the government pharmacy...so long as they qualify for... a reasonable amount of hours caring for drug-related victims (AIDS, accident victims, babies, etc.).

Why should drugs be free? Aside from marijuana, which should be grown freely. I shouldn't have to take a shift at the morgue for smoking a joint when I get off of work. If someone made me look at dead people for every joint I smoked, well that sounds pretty damn messed up. Talk about Evil, whoever made me do that would be.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 8:13 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY


Quote:

All adults who wish to indulge in drugs should receive their fix free from the government pharmacy...so long as they qualify for and maintain their license...qualification including a reasonable amount of hours caring for drug-related victims (AIDS, accident victims, babies, etc.).



TANSTAAFL -- There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

TANSTAAFT -- There Ain't No Such Thing As A Fair Tax.

Are you proposing that Gummymint stick a tax board bayonet in one persons back to pay for someone elses drugs?

That's still slavery!

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 8:49 PM

STEVE580


Quote:

Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Steve, when someone else can tell you what you may or may not do with your own body -- through "permits" or any other device -- they are claiming a property right in, and ownership of, your body. This is in short ... slavery.


Of course; I wasn't thinking. What you do with your body isn't the governments concern. I retract my previous statement.

Quote:

I don't care what you own ... only how you use it! In short; every man, every woman, every responsible child, has an absolute, innate, inherent, inalienable, natural, civil, Constitutional, and human right to acquire and own any handgun, any rifle, any shotgun, any machine gun -- ANYTHING! -- and to carry it, openly or concealed, any place, any time, without asking anybodys permission.

In my view, you are the absolute owner of your own life. And you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. Provided, that you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose.


Now this, I'm gonna have to disagree with. Carrying a submachine gun through a shopping mall - gonna have to say 'no' on that one. I don't want corporations to be able to purchase tanks and jet-fighters, either. I mean, hey, I'm all about freedom...but you need to draw the line somewhere. Way, way in the distance, past the horizen, farther away than anyone will probably ever go...but somewhere, a line must exist.
-Steve

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 22, 2004 10:03 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY



Quote:

Now this, I'm gonna have to disagree with. Carrying a submachine gun through a shopping mall - gonna have to say 'no' on that one.


Just because one CAN, doesn't mean one MUST, or WILL.


Quote:

I don't want corporations to be able to purchase tanks and jet-fighters, either.


Currently, they don't need to. Not when they can -- with a few well placed campaign contributions -- get the gooferment to use them on their behalf. 'Sides, Corporations themselves are a creation of the gummymint.

Quote:

I mean, hey, I'm all about freedom...but you need to draw the line somewhere. Way, way in the distance, past the horizen, farther away than anyone will probably ever go...but somewhere, a line must exist.
-Steve



It already exists! Libertarians call it the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), or Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP.)
In short; No one -- no individual, no group, no government -- has a right to initiate, advocate, or delegate the use of force against any other individual, or group, or government, for any reason what-so-ever.

Many a philosophy -- which people hold as beneficial -- views violence as the very definition of evil. Who benefits by this? The "good?" No, it is only evil that benefits, when men of ill will discover their victims disarmed and bound for slaughter by their very beliefs!
If we are to have a civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, we must come to view violence in a neutral light. Examining only the circumstances of its wielding. Initiated violence, especially for collective purposes, is the sum of all evil ever perpetrated by men upon man. So, can we not then view resistance to initiated violence as beneficial? Perhaps even good? If not, then we needn't look to the future for some "ultimate triumph of evil" -- it has already occurred.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL