Is forcing sex on a pornstar the same as rape?

If they did, should they punished, is the real question (by something that actually exists, not god or crap like that).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm inclined to say no in the given example; while it may be unethical, I don't think it's so unethical that a punishment should be meted out, atleast not of the severe variety. However, I see no problem with it being made -known- that said doctor did this. People could judge him on that at any rate.

I believe that actual topic of this thread (via the suing angle) is another matter, however.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Made known how- the Bureau of Moral Behavior gives out leaflets?
Or it gets posted to youtube by a passerby?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So ... if she was ten?

Like I noted, more often than not you'll find the route to the sex industry far different from becoming a doctor, or a lawyer, or even a city rubbish collector.

Don't duck the issue. Come on, man, you know we're close to the point of contention.

Ah! Ah!

"Abused"?

What makes it "abuse", Asguard? And, just to be clear, yeah, we both understand the real answer. But I want your answer, in the context of sex as mundane or sex vs. the mundane.

Oh, and by the way, you have, I presume, encountered heard the term "grooming"? There's no reason the child needs to understand sexuality or its full implications any more than the kid needs to understand the rules of the NBA before teaching them how to shoot hoops.

The infamous example I bring out in these occasions:

So ... what would you say if I waited until she was ten?

Reiterating the point: They don't have to understand.

It's not that I lack appreciation for your consideration of children and sexuality, but in this case you're avoiding the central question: Is sex, in your opinion, just another mundane act like running a mile, mowing a lawn, or chewing bubble gum?
____________________

Notes:

Spooner, Lysander. Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty. 1875. http://lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

 

Doctors are required by law to render aid. In this case the doctor would be letting the person suffer harm through her inaction.

The ethical side is the doctor has sworn an oath to help others. Oath breaking is unethical.

 

my point was you cant say you want to grow up to do something that you have no concept of. If you ask most young children what they want to do when they grow up its the usual people they see or interact with, teaches, doctors, potentually blood suckers, i mean lawyers (sorry bells

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), fire, police ect

they dont have the cognative ability to see they people in the background (for instance a medical tech working in a lab BEHIND the doctors). The ovious exception to this is that if there parents are those workers they will be very awear of them

Futher more the argument is often made that because a parent doesnt wish that life for there child that to legalise it is imoral. Well, personally i think any child of mine who wanted to go into the armed forces should be commited but in the end its not my decision.

one further point, i hope that law has since been changed because its sickerning (and doesnt meet the equal protection claws in your consitution i might add) that it only conciders it abuse or rape if it is done against the concent of a FEMALE (not to mention the age of concent is WAY to low acording to piagets theory of cognative development)

Now i havent avoided your question, in my opinion? no its not a mundaine activity but then so what? i put the principles of LIBRALISIUM above my personal opinion

put it this way, take everything else out of the piture, laws, regulations ect and look at two basic senarios

Person goes into a bar, buys other person a drink, they decide to have sex. Should this be a crime?

person goes into a bar, buys other person a drink, they decide to have sex, person a leaves a $50 (pick amount of your choice), if the above shouldnt be a crime why should this?

I belive in the rights of concenting adults to do whatever the fuck they want period.

One last side note, i dont know wether i have said this before but the SA goverments sexual services organisation SHine (no having the H capitalised is not a typing error

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) published a list of prostitutes who cater for the disabled and mentally impared. This was a very carefully documented list of people (men and women) who have the empathy to provide the service in a compasionate way to those who will probably never be able to get a regular sexual partner because of there apearance or disability

do you concider this immoral?
should these people be celibrate because your belife is that sex should be put on a pedistool and only be alowed to the "beautiful people"

Hell some relationships i have seen might as well be prositution when you think about it, look at the wife of donaled trump. She was asked if he was poor would she be with him and her responce was "you think he would be with me if i didnt look like this". Why is this NOT immoral but the above example is?

Ok this will be my last point, what about sexual theorpists who use sex as a method to help there pts (and i do mean pts) get over there social and psychological issues? is this immoral?

 

Working back toward the point of contention

And why do children have no concept of sex, then?

And does that mean they do absolutely nothing sexual? (I know the answer to this; I'm just curious about your take on the question.)

There are other obvious exceptions: those who have been willfully exposed to it.

I'm aware of the argument, and I share a certain amount of your sentiment.

The age of consent in Massachusetts is sixteen for girls, eighteen for boys. Prostitution is illegal in Massachusetts.

I must have missed that part in your prior post. Hmm ... I still am.

As to so what? I reiterate:

My problem with comparing sex work with other work is that, presently, sex work does not fall within the range of ordinary consideration. I find it fallacious to apply ordinary criteria to extraordinary conditions. In doing so, we assess the situation according to fallacious standards ....

.... It's not a matter of being the worst job out there. Rather, it's a matter of fallaciously applying mundane standards to something which is not regarded in a mundane context.​

I think your appeal to which job is worse is fallacious in this context.

Meaning? I mean, I see your example—

—but that's a separate question. And, hey, I'm all for splitting hairs on prostitution. If the fee isn't negotiated beforehand, you can always say that, "Hell, I had sex with him, is it wrong to think of him as a friend? I thought he needed the money to cover rent or the leccy bill. What the hell is wrong with helping my friends?"

But that's a different question than whether or not sex is just another mundane act, and it does nothing, in my opinion, to explain how your regard for the principles of liberalism affect that issue.

Actually it sounds like a good idea.

(chortle!)

You know, when feminists in the U.S. criticized marriage as tacit prostitution, people scoffed. It's one of those "extreme" theories that people use to justify words like "feminazi". You're at least sixteen years late putting the question to me.

Depends on how they're "using" sex, whether the therapy is experimentally valid and reliable, and whether or not one can construe a reasonable pretense of conflict of interest. Give your client a bullet vibrator, say, "Go home, penetrate yourself with this three times a day, try to masturbate to orgasm each time, record the results on this log sheet, and we'll talk about it next time"? Fine with me. Say, "Okay, I'm going to teach you to trust intimate contact by fucking you"? That's a bit different. The degrees in between we can argue about if you want.

I always get a kick out of the various "therapists" you can find on some of those HBO specials who gather couples to have orgies in the name of spicing up the sex life. Okay, I'm all for coordinating orgies if that's what you're into, but let's not call it therapy.

Although I have yet to see a yellow pages ad for a "hands-on sexological therapist". That would probably crack me up. You know, something to tear out of the book and frame, just to convince your friends you really saw it.
____________________

Notes:

"Age of Consensual Sex". LiveStrong.com. Updated July 11, 2008. http://www.livestrong.com/article/12483-age-consensual-sex/

"Prostitution in the United States". Wikipedia.com. Updated October 17, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_States

 

on your last point, they exist all right.

Not only did something i was watching ages ago do a special on them (though those 2 were prositutes first, theorpists second i do admit) we actually breifly touched on them at uni. We didnt go into detail because the comment was a side issue with regard to having sex with pts (which is compleatly off limits as is taking any other sort of advantage from a pt i might add), the exception was oviously made for sex theorpy which is part of the treatment of the pt.

on libralisium the basic premis states that unless a specific harm can be overwelmingly shown which is so great that preventing autonomy is demanded because of it, any action between concenting (in that they have the capacity and the knowlage to concent) people should be alowed. As you can see this is an assumed (just as capacity is assumed with the responcability to demonstrate that it is absent, not that it is present) power with the case against an action having to be demonstrate NOT why it should be alowed. There are ovious examples of things forbiden using this principle, murder and drink driving come straight to mind.

how does this tie into the debate? quite easerly, no one who is arguing that the sex industry should be illegal has demonstrated to my satisfaction the SPECIFIC harm from the act alone (not the surounding factors which happen when anything is made illegal) are so overwhelming that they deserve to be outlawed under the principles stated above. No one has yet shown why an exchange of money some how turns a reasonably safe (again as far as the above principle states) activity into some how a dangerious one to the point that it deserves to be forbiden

im not 100% sure on this, piaget states that they dont have the cognative development to understand it anymore than a 5 year old can automatically proccess that both swinging at a base ball and NOT swining at a base ball can both be strikes (i had an american textbook

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). Wether this is again exposure is well and truly up for debate


About your laws, why has no one charged THAT under the equal protection claws? What idiocy, two different ages of concent

i will try to state this clearer, NO i personally dont think it falls under the same catigory as other activity. However i have no desire to push that personal opinion onto anyone else either. That last bit is the important bit, if people are willing to provide it in exhange for money (either in the form of a film or an actual service) i have no argument of specific harm that would alow me the right to dictate that

Now personally i belive that as a sociaty we are to sexually repressed, why is it we spend so much time worrying about the reproduction of other species (for our survival i might add), yet it is a potentual criminal offence if the windows are left open. I dont belive (STRONGLY dont belive) that incenancy laws should exist. If people want to walk around naked or even have sex in public they should have that right and sociaty should pull the victorian aged stick out of its ass

probably, it just happened to pop into my head as i was typing the two people at a bar senario. Personally i could care less wether she married him for his money or his dick size, thats there problem and is basically none of my buiness. I just thought her comment (and yes she did make it) was rather funny

Did i miss anything?

 

What is a pussy-eater?

 

Jesus man, don't you have google?

 

Mod Hat — Really?

Mod Hat — Really?

I mean ... really?

No, we're not hauling out this moldy thread to discuss the ins and outs of cunnilinguis.