Burney, your analogy between our treatment of animals and prostitution seems flawed

[Monty92]

to me.

For our attitudes towards the former to move closer to the latter doesn’t necessarily require us to “willingly forego the pleasures” of eating animals. It can merely require a shift in attitudes to those who do and who are otherwise involved in the practice.

So, in the case of prostitution, it may still be partaken of by millions around the world, but you pay a huge social (and often professional) price in this becoming public knowledge. And if you are involved in the operations side of prostitution (pimp, sex trafficker) then you pay an even greater price.

Is it not conceivable that our attitude to eating dead animal flesh will go down a similar route in the future, whereby millions will still eat animals but will receive a level of opprobrium for doing so that doesn’t exist today?

And if you are involved in the operations side of eating animals - say a factory farmer or a KFC worker - you will simply become a social pariah in any social situation in which you reveal your occupation?

[Ash]

blah blah blah

Better to have lived and to have been eaten, than never to have lived at all.

Though maybe not so much for battery chickens.

[Pat Vegas]

to me.

For our attitudes towards the former to move closer to the latter doesn’t necessarily require us to “willingly forego the pleasures” of eating animals. It can merely require a shift in attitudes to those who do and who are otherwise involved in the practice.

So, in the case of prostitution, it may still be partaken of by millions around the world, but you pay a huge social (and often professional) price in this becoming public knowledge. And if you are involved in the operations side of prostitution (pimp, sex trafficker) then you pay an even greater price.

Is it not conceivable that our attitude to eating dead animal flesh will go down a similar route in the future, whereby millions will still eat animals but will receive a level of opprobrium for doing so that doesn’t exist today?

And if you are involved in the operations side of eating animals - say a factory farmer or a KFC worker - you will simply become a social pariah in any social situation in which you reveal your occupation?

How do you have time to think about this sort of thing?

[Monty92]

Better to have lived and to have been eaten, than never to have lived at all.

Though maybe not so much for battery chickens.


Yes, in my vision of the future, eating beef from, say, a free range cow would be akin to admitting you once fúcked a whore on a stag do in Amsterdam. People would roll their eyes, but you'd basically pay no real social price.

[Monty92]

How do you have time to think about this sort of thing?

I utterly neglect my children.

[Pat Vegas]

I utterly neglect my children.

:hehe: best way

[Ash]

Yes, in my vision of the future, eating beef from, say, a free range cow would be akin to admitting you once fúcked a whore on a stag do in Amsterdam. People would roll their eyes, but you'd basically pay no real social price.

Chemically synthesised meat will probably become available at some point. Also consider that animals do more than just provide meat. Apart from dairy products and leather, they cut the grass in the lake district. Might as well eat them too if they're being bred for other purposes. :eat:

[Burney]

to me.

For our attitudes towards the former to move closer to the latter doesn’t necessarily require us to “willingly forego the pleasures” of eating animals. It can merely require a shift in attitudes to those who do and who are otherwise involved in the practice.

So, in the case of prostitution, it may still be partaken of by millions around the world, but you pay a huge social (and often professional) price in this becoming public knowledge. And if you are involved in the operations side of prostitution (pimp, sex trafficker) then you pay an even greater price.

Is it not conceivable that our attitude to eating dead animal flesh will go down a similar route in the future, whereby millions will still eat animals but will receive a level of opprobrium for doing so that doesn’t exist today?

And if you are involved in the operations side of eating animals - say a factory farmer or a KFC worker - you will simply become a social pariah in any social situation in which you reveal your occupation?

It wasn't an analogy, it was a benchmark of how, as a species, we are disinclined to allow questions of ethics to dominate our need to satiate our natural desires for pleasure. The point is that, after 10,000 years of civilisation, if we have only come that far on the commoditisation of human beings, how much further away do you think a worldwide moratorium on the commoditisation of animals is?

[Monty92]

Chemically synthesised meat will probably become available at some point. Also consider that animals do more than just provide meat. Apart from dairy products and leather, they cut the grass in the lake district. Might as well eat them too if they're being bred for other purposes. :eat:

Synthesised meat is nearly here, I believe. Just a matter of years away before it starts to become commercially available. And many have eaten it already.

[Burney]

Synthesised meat is nearly here, I believe. Just a matter of years away before it starts to become commercially available. And many have eaten it already.

If it tastes as good and is as cheap or cheaper to produce, then great. Otherwise, no thanks.

[Ash]

It wasn't an analogy, it was a benchmark of how, as a species, we are disinclined to allow questions of ethics to dominate our need to satiate our natural desires for pleasure. The point is that, after 10,000 years of civilisation, if we have only come that far on the commoditisation of human beings, how much further away do you think a worldwide moratorium on the commoditisation of animals is?

As long as there is a labour market, there will be 'commoditisation of human beings' as you put it. Some marital relationships could also be described thus. Prostitution doesn't have to be unethical.

[Monty92]

It wasn't an analogy, it was a benchmark of how, as a species, we are disinclined to allow questions of ethics to dominate our need to satiate our natural desires for pleasure. The point is that, after 10,000 years of civilisation, if we have only come that far on the commoditisation of human beings, how much further away do you think a worldwide moratorium on the commoditisation of animals is?

But I'm not talking about a moratorium. I'm talking about a shift in attitudes whereby eating dead animals comes with a social stigma.

In the case of prostitution, many people believe it should be legalised on the basis of libertarian values and/or pragmatism, whereby prostitutes would be better treated and safer if it was legal.

In other words, we are pretty close to a scenario in which being a licensed brothel owner or a pimp would go some way to losing its social stigma. But if you operated out of these regulatory parameters, say as a sex trafficker, the stigma would remain. And equally for those who use illegal or sex trafficked prostitutes instead of legal ones.

In a world in which animal farming was more strictly regulated, is it not possible that treating chickens as terribly as we do now would come with a similar social stigma?

[Burney]

As long as there is a labour market, there will be 'commoditisation of human beings' as you put it. Some marital relationships could also be described thus. Prostitution doesn't have to be unethical.

That argument relies for validity on the idea that there is no essential ethical difference between asking someone to sit at a computer terminal or operate a lathe for money and asking them to suck your cock for money. I would suggest that is a somewhat naive view.

[Ash]

That argument relies for validity on the idea that there is no essential ethical difference between asking someone to sit at a computer terminal or operate a lathe for money and asking them to suck you cock for money. I would suggest that is a somewhat naive view.

I used to know (in a non-commercial sense) a lady of negotiable affection who enjoyed her job and made tons of money from it. If a woman who was not unattractive offered you substantial readies in return for certain sexual services that it would not bother you to provide, would it come down to a matter of principle or price? (Your personal relationship commitments notwithstanding)

[Burney]

But I'm not talking about a moratorium. I'm talking about a shift in attitudes whereby eating dead animals comes with a social stigma.

In the case of prostitution, many people believe it should be legalised on the basis of libertarian values and/or pragmatism, whereby prostitutes would be better treated and safer if it was legal.

In other words, we are pretty close to a scenario in which being a licensed brothel owner or a pimp would go some way to losing its social stigma. But if you operated out of these regulatory parameters, say as a sex trafficker, the stigma would remain. And equally for those who use illegal or sex trafficked prostitutes instead of legal ones.

In a world in which animal farming was more strictly regulated, is it not possible that treating chickens as terribly as we do now would come with a similar social stigma?

I think it's naive to suggest that whoremongering is ever going to lose its social stigma. In a society that values sexual fidelity in women, whoring will always have a stigma.

As things stand in general society, eating dead animals has zero social stigma - none. Where is the impetus going to come from to change that? Where is this stigma going to come from? Vegetarians and vegans? No-one really cares what they think. They've been banging on about it for years and the world is eating more meat than ever before.

[redgunamo]

I think it's naive to suggest that whoremongering is ever going to lose its social stigma. In a society that values sexual fidelity in women, whoring will always have a stigma.

As things stand in general society, eating dead animals has zero social stigma - none. Where is the impetus going to come from to change that? Where is this stigma going to come from? Vegetarians and vegans? No-one really cares what they think. They've been banging on about it for years and the world is eating more meat than ever before.

I think A (and possibly M too) is saying that whoremongering is essentially fine, so long as you don't call it that.

[Burney]

I used to know (in a non-commercial sense) a lady of negotiable affection who enjoyed her job and made tons of money from it. If a woman who was not unattractive offered you substantial readies in return for certain sexual services that it would not bother you to provide, would it come down to a matter of principle or price? (Your personal relationship commitments notwithstanding)

The principle is that you are taking something to which as humans we give real emotional weight and value, are stripping it of all emotion and turning it into a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. The level of emotional disconnection that requires and the damage it must do to other parts of your life and view of the world seems to me a high price in and of itself.

[Monty92]

The principle is that you are taking something to which as humans we give real emotional weight and value, are stripping it of all emotion and turning it into a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. The level of emotional disconnection that requires and the damage it must do to other parts of your life and view of the world seems to me a high price in and of itself.

How much emotional weight and value would you say the average casual sex encounter carries and how much damage would you say it does to other parts of your life and view of the world?

[redgunamo]

to me.

For our attitudes towards the former to move closer to the latter doesn’t necessarily require us to “willingly forego the pleasures” of eating animals. It can merely require a shift in attitudes to those who do and who are otherwise involved in the practice.

So, in the case of prostitution, it may still be partaken of by millions around the world, but you pay a huge social (and often professional) price in this becoming public knowledge. And if you are involved in the operations side of prostitution (pimp, sex trafficker) then you pay an even greater price.

Is it not conceivable that our attitude to eating dead animal flesh will go down a similar route in the future, whereby millions will still eat animals but will receive a level of opprobrium for doing so that doesn’t exist today?

And if you are involved in the operations side of eating animals - say a factory farmer or a KFC worker - you will simply become a social pariah in any social situation in which you reveal your occupation?

No, I don't think so; work, and the idea of work, is simply too important nowadays. Getting caught kerb-crawling, for instance, may be an embarrassment but there's no real long-term price to be paid. Everyone can make a mistake but the modern thinking is it doesn't mean they ought to be denied the right to work and make a living. There's endless examples of this.

[Burney]

How much emotional weight and value would you say the average casual sex encounter carries and how much damage would you say it does to other parts of your life and view of the world?

That rather depends on whether or not the wife finds out about it, m :shrug:

[redgunamo]

That rather depends on whether or not the wife finds out about it, m :shrug:

Or if acquiring the wife in the first place was actually a consequence of it. The damage to other parts of your life and view of the world can be very "emotional" indeed :-\

[Ash]

The principle is that you are taking something to which as humans we give real emotional weight and value, are stripping it of all emotion and turning it into a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. The level of emotional disconnection that requires and the damage it must do to other parts of your life and view of the world seems to me a high price in and of itself.

Maybe, but should the woman be stigmatised? I can't help feeling that there is some humbug going around from men who feel that they are entitled to promiscuity but women aren't.

The one-night-stand is not supposed to be about 'real emotional weight and value', yet consenting adults may participate.

[Ash]

I think A (and possibly M too) is saying that whoremongering is essentially fine, so long as you don't call it that.

Yeah, more or less. :nod:

[Burney]

Maybe, but should the woman be stigmatised? I can't help feeling that there is some humbug going around from men who feel that they are entitled to promiscuity but women aren't.

The one-night-stand is not supposed to be about 'real emotional weight and value', yet consenting adults may participate.

It's not a question of 'should they be stigmatised'. They will be stigmatised regardless because of how society works. And, more to the point, they will feel that stigma whether they want to or not because they are conditioned to do so.

One-night stands freely entered into are - or should be - genuine exchanges of pleasure between equal partners and do involve what one might term 'short-term emotions'. They are not a commercial exchange where one party gets pleasure and the other gets money. The analogy breaks down on that point.

[redgunamo]

Maybe, but should the woman be stigmatised? I can't help feeling that there is some humbug going around from men who feel that they are entitled to promiscuity but women aren't.

The one-night-stand is not supposed to be about 'real emotional weight and value', yet consenting adults may participate.

Surely it would be women doing all the stigmatising?

And it's pointless asking them about it, of course; they're terribly confused about things at the best of times.

[redgunamo]

It's not a question of 'should they be stigmatised'. They will be stigmatised regardless because of how society works. And, more to the point, they will feel that stigma whether they want to or not because they are conditioned to do so.

One-night stands freely entered into are - or should be - genuine exchanges of pleasure between equal partners and do involve what one might term 'short-term emotions'. They are not a commercial exchange where one party gets pleasure and the other gets money. The analogy breaks down on that point.

Take it further then; what if both parties obtain pleasure and also end up better off financially. That must be a fairly common scenario, imo.

[eastgermanautos]

It wasn't an analogy, it was a benchmark of how, as a species, we are disinclined to allow questions of ethics to dominate our need to satiate our natural desires for pleasure. The point is that, after 10,000 years of civilisation, if we have only come that far on the commoditisation of human beings, how much further away do you think a worldwide moratorium on the commoditisation of animals is?

This is, in fact, completely wrong, and I expect you know it. The Ancient Greeks were all about the ethics of food choices. Epicureans much? And of course old Pythagoras, with his religion of farting.

[Peter]

I think it's naive to suggest that whoremongering is ever going to lose its social stigma. In a society that values sexual fidelity in women, whoring will always have a stigma.

As things stand in general society, eating dead animals has zero social stigma - none. Where is the impetus going to come from to change that? Where is this stigma going to come from? Vegetarians and vegans? No-one really cares what they think. They've been banging on about it for years and the world is eating more meat than ever before.

The world is eating more meat because intensive farming and speedy exports are making it cheaper than ever before. This creates two additional concerns that are relatively new- carbon footprint, and the intense cruelty of intensive farming.

We have people suggesting there are 37 genders. Is it really inconceivable that people will start to turn their back on the farming industry, particularly as the alternatives become more freely accessible and whining ****s start to believe they are allergic to dairy?

The number of vegan companies in the UK has almost quadrupled in the last decade……

[Peter]

Take it further then; what if both parties obtain pleasure and also end up better off financially. That must be a fairly common scenario, imo.

How do both benefit financially? Who is footing the bill?

[Monty92]

How do both benefit financially? Who is footing the bill?

Your mum, I expect

[Burney]

The world is eating more meat because intensive farming and speedy exports are making it cheaper than ever before. This creates two additional concerns that are relatively new- carbon footprint, and the intense cruelty of intensive farming.

We have people suggesting there are 37 genders. Is it really inconceivable that people will start to turn their back on the farming industry, particularly as the alternatives become more freely accessible and whining ****s start to believe they are allergic to dairy?

The number of vegan companies in the UK has almost quadrupled in the last decade……

The UK is not the world. It, like the rest of the west, is a declining, decadent place where faddish crankery is virtually the norm. This means that it will soon die and soon be replaced by some more vital, hungry culture that I can assure you will have no time for nonsense on stilts like animal rights.

[Burney]

This is, in fact, completely wrong, and I expect you know it. The Ancient Greeks were all about the ethics of food choices. Epicureans much? And of course old Pythagoras, with his religion of farting.

You're confusing philosophy and reality, I fear.

[Peter]

The UK is not the world. It, like the rest of the west, is a declining, decadent place where faddish crankery is virtually the norm. This means that it will soon die and soon be replaced by some more vital, hungry culture that I can assure you will have no time for nonsense on stilts like animal rights.

Well thank you, Nostradamus. A valuable insight into the priorities of future cultures.

[Ash]

Well thank you, Nostradamus. A valuable insight into the priorities of future cultures.

Ritual slaughter is definitely the way to go. :nod:

[Peter]

Ritual slaughter is definitely the way to go. :nod:

I think we should only sell live meat. You want it, you have to kill it.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

Fer fuxake Monty get rid of that avatar. Mezut was clearly very underwhelmed to have his walk interrupted by a Kilburn dwelling arriviste and you look like the sort of primping nancy that's had an awful lot of cock in his mouth (who the feck grooms their chest hair into a straight line!).

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

Yes, in my vision of the future, eating beef from, say, a free range cow would be akin to admitting you once fúcked a whore on a stag do in Amsterdam

Or allowed yourself to be sodomized by a brazilian lady-boy

[Burney]

Well thank you, Nostradamus. A valuable insight into the priorities of future cultures.

Yes. I've got over my depression about the west going tits up by deciding that we fvcking well deserve to. Honestly, look at the fvcking ridiculous sh1t our society is now prepared to countenance as normal. We've disappeared up our own arses and fully deserve to burn. It's a shame for my daughter and currently non-existent grandchildren, but there's nothing to be done about it, I'm afraid. We're fvcked and we fully deserve to be. :-)

[World's End Stella]

The UK is not the world. It, like the rest of the west, is a declining, decadent place where faddish crankery is virtually the norm. This means that it will soon die and soon be replaced by some more vital, hungry culture that I can assure you will have no time for nonsense on stilts like animal rights.

So faddish crankery being the norm means that western civilisation will soon die?

And there was me the other day foolishly accusing Burney of loving logical leaps. :hehe:

[Peter]

Yes. I've got over my depression about the west going tits up by deciding that we fvcking well deserve to. Honestly, look at the fvcking ridiculous sh1t our society is now prepared to countenance as normal. We've disappeared up our own arses and fully deserve to burn. It's a shame for my daughter and currently non-existent grandchildren, but there's nothing to be done about it, I'm afraid. We're fvcked and we fully deserve to be. :-)

when all things end, others begin
Otherwise the end would win

Still true today.....

[redgunamo]

Simply, a chap spending an evening with a whore could be settled rather reasonably for a little cash,
whereas a similarly happy ending with his wife may run into real money. So he may consider that he has made a decent saving.



How do both benefit financially? Who is footing the bill?

[Ash]

Simply, a chap spending an evening with a whore could be settled rather reasonably for a little cash,
whereas a similarly happy ending with his wife may run into real money. So he may consider that he has made a decent saving.

This is the thing, really. It's considered fine for a man to lavish a lady with expensive gifts and restaurants and holidays to bribe his way into her knickers, but not when the arrangement is explicit from the start. :shrug:

And the other thing is that it has been said that in many cases the man is not paying the professional for sex, but paying for her to go away afterwards.

[eastgermanautos]

You're confusing philosophy and reality, I fear.

Ethics. Aristotle trotted out a work called The Nichomachean Ethics. Not read it, don't plan to.

[redgunamo]

This is the thing, really. It's considered fine for a man to lavish a lady with expensive gifts and restaurants and holidays to bribe his way into her knickers, but not when the arrangement is explicit from the start. :shrug:

And the other thing is that it has been said that in many cases the man is not paying the professional for sex, but paying for her to go away afterwards.

Well, your first point describes my courtship and subsequent marriage, and that arrangement was certainly fairly explicit from the start (and apparently still is, if 'er indoors' Amex bill is anything to go by), if only because we didn't enjoy a shared spoken language we could otherwise communicate in.

Secondly, perhaps there's a crucial difference between "paying for her to go away afterwards" and merely paying for the right to not be expected to stick around afterwards, as it may be understood from the beginning? Had my wife and I chosen not to continue the ̶f̶a̶r̶c̶e̶ relationship, what harm would've been done?

Actual real, cash money is so readily available nowadays that how one makes it doesn't really carry any stigma at all anymore, literally however it is you do it. Surely if my children can accept that their birthday parties and Louis Vuitton jeans and iphones are paid for by my warmongering, would it really concern them if it was through whoremongering or growing pot instead? It's just business, innit. Work.

Similarly, does even a decent, responsible adult care too much about any funny looks she may get from her family and friends as they learn where the money for her new car came from or how her munificent expenses get paid, even if it's obviously from a succession of wealthy, generous "gentleman visitors"?

It's the working and making money that overcomes any ethical objections now. And that goes for M's pariah-ed meat producers as it does for even the Gambino family and professional athletes and drug-addled rock stars. It wasn't long ago that footballers were considered amongst life's losers and ne'er do wells, was it. And many middle-class types who actually finished school still can't quite get over it; all that money for kicking a ball about, indeed. Even moreso now that age and apparent talent or success is not a barrier to earning a fortune out of the game. Frankly, whatever it is people do to make shìtloads of the stuff, everyone else simply wishes they had thought of doing it too.