What?
But for those who regard consensual sex as one of the nicest of nice things, prostitution is a corruption, a devaluing. Though it is consensual, it is so only through the medium of money. No one would put up with it without being paid. This is far from the bliss of Adam and Eve.
The existence of prostitution devalues sex for those who have unpaid consensual sex?
That\’s the same argument as the one that the existence of same sex marriage devalues heterosexual marriage, isn\’t it? An argument that I certainly laugh at and one that Mary Warnock would certainly never try to put forward.
And people listen to this woman on the subject of ethics?
Sheesh.
I understand she lives in Southend and you have misquoted her specialist subject…
People who have a job as prostitutes early on in life may find that it affects their sexuality negatively later in life; that’s where the devaluing might be said to occur.
You know, I sort of agreed with you there for a moment, then I realised that in fact, we not only listen to assorted airheads, we actually exclusively listen to them.
There are no competent clued people in those positions(or any other ones where ability would be of use…) … no idea why, I’m beginning to think that competent people don’t really exist, I think they closed the factory down and don’t make ’em anymore.
Jacqui Smith about her mindless new laws about prostitution: “Under the new offence, men would not be able to claim in court that they had not known the prostitute had a pimp or a drug habit. ‘It won’t be enough to say, “I didn’t know”,’ she said. ‘What I hope people will say is, “I am not actually going to take the risk if there is any concern that this woman hasn’t made a free choice.” It would be quite difficult for a man paying for sex in the majority of cases not to fall under this particular offence.'”
and… “The measures are highly controversial, with critics arguing that men will seek other outlets if prostitution is driven off the streets. Smith said it was ‘not mine or the government’s responsibility to ensure that the demand is satisfied’, adding: ‘Is this something about which people have a choice with respect to their demands? Yes, they do. Basically, if it means fewer people are able to go out and pay for sex I think that would be a good thing.'”
(…)
Does this also mean that the because restaurants only exist due to the medium of money, the food in them is morally worthless and the existence of restaurants devalues food for those who like to eat food that has been cooked at home?
“No one would put up with it without being paid. This is far from the bliss of Adam and Eve.”
Stupid woman.
You could say that about everyone who has a job.
If a literary critic gets paid for reviewing a book, does that mean that everyone else who reads it is being short-changed or morally undermined?
Also is it not time we rescinded all payments to Mary Warnock? Surely to afford her any financial compensation would reduce her to the status of a political hooker, available to the highest bidder. This is no way to treat a lady, all such payments must cease.
Did anyone ask her what it did to the value of sex for those not getting any?