Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Why there is so much prostitution in Korea
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PatrickGHBusan



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ttompatz wrote:
I'll vote for hedonism...

The government has no business in the business of the bedroom.

.


True but government should intervene to protect the people who work in this industry (prostitution) through regulations and legal rights for those workers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KimchiNinja



Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cj1976 wrote:
This thread has gone crazy. Going back to the OP, Korean men like alcohol and they like ass, but it doesn't mean without booze they wouldn't want to get laid. Men everywhere like doing the nasty, and for whatever screwed up reasons in society, a lot of women make coin from it. No big deal.


Exactly, these threads go off into outter space.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joelove



Joined: 12 May 2011

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure what purpose a law against it serves. I don't know if that protects anyone, as laws should. It seems like it hurts more people than it helps.

Laws can have an odd effect on people, and certainly help shape culture. You can go to one country and do things that you cannot in another, like have a beer in front of a store. I know this idea was hard to grasp for my brother at least, but he has never been to another country. He thought it laughable in a way when I mentioned there should be no reason a guy can't have a beer outside even when not on his own property, as if the law was human nature and there was no other way of doing things. But that law exists because the people want it, I guess. You have to follow it, even if it doesn't really make much sense. It just seems uptight to me, much like a law the makes prostitution illegal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ttompatz



Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PatrickGHBusan wrote:
ttompatz wrote:
I'll vote for hedonism...

The government has no business in the business of the bedroom.

.


True but government should intervene to protect the people who work in this industry (prostitution) through regulations and legal rights for those workers.


Yes, but you are from the Great White North (home of BC Bud, safe injection sites and decriminalized prostitution) and not the "Bible Belt" (home of the Puritans and Prohibitionists).

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ttompatz wrote:
I'll vote for hedonism...

The government has no business in the business of the bedroom.

.


The mention of hedonism implies you were responding to me, and yet, anyone who actually read my case in this thread can clearly see I approached this issue from a purely ethical dimension, not a legislative one. This means one of two things is true:

1) You didn't bother actually reading what I wrote, yet felt the need to respond anyway with some bland platitude about what government should or should not be doing.

2) You did read what I wrote, and felt the need to falsely attribute a position to me in order to justify a snide comment.

Which is it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
edwardcatflap



Joined: 22 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I approached this issue from a purely ethical dimension, not a legislative one.


Yes it's interesting that in Western countries due to the disappearance of other influences that used to say whether things were ethical or not, people now automatically assume it's the role of legislation. The phrase 'There's no law against it' nowadays immediately means something is ethically OK to do. I don't recall anyone on here advocating making prostitution illegal but many are assuming people arguing against prostitution on morale grounds are doing just that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ttompatz



Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
ttompatz wrote:
I'll vote for hedonism...

The government has no business in the business of the bedroom.

.


The mention of hedonism implies you were responding to me, and yet, anyone who actually read my case in this thread can clearly see I approached this issue from a purely ethical dimension, not a legislative one. This means one of two things is true:

1) You didn't bother actually reading what I wrote, yet felt the need to respond anyway with some bland platitude about what government should or should not be doing.

2) You did read what I wrote, and felt the need to falsely attribute a position to me in order to justify a snide comment.

Which is it?


Specifically responding to this:
Fox wrote:
yesmynameisweird wrote:
What is this, "The Good Life." And "living properly"?


Nothing in which you would be interested. Enjoy your hedonism.


To each their own but I would vote for what you apparently consider to be "hedonism" over what you seem to espouse as the "good life" and "living properly".

You have your dogma, I have mine and the government still has no business in the panties of the nation or the business of the business of the bedroom and "ethics" have no business there either.

It is not now nor has even in the history of man been an "ethical" issue.

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ttompatz wrote:

To each their own but I would vote for what you apparently consider to be "hedonism" over what you seem to espouse as the "good life" and "living properly".


And I wouldn't vote at all, because I don't care how many hookers you sleep with, be it zero or a hundred, so why bring up voting? Do you think I was just burning to know, "Oh, what would Ttompaz vote for on this matter?"

ttompatz wrote:
You have your dogma, I have mine ...


False. You have your dogma, I have my observations. I perceive the ethical problems in prostitution, problems which I have more than adequately outlined in this thread. It's not a matter of dogma, it's a matter of observation. If new information becomes available, my opinion will change without reservation. In this entire thread, though, the ardent defenders of prostitution have done nothing but ask vague hypotheticals. "Oh, what if prostitution is part of living properly?" they ask, or, "Oh, what if prostitution existed in a hitherto unknown form, where every act of prostitution was simply a re-enactment of the movie Pretty Woman? Wouldn't that be alright?" No one -- no one, and especially not you -- has put forth a serious defense of prostitution in this thread; the defense of it has been entirely negative, vague, and hypothetical in character, little more than throwing smoke bombs, distractions, and in some sad cases, even temper tantrums.

So alright, you're strongly pro-prostitution and, if the matter were up for a vote, you'd vote in favor of it. Great. That has nothing to do with anything I've said, so why say it in response to me? More saliently, why say it in response to me given doing so added absolutely no new information to the thread? You had already posted your, "Illegalizing prostitution is bad because <platitudes>," opinion, so why did you think I needed to see it again? Did you think oh-so-wittily-phrased pair of sentences would turn everything around and open my eyes to your obviously deep and nuanced world view?

ttompatz wrote:
... the business of the bedroom and "ethics" have no business there either.

It is not now nor has even in the history of man been an "ethical" issue.


Here, let me provide a counter-argument of equal substance to your stance on the matter: "Nuh uh."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Cosmic Hum



Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

edwardcatflap wrote:
Quote:
I approached this issue from a purely ethical dimension, not a legislative one.


Yes it's interesting that in Western countries due to the disappearance of other influences that used to say whether things were ethical or not, people now automatically assume it's the role of legislation. The phrase 'There's no law against it' nowadays immediately means something is ethically OK to do. I don't recall anyone on here advocating making prostitution illegal but many are assuming people arguing against prostitution on morale grounds are doing just that.


Yes, there does seem to be some muddling of the waters in this debate.

Perhaps their morale is running low? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Cosmic Hum



Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

double post
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ttompatz



Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
So alright, you're strongly pro-prostitution and, if the matter were up for a vote, you'd vote in favor of it. Great.


Sorry, nowhere did I say I was "pro prostitution".

I simply stated that the government has no business in the bedroom - full stop.

If society wants to protect minor children then go for it. Create laws to punish those who harm or exploit minors. Punish the offender and not the minor.

If society wants to protect women (or men) from sexual servitude (laws against kidnap, imprisonment, and slavery) then go for it. Make it easy for them to file a complaint and press charges. Punish the offender and not the victim.

Protect women (or men) against unwanted sex. Punish the offender and not the victim.

The government has NO business telling consenting adults what they can or cannot do with their bodies in the privacy of their bedroom or a hotel room (or other private place) or whether they can charge a fee for said enjoyment and entertainment.

pros·ti·tute:
n.

2. One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.

Why are singers and movie stars not arrested for prostituting themselves on the stage or silver screen (rhetorical question).

I am not for or against prostitution. I am strongly against attempts to legislate morality or use "ethics" to justify a position on the issue.

What's the difference between the Korean government and the Taliban doing it (other than enforcement) (again rhetorical question)?

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ttompatz wrote:
Fox wrote:
So alright, you're strongly pro-prostitution and, if the matter were up for a vote, you'd vote in favor of it. Great.


Sorry, nowhere did I say I was "pro prostitution".


Oh? So I guess someone else must have written this:

ttompatz wrote:
To each their own but I would vote for what you apparently consider to be "hedonism"


You openly and without invitation declared that you were politically pro prostitution, that you would vote to lend your support to it if given the opportunity. Now you're walking that back?

ttompatz wrote:
blah blah blah blah The government has NO business blah blah blah blah


Why do you keep repeating this to me? I don't care about your baseless political opinions, and they do not interact with my case in any fashion.

ttompatz wrote:
I am not for or against prostitution.


I am neither for nor against many things, and accordingly, I do not express opinions on them. Your own dogged persistence in this topic gives the lie to your claim: you are clearly pro-prostitution, insofar as you would (as you've repeatedly reminded us in an unsolicited fashion) "vote against" any attempt to illegalize it, and also vigorously (if ineffectively) contest any suggestion that it is unethical. You are either lying to me, or you are lying to yourself. I don't particularly care which it is, neither appeals to me.

You know Tom, it's interesting. You are constantly bashing Americans, yet the way in which you are comporting yourself in this discussion very much reminds me of my countrymen. Perhaps your outrage at the American people is little more than the narcissism of small differences.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ttompatz



Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
ttompatz wrote:
Fox wrote:
So alright, you're strongly pro-prostitution and, if the matter were up for a vote, you'd vote in favor of it. Great.


Sorry, nowhere did I say I was "pro prostitution".


Oh? So I guess someone else must have written this:

ttompatz wrote:
To each their own but I would vote for what you apparently consider to be "hedonism"


You openly and without invitation declared that you were politically pro prostitution, that you would vote to lend your support to it if given the opportunity. Now you're walking that back?

ttompatz wrote:
blah blah blah blah The government has NO business blah blah blah blah


Why do you keep repeating this to me? I don't care about your baseless political opinions, and they do not interact with my case in any fashion.

ttompatz wrote:
I am not for or against prostitution.


I am neither for nor against many things, and accordingly, I do not express opinions on them. Your own dogged persistence in this topic gives the lie to your claim: you are clearly pro-prostitution, insofar as you would (as you've repeatedly reminded us in an unsolicited fashion) "vote against" any attempt to illegalize it, and also vigorously (if ineffectively) contest any suggestion that it is unethical. You are either lying to me, or you are lying to yourself. I don't particularly care which it is, neither appeals to me.

You know Tom, it's interesting. You are constantly bashing Americans, yet the way in which you are comporting yourself in this discussion very much reminds me of my countrymen. Perhaps your outrage at the American people is little more than the narcissism of small differences.


So how does pro hedonism = pro prostitution?
More a case of anti-government involvement in private and personal affairs.
Time to send the Puritans packing back to where they can't do too much damage to the rest of the planet.

Where is anything said about America or Americans (other than
a reference to a SPECIFIC general who made it his personal affair (after some bad press back in the States about men in his command - simple statement of fact that directly related to the circumstances of the change in law) and used his position of authority in Korea to bully the then Korean government to make a change)?

The only narcissism here is yours to bear.

And for the record... I am NOT anti-American. I bear no ill will toward people of that or any other nationality.

I am very much anti-stupidity and have no problem taking shots at American or Canadian or UK foreign policies and governments or the effects those governmental policies have on the people of the planet when they try to inflict their will outside their own borders.

Why do Americans (like yourself) take it personally when people of other nations are offended by the irresponsible, ill conceived and often illegal actions of the US government abroad?

Even more to the point, why do you think that any discussion of bad government practices is about America, Americans or the American government? It's not like they are the only government engaged in stupid practices (although they are usually the most visible and least transparent about it).

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cj1976



Joined: 26 Oct 2005

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Men love hookers. Hookers love money. Win-win.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asylum seeker



Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.

PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

liveinkorea316 wrote:
asylum seeker wrote:
liveinkorea316 wrote:
Alcohol and cigarettes are heavily restricted. To the satisfaction of the majority of society. Cigarettes have less social benefits but their negative impacts on innocent victims are more easily being regulated these days. Alcohol has much worse impacts on innocent victims but also has more positive perceived public benefits so the trade off is accepted using restrictions and allowing alcohols restricted use in society.

Prostitution has no such widely accepted positive benefits that moat people agree and the impacts on innocent young girls or abused women are too difficult to police.


You've got it completely backward- harm is actually much more difficult to police when it is illegal. In countries where prostitution is legal prostitutes can go to police when they are abused or threatened. As I mentioned before prostitutes in New Zealand are also covered by workplace safety regulations which includes use of contraceptives and safe practices. In countries where it is illegal sex workers have no legal recourse if they are harmed and police tend to abuse the power they have over them.

Also human trafficking or slavery or underage sex is a completely separate issue from paid sex between consensual adults and nobody is proposing that such acts should be legal. It seems like you're trying to deliberately obfuscate the issue here.


human trafficking or slavery or underage sex have never been completely separate from paid sex between consensual adults. They are completely comingled in most places. What planet are you living on?

Prostitution is legal in some states in Australia and scores of Asian women are kidnapped, extorted, threatened and and kept as slaves in an industry that is legal. Your argument is out the window.


In countries where prostitution is decriminalized as it is in NZ, Australia, Canada, UK and several other countries there is clear distinction in the law between paid consensual sex between adults and trafficking or underage prostitution. If you think that legalizing one means legalizing the other you are truly and utterly ignorant. The two issues are completely separate and there is no need to conflate them. By making prostitution legal you are not condoning any other illegal acts and it's a pure sophistry to claim otherwise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 13 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International