The Profiteering of Sex

[kinvoya]

This has got to be the hundredth thing you've blamed on childhood sexual trauma.

That has got to be the hundredth time you've said that someone has said something a hundred times.

I say it because it's true and most people aren't aware of it. I'm a hard core feminist and I've done a lot of reading about women's issues.

I'm just going by memory here but I believe the stats are 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually molested or raped before puberty. Usually by someone they trust. Often by a family member.

This is some serious trauma that messes people up for the rest of their lives unless they are able to get long-term counseling. When girls are molested they tend to get quiet and withdrawn until about 12 at which point they often become sexually promiscuous. They seem to feel that all they have to offer is their bodies. Boys tend to act out and misbehave. They might become promiscuous, too, and be unable to form relationships involving real, nonsexual intimacy.

Sexual predators can spot children and adults who have been previously abused a mile away, just from their body language and behavior. The predators know that the victim is vulnerable to manipulation and can easily be drawn into more abuse.

It's not a fun subject but I hate that men think that girls and women who are promiscuous are just super-sexy. In fact they are damaged people who are in a great deal of pain and in the process of damaging themselves more for whatever mysterious reason that people do that.

I know it's not a subject anyone wants to hear about but when sexual issues like rape and prostitution come up on the forum it's an issue I want people to be aware of.

I'm willing to annoy people to get the point across that these aren't lighthearted subjects for happy funtime rp. But I think you're right, actually, and I'm tired of writing about it so I won't be making any more comments along those lines.

[Nick]

Not just on this subject, but you can't make general sweeping presumptions like that...

It's not a fun subject but I hate that men think that girls and women who are promiscuous are just super-sexy. In fact they are damaged people who are in a great deal of pain and in the process of damaging themselves more for whatever mysterious reason that people do that.

You know what, some girls like sex. Not all of them got molested, and not you or a feminist magazine can make such a statement otherwise.

I'm just going by memory here but I believe the stats are 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually molested or raped before puberty. Usually by someone they trust. Often by a family member.

Those stats are impossible to gather, so it makes little sense that you're so deadset on their validity.

That has got to be the hundredth time you've said that someone has said something a hundred times.

(by the way, that's the second time I've used that phrase. The only other time I said that was when Swymir repeated that he gets his names from the US Cencus)

[kinvoya]

I give up. You win, Nick. I'm sure you've done extensive research and know far more about this (and apparently every subject) than the professionals.

[Nick]

I give up. You win, Nick. I'm sure you've done extensive research and know far more about this (and apparently every subject) than the professionals.

I bet you know more on this subject than I do.
But like my first statement, it doesn't matter what subject it is. You can't just make general sweeping presumptions.
Every situation is it's OWN, unique situation.

(By the way, because you have read a lot does not make you an expert. More knowledged than me in the subject, but not an expert...)

[formerly known as hf]

General sweeping assumptions are always wrong - I agree with you Nick

But it also seems that kinvoya is aware of that, but was simply trying to bring to attention the realities of RL prostitution - indeed, childhood abuse and/or drug addictions is a generalisation, that is not true in all cases, and the specifities of each case is certainly different - but they're important issues, that many people do not realise

Prostitution is not a light subject. It shouldn't be ignored, and treating it lightly is a form of ignoring it.

As for the validity of statistics - on such a subject, they are always going to be inexact, due to a combination of (many) not wishing to declare it. Often they are underestimates. Figures are out there, and accessible, and differ greatly.

[rklenseth]

Kinvoya, from what I'm gathering here, you think I shouldn't do something like this?

[Schme]

It's true that no one should really know what rape is, as it does not really happen.

And it has not even been completly accepted that Cantr people have sexual organs or can have sex at all, and so prostituition is nonsensical.

Also, Cantrians are utimatly utilitarian. Even if someone set up such a type of thing, there would, as that guy said, be next to no demand, with the possible exeception of some role players.

I must agree that those statistics seem near impossible to collect.



But I have to say that it does seem that some of you don't quite understand north american prostituition.

It sort of makes me sad, the misunderstanding.

But I'm not very articulate, so I won't say anything.



I do remember hearing of the Stone Knights kidnapping women from the Commonwealth and locking them in a room called "The Whore House", but I do not know any more about it than that.



Gotta turn up the speakers a tiny bit for this one. Amateur recording.


http://thebox2.free.fr/slickdoug.mp3

Slick E and Doug E Fresh, Live a the Lincoln Projects, NY 1984.

[formerly known as hf]

Also, Cantrians are utimatly utilitarian

I would disagree with that - if that was the case, Cantr wouldn't be as great and RP environment as it is - the Cantrian world may seem utilitarianist, but the players and their characters do not always treat it as such...

[west]

General sweeping assumptions are always wrong.

Boy, that sure is a general sweeping assumption.

[Schme]

Damn strait.

[formerly known as hf]

General sweeping assumptions are always wrong.

Boy, that sure is a general sweeping assumption.

Exception that prooves the rule? Name me one general assumption where all the people it assumes something about fit the description?

[Lord_Igor]

Name me one general assumption where all the people it assumes something about fit the description?

People with blond hair have blond hair.

[formerly known as hf]

People with blond hair have blond hair.

Er... no - they might have dyed it

[west]

But in that case their hair is still blond. It comes out of the follicle blond.

[formerly known as hf]

that depends on how you take the description 'hair colour' - some might take it as the literal colour of hair underneath and dyed hair, some might take it as the colour the hair has been dyed to (and just after being dyed, the roots wouldn't show). Others would disagree about what 'blonde' actually is...

The point is - generalisations are deeply fallacious - they can be read in many ways, and taken to read many things. As such, a generalisation is only true for all the people it claims to be true for if the person reading it takes it to mean what it says a certain way, and so therefore is only true for those people with that reading of it. And as there will always be multiple readings and understandings, no generalisation can be true for all the people it claims to be true for all of the time. Or ever.

And you can read into and out of that what you like.