In Yonhap, there’s a piece about some foreigners organizing a flash mob in Gangnam as a protest against prostitution.
Expats can commonly be found in Seoul’s large array of bars and restaurants on any given weekend. But on one recent Saturday, a group of 50 expats spent their night roaming the streets of Seoul, not looking for a fun night out, but rather to pick up cards and fliers advertising prostitution.
The flash mob, which was organized through Facebook, called for all foreigners in Seoul to give a voice to the voiceless.
Mind you, it’s not that they are accusing Koreans of anything:
But 28-year-old Kristin Singletary, the main organizer of the flash mob, insisted that aggression was not the group’s intention.
“Perhaps the number of people could be seen as aggressive,” Singletary said. “But our intentions are not aggressive. We’re just a group of foreigners who want to abolish slavery in Korea, but we’re not accusing Koreans of being wrong.”
“We’re trying to work together,” Singletary added. “We’re on Korea’s side.”
I think prostitution should be legal and thought the 2004 Special Law on Prostitution was a terrible idea, but I know opinions differ on this, and that the prostitution racket can be very, very shady.
Still, I’m not sure if I were Korean, I would take foreign flash mobs particularly well, regardless of what they were protesting. If a bunch of young foreigners held a flash mob in the middle of Washington DC, they could be protesting to abolish the Department of Education and still I’m not sure I’d like it.
More importantly, prostitutes are not so voiceless (for more dramatic English coverage, see here), and they might not appreciate young foreigners coming into their areas of employment and threatening their livelihood.
Mind you, I’m not saying foreigners shouldn’t support causes. I personnaly have an interest in historical preservation, and I know at least one foreigner who is very involved in that particular cause. In terms of drawing public attention, putting a white face on an issue can be useful—rightly or wrongly, the local press tends to like stories like that. But it does create the danger of making an issue look like a matter of us-versus-them, and few people like be told what to do in their own country by foreigners.
{ 123 comments… read them below or add one }
Robert, I agree with you that prostitution should remain legal and I think you make a good point about the prostitutes not necessarily wanting their help.
But I don’t see the problem with foreigners or anyone giving their opinion. As the old saying goes, “You have the right to tell me to go to hell and I have the right not to go.” (Or that special “First Sis” message from The Korean on the dog meat thread.)
My issue is when politicians step in with the force of government to block voluntary transactions between adults. They have the power to arrest and punish people, those flash mob folks might just annoy some people.
Agree with #1, wtf is the problem with people giving their opinion ? Foreigners or not. I would do the same thing, not against prostitution but because those flyers are very dangerous during winter when they are over frozen “whatever”. I almost killed myself on new year’s eve.
How farcically useless.
How did littering become an acceptable advertising ploy?
@red sparrow : Flaw in the law, I don’t understand why there is no law in Korea which would allow Police to just pick up flyers and impose a fine on those whose number’s on it. This law exist in virtually every over country in the world
Yes, distributing those leaflets is littering.
I have no problem with prostitution being legalized (made illegal by an ordinance of the US Military Government in 1945 or 1946, a copy of which I have somewhere at home), but the people who throw those leaflets on every horizontal and vertical surface (car windows) should be fined for littering. They are dangerous and an eyesore.
Whores make me happy.
Dates with good girls: nothing but grief. Dates with bad girls: happiness. Much better value for money.
I’m an adolescent bore. Deal with it.
Remember that awesome flash mob in 2008, when thousands of Chinese students randomly showed up along the Olympic torch run, and pulled down Tibetan flags and assaulted pro-Tibet and anti-China demonstrators?
If it could be construed as political action, it would probably be illegal depending on their visa status, further more, this isn’t a flash mob.
It’s bad enough when we create slang and then people further misuse it. A flash mob is a spontaneous event that lasts usually a short time.
There is no planning. The moment a group plans something it’s not longer a flash mob. If you do the same thing again and again it definitely isn’t a flash mob. Flash mobs are also supposed to be random. This is just a giant failure across the board.
It’s funny how in the first picture, most of the faces I can make out seem to be asian.
Later that night, these panty-sniffers went home and flagellated themselves in their closets like Arthur Dimmesdale.
Agreed 100% with Robert and NayaCasey on the issue of prostitution. I also have no problem with people expressing their views publicly, but I can’t imagine how a bunch of white people tsk -tsking Koreans in the streets of Seoul is going to garner anything except accusations of neo-Orientalism.
@11
It’s mot just the strangely PC Orientalism but the presumption to derogate the sex workers as slaves. There may indeed be some who toil as such in various places, including Korea, but as Robert’s references make clear many of these would would protest loudly against Ms Singletsry’s derogation of their dignity and agency – something they in fact did in response to some of the do-gooder initiatives of “respectable” korean women’s groups at the time of the mass closures of the brothel districts some time ago.
@7
I am; i’ve tagged you for my kill filter. 地獄で会おうぜ – not
milton #11–I would guess that people who agree with the Flash Mobbers would celebrate them for picking up the business cards and those who disagree would be upset with the tsk-tsking of white people (and, of course, the “tribal worriers” who are worried about any slight of their particular tribe). I’m just guessing, but it seems that 15 years ago that Koreans were still drawing lines between Korean versus foreigners, but that more Koreans these days are more willing to criticize fellow Koreans and even side with foreigners. Perhaps this is a result of Korean being more globalized, more Koreans traveling abroad. So could the concern with tsk-tsking be an old reflex of people who have been here long-term and still remember Korean reactions? Or perhaps paying too much attention to what the tribal worriers are saying?
roboseyo #8–Peaceful protesting, no problem. If they get physical then the cannibals should be the welcoming party.
Western liberal arts student hand wringing at its finest. I wonder if Ms Singletary has ever taken a moment from her “activism” or hagwon job to consider the slave labor component of her cushy western lifestyle or the goods and services that make it so.
I’m very curious on why people think that prostitution be legal. Any responses to this appreciated.
Bulgogi @16
Benefits of legalized prostitution may include:
-Access to national healthcare, enforcement of regular STD checks and affordable safe birth control for sex workers. Less babies end up in orphanages, aborted?
-decrease in human trafficking
-fair labor practices, wages and treatment of workers
-less waste of tax dollars enforcing a “victimless” crime
-tax revenue going to government coffers rather than organized crime
These are what I come up with.
#16,
Because, at least in the Land o’ the Minjok, it’s already considered a victimless crime and the police don’t pursue sex workers unless a clean-up drive is in progress?
Bulgogi Fanatic — Well, for starters, I think it’s absurd that you can get arrested for selling something that’s perfectly legal to give away for free all you like.
Human trafficking aside, that is. I’ve no problem with prostitution as long as its not a debt-bondage model, but even in places like Australia where its largely regulated there have been problems with trafficking. That being said, prohibition isn’t the answer either.
if they want to affect change, here’s what they have to do:
Be ready to keep doing the same thing for a LONG time, until their persistence is as much a story as what they’re actually doing (cf comfort women…) in fact, if they can get the former comfort women, and maybe some rescued human trafficking victims either from Korea, or who were brought TO Korea, to join in protesting the ongoing prostitution and human trafficking that happens in Korea, they’ll suddenly have a whole whack-ton more moral authority.
Also, either get Korean anti-prostitution groups involved (they’d have to be careful which: some of those groups might provoke a ‘same old, same old’ reaction from the usual sceptics)
and/or
make some smart choices about what they do with the flyers:
Either start dropping the flyers off either at the front door of the office of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea
OR the group that would be most embarrassing to Korea, to have Korea’s prostitution brought to their attention — either the Korea Tourism Organization, or the Korea office of whichever international news organizations have an office in Seoul (CNN? BBC? Reuters? Do the international news wires work that way?)
OR Just keep collecting them for a long long long time, and once they have enough to fill a garbage dumpster (or some other startlingly large container), and then invite international journalists and human rights organizations to a photo opportunity.
That’s how I’d do it, if it were my project. Going down there and repeating this “flash mob” (this is not how flash mobs work: total misnomer) five times isn’t going to accomplish anything. I hope they’re ready to go it for the long haul, if they really want to raise awareness.
I would and not just because I favor the abolition of the Department of Education. Freedom of speech protects everyone within US jurisdiction.
roboseyo, that’s sounds like a plan that could be quite effective. But it also reminds me of something Peter Drucker said: “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.”
Bilgogi, see Roberts comment, and also ask yourself why should govt interfere with business transaction between two consenting adults.
In the words of Jack Flowers (Paul Theroux’s protagonist in his novel Saint Jack, published in 1973), “People make love for lots of crazy reasons. Why can’t money be one of them?”
Arghaeri –
If you and Robert would both be happy that your own daughters (or even girlfriends or wives) chose prostitution as a profession, and you would announce to all your friends that they in fact work as prostitutes, AND even encourage those friends to patronize your daughters and/or wives, then I suppose your argument for the legalization of prostitution would appear to me at least to be quite genuine.
I mean, after all, if there’s nothing wrong with it….
…or should it only be someone ELSE’s daughter or wife?
Judging whether an activity is “right” or “wrong” should not be our sole criterion for passing and enforcing laws dealing with it. Honestly I have far more respect for the hos who work in Nevada than the hos on Capitol Hill. At least the johns who patronize the Bunny Ranch are spending their own earned income and not other people’s money.
@Bulgogi Fanatic
I’m equally curious as to why you think prostitution shouldn’t be legalised.
@wiessej
I suspect you wouldn’t be overjoyed if your wife/sister/daughter took a job in a lap-dancing bar, or a slaughterhouse, or even a McDonald’s. Should we ban all those, too?
To Understanding –
How incorrect you are in your attempt to make an analogy. I would have no problem whatsoever if my daughter or wife worked in a slaughterhous or at McDonald’s. In fact, I don’t even understand how you can imply there is anything wrong with either. The fact is, I actually HAVE a daughter who worked at McDonald’s. And I have a son who works now at a fast food place. I am sure they would get even better wages working at a slaughterhouse. No problem there. I would NOT like for either my wife or daughter to work at a bar that caters tot he sexual desires/fantasies of its patrons, however. And if that was banned, you wouldn’t see me cry any tears. Was your post supposed to pose some sort of dilemma?? It didn’t.
Wiessej: then let me try to make an analogy.
What is you had a daughter who was very bisexually promiscuous, and who decided that she preferred a life of active physical Hedonism than that of wedded bliss. If, then, a friend or acquaintance asked you: “How’s your daughter, sir? Is she married yet?” Would you answer honestly that she is “screwing everything in sight” or would you be more coy?
That is, of course, assuming that your daughter would tell you the truth in either case. Rare would be the daughter, I imagine, who would confess to mom and pop that she was “whoring out [her] ass for cash.”
As the old saying that Robert quoted above goes, why should it be wrong to do for money that which is perfectly legal to do for free?
nayaCasey:
I agree with you in terms of trying to ban prostitution and also calling slaves people who might in fact be working by choice. But I liked Roboseyo’s idea in terms of cleaning the streets of those profuse streams of shiny paper cards. Putting bags of them outside the KTO head office or media outlets might encourage police to fine these litterbugs, just as they should be fining people who throw cigarette butts everywhere.
Don’t you think?
Because money corrupts the process of “doing it for free.”
For a parallel case: it is perfectly legal to support your candidate. But if you support your candidate because your candidate handed you an envelope full of cash, that would be bribery.
How exactly does money corrupt sex? Giving the female a gift in exchange for mating privileges is standard practice among many species including our own. Law and custom require that the gift be discreet, like dinner at a nice restaurant, rather than an envelope of cash.
@Robert: George Carlin line or just coincidence? In any case, I agree.
I think the “foreigners” in this case should politely fuck off. Nobody wan’t their pretentious holier-than-thou attitude and hey, news-flash: Korean prostitution isn’t the human trafficking you might see in South-East Asia, these girls have no interest in being “saved”.
As far as the flyer’s go: I’m not sure how effective they are as I’ve never been inclined to use one (temptation is certainly another story), but I agree that perhaps some of the “outfits” have gone a bit overboard with it. It is littering after all. Gotta admit, though, those ahjummas out there at 5-6AM sweeping and cleaning up do a damn good job. People going to work in the morning would never know if they didn’t already.
Two last things:
1. Flash mobs are totally gay.
2. Has anybody seen the Chaser? I find it relevant to this topic.
Here, I am borrowing heavily from my favorite feminist scholar Catherine McKinnon, who argued that pornography should be outlawed. (“Horror of horrors!”, howled Charles Tilly upon reading this.)
The short version is this: money corrupts sex by commodifying it. By introducing money, sex goes from an intimate culmination of a human-to-human encounter to a transactional encounter in which one of the parties retains (almost always) his humanity. Because the overwhelming majority of prostitution involves man purchasing sex from woman, continuing existence of prostitution serves as a constant reminder that female sexuality, and by extension women in general, exist to serve male desires, rather exist autonomously and on its own term.
in which *only* one of the parties retains…
@thekorean: I don’t see why a man paying for sex means he can not later still have an intimate encounter. It’s not like it takes away your ability to love.
To hamel –
I am not sure why you call your post an analogy. It was a hypothetical situation. And I wouldn’t be proud of my daughter for living such a lifestyle if such circumstances reflected reality. Am I missing something? “cuz neither you nor “Understanding” are too effective at makign whatever point you are apparently trying to make.
I would respectfully suggest that you should meet some men who always had women at his disposal in exchange for money or money equivalents, and reconsider what you said about taking away one’s ability to love.
I am familiar with the provocative work of Catherine McKinnon but do not agree with much of it. Human sexuality exists to continue the species, and in fact, it is men who apparently face future extinction owing to the genetic depletion of the Y chromosome. Legalizing prostitution poses little threat to the opportunity for intimate encounters as the nature of the job holds little appeal for most women, who prefer to exercise free choice in selecting partners.
thekorean:
I think you and Ms McKinnon have it topsy-turvy.
Romanticism/feminism/religion corrupts sex by DE-commodifying it. All human relationships are transactional. They continue only as long and to the extent that both parties preceive some sense of value from them. This is true of sex in a marriage, an FWB relationship, or sex-for-sale.
There, sonagi’d that for you.
Wiessej: sigh. Let me try to elucidate for you.
Your point (if I understood you) was that Arghaeri and Robert’s arguments for legalizing prostitution were not genuine because they would not be happy to announce to all their friends that their daughters/girlfriends/wives had chosen prostitution as a profession. You implied that therefore there is “something wrong” with prostitution. Yes?
I then analogized to suggest that most men would not be happy to announce to all their friends that their daughters/girlfriends/wives had chosen to be a sexual libertine as a lifestyle choice. However, only in a theocracy or a communist state would such a lifestyle choice be made illegal.
Why, then, should prostitution be made illegal as a profession when sexual promiscuity is not illegal, given that most fathers would not look kindly upon their daughters for choosing either of them?
Again, it comes down to the basic question posed by Robert above: if it is legal to do it for free, why is it not legal to do it when money is involved.
Or, to really go to the heart of the matter: why is it okay when the transactional element is merely implied (i.e. sex for dinner, sex for a night out, sex for companionship on a cold night, sex for gametes, or even sex for love) but not okay when the transactional element is explict (i.e. I give you money and you give me sex)?
It does not even have to be “most women” — it simply needs to be a critical mass of women, such that sex is virtually available for purchase whenever the mood strikes. Kind of like Korea, actually, which is why I find prostitution in Korea particularly repugnant. The disgusting sexism in Korea is directly correlated to the extent to which women are commodified and objectified. Unfortunately, I had a front-row seat on that process, of how men’s view of women becomes distorted by having sex constantly available at every beck and call.
I find that view too bleak.
I also find this view too bleak.
Yeah! *pumps fist in air*
TheKorean: I agree. It is a bleak and, you might say, biologically reductionist view.
However, “bleak” is a value judgement, an emotional evaluation. I don’t find that it makes an idea any more or less true.
Therefore, “bleak”, yes. Is it thereby falsified? I don’t think so.
To hamel –
You ask a lot of questions, and if you totally dispense with a sense of morality as a factor in any of the answers, then the hedonistic approach is unopposed.
One of the conclusions that you arrived at that you feel bolsters your argument is: “i.e. sex for dinner, sex for a night out, sex for companionship on a cold night, sex for gametes, or even sex for love”
You’re missing the boat. Only when morality takes a vacation is “sex for ___” in vogue. I don’t know about you or Robert, but if you ever dated a girl and expected sex for dinner, sex for a night out, etc., then you guys were far too narcissistic for the woman you were with. Your “sex for love” comment is a little silly as well. Sex for love?? How about sex as an expression OF mutual love, not in exchange FOR love. I mean really! A woman is going to give you sex because you “love” her? Or vice versa? You write grammatically well, that is for sure, but yours is a case when, if your logic path is one degree off at the start, you are way off target at the conclusion.
Sorry, but as crazy as it may sound, I actually agree with thekorean on this one. And you know what? All real sensible people believe it…that sex outside of a loving relationship cheapens it…makes it little more than masturbation. I mean…really.
I thought that anthropologists had classified the giving of gifts and purchase of nice meals as a display of the male’s evolutionary fitness.
If you think I could falsify your proposition, your opinion of me is too high. But by the same token, you cannot prove false my thesis either. Such is the matter of human affairs.
thekorean, what I am saying is that something can be bleak and be true at the same time, right?
I am not asking you to falsify my proposition. Neither am I disagreeing with you that it is bleak.
wiessej: thank you.
Sure. But I don’t think your position is true. It does have the benefit of being a simplistic theory, such that its reach can be stretched to fit different circumstances with different meanings. (E.g. equating “sex for money” with “sex for love”.) But as a worldview whose function is to explain how the world operates and should operate, I find it inadequate.
It’s more than that. Male chimps nourish their partners and therefore potential offspring with hunks of meat, and male black widows with their bodies. Females in many species seek not only good genes but material resources.
One of the signal errors of the utopian is to imagine that through compulsion, they can make people better. They can’t. The only way to make people better is to make the people themselves want to be better — i.e., through persuasion.
And one of the signature errors of the libertarian is to abdicate from all moral imperatives when persuasions fail, often because such persuasions are made half-heartedly.
[emphasis mine]
And there is where the problems begin. However, this is nothing new in world history.
In the issue of prostitution, greater minds than ours have discussed this topic for, quite literally, millennia. There have always been attempts to squash it out, and yet it remains with us as a thriving industry. In some countries more prolifically so than in others.
What I wrote above was simply an attempt to call a spade a spade. Why do we have this industry when there is so much opprobrium against it? Why do people who publically rail against it avail themselves of the services in private?
I am not trying to moralize or use “should” statements. Some people try to understand how the world is, and others try to mold it to how they feel it should be. I am of the former.
In a way, I see myself like the little boy in the tale of the Emperor’s new clothes. So many people are couching sex in these terms as if it were something more than a biological urge.
If you believe in evolution rather than a religious understanding of man’s origins, we humans are animals. Male mammals are programmed to spread their seed. Women are programmed to nurture that seed. Of course there are exceptions. In the growth of human civilizations marriage has grown up as an institution, but those primal urges are still there. Prostitution is one “outlet valve,” if you will. Masturbation is another.
so, then, would you fill us in on the contractual details of your deal with your parents concerning the circumstances of your birth?
I’m just enjoying watching a progressive for a change lecture people about what they can or can’t do with their own genitals. If it means anything to you, TK, I’m sure Rick Santorum would appreciate your argument.
Weissej: You seem to be having some difficulty grasping the argument, so I’ll type slowly. There are lots of forms of behavior I wouldn’t want my daughter—or son, for that matter—to engage in, including, but not limited to, whoring (paid or otherwise), smoking, attending Syracuse, voting Democrat, or working in publishing. Yet, if I were to argue that just because I would want my daughter to do any of those things those things should be illegal, people would look at me like I was insane. And rightfully so.
@53
The problem imo is that it is not a case of either/or. We are both biological and ethical beings and individuals whose individuality is a function of (the peculiar history of ) the societies of which we are a part – societies which embody specific collective efforts to reconcile the different imperatives of the biological, social and individual aspects of our being.
@57
If you wanted to make working in publishing illegal because you didn’t want your offspring to work in the business, people justifiably might think you odd. People justifiably might also think not just odd but morally obtuse to find some equivalence between that impulse and one to prohibit prostitution – although it’s clear that your mere preference regarding your offspring’s profession doesn’t constitute anything remotely resembling a cogent rationale for legislating morality.
Robert –
Spare the insults….as soon as I got to your “typing slowly sentence”, I stopped reading…so I honestly don’t know or care what came afterward. Do you expect to command someone’s attention writing that way? Carry on the discussion with the others here. Enjoy your Sunday.
It’s OK, wiessej—I doubt you would have gotten it anyway.
Ahhh…I am just not possessed of the superior intellect and comprehension skills as some people are, I guess. Forgive me for presuming that I could even come close to what is necessary to understand your insult-prefaced comment, Robert. Perhaps it wasn’t even an insult…but rather, an objective assessment by you of my inadequacies. If so, I thank you for the candor. Really…really..really, I do.
Ok, that was funny.
This progressive, on the other hand, thinks people should be able to do what they want with their genitals, including turning a profit from them if they so choose.
Oh, and foreigner liberal arts majors should be free to express themselves, but I should also be free to heckle them liberally if I happen to be nearby
By the way, has anyone else noticed that women protesting prostitution tend to be, erm, less aesthetically pleasing than average?
*hides*
nothing particularly remarkable about that; progressives of all political persuasions, left and right, have been the greatest perpetrators of tyranny in modern times
Good grief, we’re that bad? Anyway, has anyone else noticed that the term “progressive” is overused these days at the Hole?
I think theKorean started it. For the record “Progressivism” means different things in different countries. In Australia, it’s akin to the Third Way, which is a moderate form of liberalism, not to be confused with radical lefties, and certainly not to be associated with communism. It advocates equal opportunity (not equality), personal responsibility, balanced budgets (not laissez-faire economics or state waste), decentralisation of government, protection of the environment, and public-private partnerships. Many democratic socialists consider it a betrayal of left wing values. I’m sort of a fan.
I don’t think there’s been many tyrannical progressives of that sort.
I think that prostitution ought to be legal, though I also consider it a demeaning type of human relationship, but you get what you pay for, I guess. I don’t think the transactional model accounts for all kinds of human relationships. As Sperwer implied, we’re born into some — a web of relationships that we never chose to have. Nor do I think that falling in love fits the paradigm of a transaction. Nor do men and women interact in ways that are entirely reducible to transactions. Here’s an example. Around 1990 in Berkeley, a disturbed Iranian man entered a restaurant and pulled a gun with which he effectively held the entire staff and clientele hostage. One of his demands was that the men present offer to die in place of every woman present. Each man had a choice: The woman dies, or you do. Every man present chose to take a woman’s place. Why? Transactional? A dead man gains nothing. Maybe some of those men were taking a date out for dinner and hoping to score later that night if they spent enough money, but they suddenly found themselves confronted by a choice they’d not included in their calculations, a choice that demanded they act on their deepest values and potentially pay the ultimate price. Sociobiologists might explain this by some variant of their transactional model, but I’d wager they’re explaining the phenomenon away rather than explaining it in a meaningful way.
In case anyone’s curious how the story turned out . . . a SWAT team (or equivalent) managed to infiltrate the restaurant and take the culprit out before he shot anyone.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Okay I have been in transit for a few hours, so it is time to play catch up if I can.
Good question. Both my parents are dead, so the transaction has ended. But I will play along. My next sentence (#42 above) was:
So I am talking about relationships over time. Now, in the case of parents, obviously in the birth of a child, the child does not have a say. But when the child is old enough, the child can choose not to associate with his or her parents for some reason. By the same token, the parents can also decide at some stage not to associate with their child any longer (whether it is an adult or a minor).
One thing that distinguishes humans from other animals is our tendency to form long-term relationships with not only our parents, but other blood-related people (uncles, cousins, etc). Animals seem to not even recognize their own parents once they are adult. But this tendency of humans is no absolute. It is all a question of choice.
And that brings me to Jeffery Hodges’ story about the Iranian man and his hostages. It is a fascinating story, and the fact that all men chose to lay down their lives for their dates is really interesting too. But I don’t think it really negates what I am talking about (the transactional nature of relationships) for several reasons:
1) the focus with me is on the maintenance/continuance of relationships over time, rather than on each individual transaction or moment.
2) people’s evaluation of transactions are informed by a variety of different value sets. One man might have made the choice that he did because, in his value system, he felt that to do otherwise would be to, say, ruin his good name, or send him to hell. So the simple statement that “A dead man gains nothing” overlooks these different evaluations.
3) In this instance, the men were making individual choices, but some of their choices would have been influenced by the choice of the others. In other words there is a group dymanic involved. If you are the last of the 20 men to be asked your choice, and the 19 men before you have just said that they would die to save a woman, would it be so easy for you to proudly announced “screw her, I wanna live!”?
4) not all transactions involve sex (I hope that didn’t need to be said)
I’d wager you think I was just trying to explain the phenomenon okay, but hey, it was meaningful to me. ^^
Sperwer
Sure. I agree. There is an interesting tension there. And every society has different norms and standards to inform those transactional choices.
I don’t think so either, and I think it’s sad so many people do. My wife and I fell in love while we were both dirt poor. We’re now very comfortable and still very happy.
I’m not sure what transaction occurred, unless love and trust are transactions.
Regarding the Iranian example:
Perhaps they made the cynical calculation that should the gunman be bluffing, they’re chances of getting laid would increase exponentially.
But seriously, men have a desire to be heroes. It raises them in the esteem of their peers, and being held in high esteem by their tribe/community gives them social currency and the favour of females. These men must have known (consciously or unconsciously) that if they emerged from the cafe alive, they would be lauded, and in being lauded would gain social, and biological advantages.
Doesn’t explain Kamikaze pilots. But what do I know?
Hamel, maybe we need to start more simply. What do you mean by “transaction”? I’d assumed some sort of reductive economic model because the discussion began with the economic transaction of sex for money, something that sociobiologists would further reduce to biological imperatives.
I thus need to know what you mean by the term “transaction.”
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
hoju_saram and Jeffery Hodges:
by transaction I mean that each party receives something of value from the relationship that they want. This can be an emotional value, a religious value, a moral value, an economic value, a reputational value, a networking value, or any number of other things. When one or both members of the relationship no longer feel they are getting the same value, the relationship may fade away, break off sudenly, or need to be redefined.
Relationships where sex is involved have very interesting transactions going on. And sometimes there is a direct economic benefit.
Since I’m for legalization, what can you infer about my looks?
I have little story that may or may not make the men here smile. When I first moved to my present city, I had not arranged housing in advance and was having a very tough time finding an affordable apartment with wood floors in a decent neighborhood. Finally, I got lucky at one real estate agency as a man a few years younger than me said, “I’ve got 40 people on a waiting list already. I don’t why I’m doing this, but I’m bumping you to the top.” I got the apartment I wanted. After returning to my motel room, I realized I was mid-cycle and wondered if my pheromones had influenced him in any way like the research example of strippers getting bigger tips when they’re ovulating. I decided to start a little research project of my own by timing my requests to men to coincide with ovulation. Unfortunately, I don’t get many opportunities to ask favors from men, so I’m still collecting data.
If this would make you feel better, Catherine McKinnon’s theory is very heavily Marxist.
A lot of people misunderstand me just because I am a progressive — I am actually very conservative in my temperament. (This is why I initially preferred capitalizing the Progressives, to denote that the particular strain of leftists in Korea and not left-wing thoughts in general.) The only people I despise more than libertarians are hippies.
This is EXACTLY what I meant when your worldview has a benefit of simplicity — it can be stretched to fit just about anything. But as I see it, the worldview describes everything and explains nothing. “[A]n emotional value, a religious value, a moral value, an economic value, a reputational value, a networking value, or any number of other things” are in some ways similar to one another and in other ways quite unlike one another. IMO, flattening all of the things listed above into a single plane is a hedonistic abdication of thought. The ability to make fine distinctions is essential for any mode of thought that actually explains the world, and “It’s all value” worldview reflects none of that ability.
Perhaps the same thing the helpless real estate agent inferred when you batted your eyes at him
As the far as the ovulation thingy is concerned, there are plenty of studies out there supporting your theory, most of which involve men sniffing female armpit odour at various times of the month.
Which got me thinking. Perhaps women should harvest their own sweat during ovulation and keep it in a jar to wipe on themselves before a night on the town. Better yet, soak a rag in it and ambush attractive men in parks, dark car-parks, etc. They might fight you off before falling unconscious, but they’d be helpless after that.
Why hate hippies? Non-welfare-addicted hippies can be cool people.
I grew an interesting area, where hippies and rednecks shared the same habitat. When I moved to Sydney and found myself socialising with corporate-types, I realized that most of them are complete bores, who think talking about themselves, their money and the people they know make for good conversation. Give me an eccentric and a bottle of home-brew on a verandah any day.
“Perhaps women should harvest their own sweat during ovulation and keep it in a jar to wipe on themselves before a night on the town. Better yet, soak a rag in it and ambush attractive men in parks, dark car-parks, etc. They might fight you off before falling unconscious, but they’d be helpless after that.”
An ether-odor situation . . .
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Sonagi,
We want you here for a long, long time yet, so please, no walks in the wild by yourself when you’re ovulating – as you likely know, women victims of bear / cougar attacks are often ovulating when they were attacked.
Hoju,
There’s no shutting you down anytime, is there? How about the pituitary gland excretions from Sarah Burke – would that do it for you?
I didn’t know this. But it is common knowledge in my circles that women ought to avoid surfing and swimming when menstruating, since this is when they most often fall victim to shark attacks.
Of course the solution is obvious – educating sharks and bears. (!)
I’m generally a big fan of excretions, but you’ve crossed the line on this one Cactus!
“[B]y transaction I mean that each party receives something of value from the relationship that they want.”
This is a very broad understanding of “transaction,” for “value” could mean almost anything according to your examples, but even so, not all human interactions are transactions according to this definition. Rape is a type of human interaction, but I can’t see how a woman receives anything of value from it.
But even for cases in which each partner is obtaining something of value, I don’t think that “transaction” necessarily exhausts the meaning of a human interaction. I would argue that a transactional analysis of love diminishes it.
Imagine falling in love with a woman and that the love is mutual and requited. However, in a postcoital moment of mental abstraction (for which you would never forgive yourself), you needlessly explain your view of love as a transaction. Your lover becomes offended by such a crass view that reduces her love to a negotiation.
“So, I’m no better than a prostitute!” she exclaims.
She then gets up, dresses, and leaves you lying there in a state of postcoital tristesse. You try to tell yourself, “Oh, well, if she can’t accept my view of love as a transaction, then she wasn’t the right one for me since she couldn’t supply that value.”
But your own words ring hollow even to you, for you really loved her, and for the rest of your life, you live with regret, forever caught between an abstract ‘truth’ you stated and an emotional truth you could have lived . . .
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I think you may have have just accidently written a Rain music video script.
At least it’s better than Gee-Gee-Gee-Gee Baby-Baby-Baby . . .
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Jeffery H,
I’m thinking the Coen Brothers will be calling soon.
Jeffrey H
Coen Brothers, eh?
Hmmm . . . this is rapidly escalating to something even bigger than love, and a bit of Hamelian transaction is beginning to sound more appealing.
Hamel, my friend, any tips on how best to negotiate?
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
The Love Song of Hamel the Mammel
My love thought my love from above,
Each time we engaged in love’s action.
But I told the truth to my love:
“We’re really engaged in transaction.”
My love took offense at the truth.
“But I thought you true-loved me!” she cried,
Got up and just left me, forsooth,
And my love unaccountably died!
My life thus has value no more,
Nothing left to negotiate now.
So treat not your love as a whore;
Rather swear a by-heaven-held vow!
Such truth oh too late learnéd I,
And caught fast in regret lies my soul.
Far better had been it to lie
With my love untransacted but whole.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Bravo! *claps*
But can you write a poem about women’s menstruation cycles and animals attacks?
Hamel @68
My remark was intended as a debating challenge, not an invitation to a game of dodge ball. Noting your parents’ death, and the consequent dissolution of the supposed ” transactional” nexus that purportedly connected you doesn’t address my observation regarding the utterly non-transactional nature of your birth or, for that matter, of the entire relationship between parents and children for much, I would argue all, their lives. Of course, that is not to deny that such relationships have practical elements or that one could attempt to theorize such relationship in terms of a (purely contractual or utilitarian) transaction, but why would one want reductively to do so.
“But can you write a poem about women’s menstruation cycles and animals attacks?”
Hey, I just now wrote a poem attacking a mammal, and you’re unhappy that it had no menstruating feminine in it?!
But thanks for the standing ovulation . . .
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
That is just ridiculously stupid, Weiss, so if your not happy to encourage your wife or dayghter ro be say, a toilet cleaner, and happy to boast to all your friends of it, then toilet cleaning should be illegal.
I am perfectly serious that it should be legal, as it is in many countries for the benefit of society and the girls themselves.
jefferyhodges #67, has Michael Sandel written about that 1990 restaurant horror story yet? He seems to enjoy those “draw moral lessons based on extreme, once-in-lifetime maybe possibly situations to apply to non-extreme interactions” stories.
NC, I don’t know if anyone has written on it. I was away from Berkeley at the time, but one of my flatmates send a letter describing the event. He also told of a political science class that discussed the scenario after first checking to see if anyone had been at the restaurant that evening. No one replied to the query, so the discussion was on, the question being why the men had volunteered to die for the women. Various opinions were expressed, and one feminist argued that the men considered the women their ‘property’ and were merely defending what they ‘owned.’ At that point, a previously quiet woman spoke up: “I was there.” Everyone else fell silent, so she continued, “I didn’t say anything earlier because I wanted to hear what people thought.” She paused, then added, “I don’t know why the men did it, but I’m glad they did.” At that, the class broke into applause . . . though maybe not everybody present.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
jefferyhodges #91, by the way, your poem in #85 was great, I may need your help the next time I’m doing a rap song… About that 1990 restaurant emergency situation, I suspect there is another element: A crazy man with a gun gives you a “you or the chick” death option, he’d probably kill you anyway after calling you a coward.
The scenario of Weiss encouraging his friends to patronise his daughters newly cleaned toilets is particularly amusing.
Hamel, on the litterbug aspect, 100% agree.
wait, one moment you’re decrying prostition the next you’re saying its better than masturbation. Please make up your mind
Arghaeri #94, thanks for letting me know, I had been worried you might agree with the pro-litterbug coalition! Anyway, clicking into Paul Krugman mode, those litterbugs are creating jobs and profits for the Koreans companies printing those business cards and selling office supplies to those who make their own; for the folks who pick up those cards every morning; and helping to connect the prostitutes and their customers in need. Now, all of that is incredibly irrelevant to the flash mob and littering because their fight is against prostitution, not littering…
Why not follow the proven antiprostitution route, make it illegal for bears and sharks to attack humans. I’m sure it will work just as well.
@67
An example of the Birkenhead Drill in action?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/21/schettino-should-have-stayed-aboard?INTCMP=SRCH
Jeffery #80: By introducing rape into the discussion, you demonstrate a lack of comprehension of what I wrote.
Sperwer #87: I think I dealt with your question and answered it appropriately. I didn’t dodge it. You are asking me to repeat myself.
Hamel, my friend,
I do not believe that Jeffery’s example is inapposite, nor do I believe you addressed my question. You made a couple of sweeping genralizations to the effect that “all human relations are transactional” and such transactions involve the (implicitly, voluntary) exchange of value. Neither rape (nor any other crime against persons (and arguably persons’ property), nor the parent/child relationship of birth and nurturing comports with your claims since either or both the conditions of voluntarism or exchange clearly are absent. What you characterize as our misunderstanding and hectoring may be a sign of the deterioration of our rapidly aging brains (and I’m much farther along than Jeff), but it looks more like a result of some muddled thinking on your part.
“Jeffery #80: By introducing rape into the discussion, you demonstrate a lack of comprehension of what I wrote. ”
You did say that “All human relationships are transactional,” but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by “relationships.” Since this included interactions with a prostitute, I took it rather broadly as implying all human interactions, so I now need your definition of “relationship.”
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Since it seems that we three are firm in our own views and not clearly understanding each other, I shall bow out of this discussion now.
Too bad, because I don’t think our differences are necessarily irreconciliable. Your position seems to proceed from the long established meme in western thought about the moral ground of ethical conduct being founded on an imagined contractual relation between individuals who otherwise have no – or at least no rationally respectable – connection. I, and I think Jeff, are pointing out certain apparent realities that contradict the grand assumption on which that style of thought is based, and which seem to point towards a more “conservative” point of view. For myself, though, I think that the only sort of conservatism that is worthy of consideration is one that recognizes that, its theoretical incoherence notwithstanding, the sentiment of individual contractualism now is one of great force in our way od life and its traditions and so has to be accommodated. Part of the accommodation entails coming up with some sort of more plausible theorization for that sentiment than the one upon which it conventionally is founded, and that requires dealing forthrightly with the sort of hard cases that Jeff and I have posed for you.
“Since it seems that we three are firm in our own views and not clearly understanding each other, I shall bow out of this discussion now.”
I’ll take this to mean that you are pressed for time and perhaps lacking energy for continuing. I don’t know that we’re irrationally set in our views, and I was, anyway, beginning to sense that your use of “relationship” is far more restricted than I had initially inferred.
I would agree that relationships include transactional aspects, but these don’t even begin to exhaust the ways in which two people in a relationship interact with one another — except, perhaps, in the limiting case of a cash-nexus ‘relationship’ with a prostitute, where the exact specifications of what is desired by each of the two partners are explicitly set forth and agreed upon in advance.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Per the suntimes:
I will add I personally know a woman here in Korea that has been pimped out in a local spa. These guys targeted her, especially since she suffers from low self-esteem and is thus is a prime candidate for being pimped out. After she started doing menial work and hand-jobs there, she need a loan, which they gave her and then the demands started.
She is now a troubled woman whom I have been trying to help out but her needs are more than I can provide, considering this problem has been a slowly evolving story of abuse, manipulation and now suffering.
We could blame the woman’s parents, who IMHO started this whole pattern of abuse but blaming anyone would not solve some of the core issues the woman has which, from my point of view, are psychological, but then, there is no one to step up and help her and I am not Jesus.
IMHO, again, these problems especially happen when families become dysfunctional and psychological abuse becomes a part of one’s childhood. Victims are created through a long process of abuse and THIS is the reality of evil.
That talk of “transaction” simply don’t make sense in light of the things I have seen. Go talk to a real pimp “Hamel” and get an education.
R. Elgin, thanks for your account. You misread me if you think I am in favor of pimps and sexual bondage and debt-servitude. Seriously.
What you speak of mirrors in some respects what happens in Amsterdam with the “loverboy” phenomenon. What’s interesting there is that the pimps first court the women and then slowly hint that they have debts and, ordinarily they wouldn’t think about it but, could their girlfriend possibly help out? Terrible.
Any situation where one person (or more) is coerced is not a relationship in the sense that I am talking about. I am sorry, truly, that I expressed myself in a way that allowed people to think that I support that which R. Elgin is talking about.
Hamel #106, I didn’t read your post to be endorsing bondage or servitude in any way.
R. Elgin #105:
1) You are close to her situation, what do you think a sensitive and caring guy like Hamel could do to help her?
2) Not to say her case is lost but there are some young teens out there today who will end up in her situation in a few years. What, if anything, do you think could be done from a public policy standpoint to prevent this kind of tragedy in the future?
3) This is a thread about prostitution so to connect it to the sex industry overall, which policy makes more sense to you? Legalization, status quo, or crackdown? I suppose it would be the same answer but which of those three policies would be a better option for the woman you wrote about?
Agreed. Hamel ostensibly meant freely chosen prostitution, and mutual transaction concerning the sexual service, not trafficking or otherwise forced sexual services.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Per “Nayacasey”, if I think only in terms of short-term, tactical solutions, “hamel” and other concerned people, including me, would make a money pool to buy out the debt and we would shore her up until she gets another job.
Concerning a strategic, political solution, look at the medium: the place she is stuck in is an established, full service spa in Bongcheon-dong that has been in existence for years and offers a 24-hour jingilbang, golf range, workout rooms, various spa services, health programs, etc. and what the owner has done is to work with pimps to hire women who need money to do menial jobs, like tending the sauna room fires, etc. and when, at some point, the potential offer of a loan arises, the women take it and the “extra” services begin. Since the spa uses legitimately hired personnel for this “extra” service, that is also off the books, no one knows about it and it is not monitored.
This is an institutionalized sort of vice and hidden crime that would require investigators that could not be, in turn, corrupted by the offer of free extra services. Do I trust the police or prosecutor’s office to investigate?
Absolutely not.
R. Elgin #109, seems there is no good solution to it all. There are so many other people worthy of support that it might be tough to convince folks to bail out the woman you wrote about.
The flash mob could protest in front of the spa, but as Robert K noted at the beginning of this thread, prostitutes who allegedly are being helped don’t always welcome the support of activists.
Elgin, I find it hard to believe that a young woman working at that facility would not notice the extra services being rendered and therefore accept a loan unless she was willing to repay it in the manner expected. How does a young person rack up so much debt that her parents or extended family members cannot help her out? I respect your caring, compassionate attitude but question whether she would just fall back into debt and the same means of paying it off after you rescue her from her present situation.
You are very much correct “Sonagi” but some people don’t want see situations for what they really are and are guilable. This is more common than you would think therefore *you* should not be so quick to blame the victim just because you have a stronger mind!
The additional demands came later.
This is also why, as I’ve mentioned earlier, IMHO, the woman needs psychological counseling but getting counseling while being pimped out is a big problem and meanwhile, the spa owner is making money from this.
Just wanted to say it’s nice to see you back, Elgin.
All kinds of ways – which militates against any one size fits all approach to such individual problems. I’m familiar with a case in which a fairly affluent young woman from a “good family” was persuaded by her fiance to put up a very substantial amount of property as collateral for her guarantee of a loan with which he was going hit on a sure thing in the stock market. Needless to say, it all went sideways; he did a runner; and she was left to service a 7 figure debt or have her property sold off at a heavy discount to retire the principal. Compounding the shame involved in the broken engagement by ‘fessing up to the financial loss was unthinkable for her, so she secretly went to “work”. She’s a freelancer, apparently, so there’s no question of involuntary servitude involved. I know of many, many other similarly complicated cases, with which I became familiar while doing some work for the Manhattan DA’s office years ago – some of which also involved actual enslavement. In any case, it’s very apparent, imo, that eliminating or at least minimizing this phenomenon can be best effected by going after and heavily prosecuting the slavers and, possibly, legalizing prostitution to limit their opportunities for getting their hooks in.
Indeed, and legalising on a licensed basis would also enable better control of public health, with regular check ups and health education for workers, and control the current creepage of services into residential areas.
Not blaming anyone or making assumptions. Rather, I asked valid. logical questions. As Sperwer noted, poor judgment may have lead to young people like your friend accruing large debts that they cannot repay and the pimps are the real bad guys.
I think the use of the phrase “poor judgment” or “bad judgment” generally should be avoided, because it almost necessarily at least implies the attribution of fault and blame to the person exercising it. This is especially the case when it is used in the absence of any real knowledge of the antecedent circumstances of an action as a shorthanded way of evaluating the subsequent effects thereof. In the case I cited, e.g., the woman involved did not in my estimation exercise bad judgment in taking the action – guaranteeing her fiance’s debt – that contributed to the creation of the problem; I also was acquainted with the fiance and, like a lot of other people, was extremely surprised by his conduct – it really was “out of character” and utterly unforeseeable. Sometimes, shit just happens. It’s only when adopts a Hell’s Angel’s attitude that “I make shit happen” that one should be tagged with the bad judgment epithet.
Not even Ayatollah Iran managed to eradicate prostitution, a lost cause if there ever was one
Sperwer, I really don’t get why you consider your example was not bad judgement.
You say she backed a loan which was going ti be used on the stock market.
Investing in shares in short term is essentially gambling, and as such one should only gamble what one can afford to lose. Let alone borrow large to do so. So to guarantee such a large amount in the circumstances you describe seems the epitome of bad judgement.
Arghaeri:
I was focused on her choice of fiance, which I think is what conventional thinking would target as her bad judgment. On the other score, again, notwithstanding the force of your observation regarding short-term share trading in the market, one really can’t speculate in the absence of all the relevant facts. The “gentleman” involved was a very experienced and very successful market professional. The transaction in which he was involved almost certainly would have been successful but for very unforeseeable externalities. She certainly would not have backed but for her relationship with and trust in him. In the end, the central issue was his betrayal of her trust by fleeing and leaving her to face the consequences (even though he could have made good on his loan from other assest of his and protected her from the fallout). The good news is that I was able to find and seize a quantity of his assets sufficient to enable her to resolve her difficulties, and also saw to it that he suffered a number of other consequences.
Your first point I would respectfully disagree, your focus was quite clearly stated
Further, you raise more questions that should have raised doubts in her mind. If he had sufficient assets to cover this loan why is he asking me to guarantee it rather than using them as collateral. (or possibly sign over to her as collateral)
Also when it comes to the stock market I don’t think “unforseeable externalities” is a defence, share trading has a long history of cllapsing shares which presumably collapsed due to unknown externalities. Accordigly whilst the specific externalities and the shares it operates on maybe unforeseeable, the fact that shares may collapse and that shares are a gamble (less so if spread across the market) is known and therefore foreseeable.
Anyway’s a very sad situation, especially as you note the betrayal, so very happy you could help her to recover the situation.
According to today’s Korea Times: Border town brothels cohabit with military
1) It might be time for the foreigner flash mob to take a trip to Paju.
2) It must be time for another CRACKdown on prostitution.
3) The reporter even called the cops on some folks.
4) I do like this tidbit from the article:
#122,
1) Should they try to cross the Civilian control line hilarity will ensue.
4) Every year in the US some stoner calls the cops to report bad weed or a stolen stash. Stupid is as stupid does.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 2 trackbacks }