What's outrageous about it? Being a whore instead of moving in with her parents, claiming JSA, getting a normal job, etc. etc. is low.

If she repented and went on the news encouraging young girls to use their brains to solve problems, instead of using their bodies, I might be more respectful.

Sorry, I didn't mean "forced".

Bad choice of words. I meant "ended up as"

My point was a sympathetic one about how badly funded PhD students are, and that many do end up in prostitution. I am guessing this was not an easy choice for BdJ, and the fact that she did it and then left and continued with a research career shows it was not something that she had aspired to since childhood. I am guessing she did it because it was expedient and she felt that was the best way to support her.

What I find even more shocking is the amount of judgement and hate directed towards her. I dont think there is anything wrong in being a sex worker. She isnt hurting anyone, nor taking from the public purse (i.e. JSA). Why the hate?

Cleverclogs, are you equally condemnatory of the frequently well educated, socially powerful, prosperous customers who use the services of those in the sex trade? Do they also lack this 'moral education' you mention, or is it just female 'whores' like Magnanti who should 'repent' and who lack your 'respect'?

It's praiseworthy to exercise one's anger against moral decay in society. Educated people in particular should demonstrate an ability to solve difficult problems; she couldn't even solve a simple one.

Rubyw, yes the customers also contribute to the moral decay of society, irrespective of their level of education, social-status, etc. Indeed, the educated ought to identify ways to prevent moral decay, not exacerbate it.

I'm surprised that as a doctoral student, you can't see how problematic and relative your idea of "moral decay" is. Outrage should, I think, be focused not on selling sex - but rather on those situations where women (and men) in this situation are exploited and/or harmed. Legalisation would go a long way to solving these kind of symptoms of decay.

Prostitution has always existed, and societies have not decayed because of it. Morality is a very grey area, and surely the option to sell her own body, is a personal choice, not a social moral issue. It is an individual ethical issue.

======= Date Modified 16 Nov 2009 19:46:46 =======
======= Date Modified 16 Nov 2009 19:46:32 =======
Ok seriously. Cleverclogs, now I am infuriated.







What is this moral high ground?







You think sex work is 'wrong' (moral decay of society, ok whose morality? who sets the norms?)







Next what? Someone might think homosexuality is 'wrong'? (moral decay of natural norms. ok, whose nature? what's natural? who sets the norms?)







Gay marriage is wrong? Prostitution is wrong? Divorces are wrong? Women drinking is worng? Women smoking is wrong?







Where would you draw the line? you may well draw the line at any of these instances above, but cleverclogs, it is not a question of degree or extent beyond which something is right or wrong.







It is this whole moral high ground thing.







And trust me, moral decay of our society is happeneing elsewhere: in countries looting countries, in unfair war, in propaganda, in breach of equality, trust, liberty and equality.







I shall not convince you. But I feel sorry that you are sitting on a horse so high that you find yourself above these untouchable, unworthy prostitutes who are ruining the fabric of your otherwise unpolluted idyllic world, or at best, contributing to its 'pollution'





PS: hence see Chrisolinski's point and the one I made in mine, about the legalisation issue.

This is not a personal slight to anyone, but:

This has become one of *those* threads. Yay!(up)

To add an instance from India. This following is an excerpt from a film I like, made about an illegal red light district in a country where this is stilll illegal. DMSC here refers to the organization of women protesting victimization, pity, illegal status, 'morality' rubbish and so on.

The real issue as below lies in the trafficking, and the 'lack of choice' that happens.

"The existing legislation in India is based on the assumption that all women in sex work are victims who need rehabilitation and protection from pimps, brothel owners and traffickers. Sex workers rights groups, both nationally and internationally, have challenged the idea that sex work is inherently violent and that all the women in the industry are exclusively victims. These groups have focused on the fact that the violence that sex workers encounter is partly the denial of legal rights and partly the stigma that the community carries. DMSC argues that sex workers are entitled to the same legal rights as any other person who is involved in other 'socially acceptable' forms of labour. Critical to the work of DMSC is the understanding that distinctions must be made between "trafficking" that implies forced and coerced prostitution and consensual sex work."

And cleverclogs, pl tell me you are not in the social scince sor humanities? For then i am astonished if you have not come across any literature that has not opened out an alternative world view to you.

We humans have a higher, spiritual nature and a lower, animal nature. The further we go towards one, the further we get from the other. The phenomenon of prostitution relates to the animal nature, and we shouldn't legitimize or condone it.

As a doctoral student all my efforts are directed towards the development of the higher nature in both myself and in others. Engaging in prostitution is an academic failure as much as it is a moral one.

Well, apparently not, since Belle de Jour completed her PhD, got a postdoc, and now works in an esteemed research group. I don't think one can get a better academic pedigree then that.

You sound more as if you're on a moral crusade than engaging in the type of well-rounded debate I would expect from a doctoral student. These statements you keep making are completely devoid of any factual research or evidence, they're just opinions that, quite frankly, sound slightly fanatical.

There are different types of education. A person can have an excellent material education, and have extensive knowledge about a science or philosophy, but be lacking in spiritual education. A person who possesses the loftiest material education but acts unjustly, for example, ought to be regarded as ignorant. There are many professors today who are highly uneducated.

I can't help thinking that something deeply dogmatic and inflexible lies behind your idea of a "spiritual education". just what do you mean by this?