| |
|
Well, that's certainly one question.
What I find interesting about this thread at the moment is how spectacularly badly it is being argued. As far as I can tell the most amusing statements presented as fact so far are:
1) That women have no natural body hair, which is why men cannot be used as serving receptacles.
2) That, obviously, women's naked bodies are universally more aesthetically pleasing on an objective level, which is also why men cannot be used as serving receptacles.
3) That the provision of a female table as a part of a financial transaction can be considered essentially indistinguishable from the same process between friends (and bravo to Nick for suggesting there might be a difference, luminous blue vomit notwithstanding), except that if you are being paid for it is will be even more empowering (incidentally, this is why the sexual experiences of prostitutes and other sex workers are not only more sexually satisfying than that between other people, but also more emotionally fulfilling. Got that? Good).
4) Leading on from that, that to disagree with the ethics or economics of a particular piece of what may or may not be sex work necessarily entails the opinion that "all sex workers are stupid".
Quality.
Might I suggest we try a different direction? A brief look at the last porn thread, here might be interesting. I am off to start a new thread on sex work in a moment, but in the meantime - one of the objections raised to the mainstream porn market was that it was men peddling images of women to men - that is, men controlled the means of production, and the lion's share of the profits, and women were, much like Rico is Six Feet Under, not generally partners but rather product.
Now, in the "where do you get your porn" thread, here, Suicide Girls is mentioned as a utopian practitioner of pornography. It is run (or co-run) by a woman, the models maintain total editorial control over how they are presented and what pictures are put up, and a sense of community is fostered between consumers and providers.
Now, I suspect this last is a very complex thing, and I am not sure how one might foster it in this situation, short of having the table join the consumers for a drink and chat earlier in the evening before dinner, but how about the rest? Where do objections to this idea actually lie?
Or, to put it another way, imagine the same exact service being offered, but run by the women who act as tables as a co-operative, with full proft sharing, or a chambers model, or something similar. Is that better?
How about a system in which the women are still employees, but the executives who provide their services are women. How would that matter?
Assuming that there is demand for it (and who knows? As I believe I mentioned earlier on, nobody seems to have tested the market), would those who object be happier if male and female furniture was provided?
Essentially, what is the locus of your objection? |
|
|
