Hacker News Reader

Comment by atmosx | Hacker News Reader

> What makes sexual labor so horrid?

Religion, especially Christendom and it's various strains. Before that in many cultures, sex was seen a something positive, a pleasure in which you should indulge in.

You can see it on TV. Take DareDevils TVSeries, but I'm sure you'll find many examples, there are countless raw violence scenes for free, but 3 seasons in and DareDevil hasn't been with a woman with the exception of a kiss. It's okay to display violence, no one will argue, but displaying explicit sex scenes... Well that's a no-no :-)

We have more than a few remnants from the dark ages.

EDIT: There's this amazing song by an Italian cantautor called "Fabrizio De Andre". The story (lyrics) are spectacular, full of everyday life wisdom. You can read an English translation on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysydBLMSbRs

View on HN

I find the moral outrage against sex by my fellow Christians to be a perversion of the teachings of Jesus.

Two C.S. Lewis quotes on the subject:

"The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins."

"...a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute."

The desire for sex is ingrained in human nature, and so long as people can pay for things, sex will be one of the things they pay for. If we can reduce the number of victims by making it legal and regulating it, then I'm all for it. But, at the same time, I'd consider myself a failure as a moral guide if my daughter chose it as a career.

Would you consider it more of a failure than if she spent her life working minimum wage fast food jobs and watching TV?

One of the issues around sex work, even in countries where it is legal is how the stigma associated with sex work leads to increased negative outcomes for sex workers.

Those are nice quotes from Lewis, but the fact remains that he and most other Christians would support criminalizing prostitution.

And although moral outrage against sex may not be in the teachings of Jesus, it's certainly in the teachings of Paul and other canonical early Christian writers.

I believe prostitution is morally wrong. I believe making it illegal is ineffective.

I believe the correct legal thing to do is to criminalize only the buying side of the transaction. If you pay for it, you are victimizing, and that should be criminal. If you provide, that's legal, but not moral.

If you actually read the article, criminalizing the purchase makes it riskier for the sex worker. They are asked to go meet people in more remote areas because the johns want to avoid the cops. This means some of them get murdered, assaulted, etc.

Decriminilizing it is about improving safety for sex workers. I think that is where our questions of morality should focus. People are going to continue to have sexual needs. Prostitution gets called the oldest profession for a reason: Even certain monkey/ape species will trade sex for goods (like food). Making it illegal doesn't make it go away. It just makes it riskier and that risk disproportionately negatively impacts the women doing sex work.

I thought decriminalizing it was about reducing it.

For that, the Nordic model actually works. Full decriminalization doesn't. http://mic.com/articles/112814/here-s-what-s-happened-in-swe...

I ripped Paul's bullshit out of my bible.

It is really easy to understand why Christianity abhors sex. Sex is the most private act we do as humans. If you can control how, when, and with whom you make sex, then you have huge control over the whole life of a person. That's why the Christian church is so adamant at defining what is good or bad in terms of sexual behavior.

I don't believe that's why Christians abhor sex. I think it's just that they were raised in a sex-anxious environment, and they've come to proliferate that internal response to sex.

I think they have an internal feeling of right versus wrong, and then they seek out belief structures that justify their feelings.

You are the parent comment are both right, IMHO.

Christians do not abhor sex. Christians are taught to abhor sex outside of a marital relationship.

That means all this psychological discussion of "feeling dirty" and "justifying their feelings" is attacking a straw man fallacy.

You're saying that you think Christians don't feel anxious about sex because they are taught to abhor sex outside of marriage?

I think that is a weak reframing of the breadth of sex, and that sex for the supermajority of American people, in and out of the church, is pre-marital.

I think young Christian boys are taught that sexual fantasy and pornography is the same as adultery, a defilement of the temple that is their body. I think one example that's brought up along these lines of narrative is a story of direct divine punishment for the spilling of seed. I think Protestant and non-denominationals with sizeable youth groups form little sexual discussion groups, especially for boys, where they vent their sexual guilt with regards to their fantasy of the day or how they masturbated. I think American Christian parents are ever anxious about government discussion of sex, and that they backwardly expend finite energy to make it a political battle point. And I think American Christian culture is as much about the implicit as it is about the explicit.

But somehow your choice framing of the discussion is that Christians don't feel dirty about sex because they are explicitly taught that only sex outside of marriage is dirty.

Young boys and girls in the church learn the anxiety of the community and their parents first, and then they listen to the belief structures to justify that anxiety.

A straw man, by the way, is a misrepresentation of someone else's discussion, and not actually a logical fallacy at all. It is by definition outside of logical purview. Most people would be better off not ever hearing about logical fallacies, because it gets in the way of quality thinking.

Anyways, I want to make one last point about American Christians expending their precious, finite energy in politics. I say that there are 3 high consensus Christian political issues in America, in order of strength: (1) abortion, (2) homosexuality, and (3) sex education in school. The latter is the weakest, and mostly in state-level politics, but there it is brutally fought. Notice the theme of these 3 issues?

It's really kind of silly that these are the highest consensus issues for American Christians. Um, not poverty, right? Or injustice in the police system, and classism and racism in America? Yes. Let's discuss abortion, homosexuality, and sex education in schools (condoms detract from abstinence!).

First, that's not what I said. I said the notion that Christians are taught to abhor sex is a deliberate straw man argument. I made no claims about anxiety or lack of it.

I made no reframing of the breadth of human sexuality, because that was not what was being discussed. I did make assertions regarding the Christian teaching of what was moral in regard to human sexuality.

You then state a number of assumptions (prefaced with "I think") which are largely irrelevant. The story of Onan, who spilled his seed during intercourse rather than give his brother's widow a child as the Mosaic law required, was punished because of disobedience to the law. That had nothing to do with fantasy or pornography.

Christian teachings regarding sexual fantasy or pornography are all aimed at the training of one's conscience to avoid behavior that typically leads one to the societal norm of extra-marital sexual experience. This expands to a wider belief regarding self-control. If you routinely do something wrong, you come to accept it as normal, and are likely to continue where that path winds.

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy [1]. It is the deliberate misrepresentation of someone's position in order to make it easier to attack. My opinion is that understanding logical fallacies (formal and informal) is important for conducting honest and rational discussions, so we disagree on that.

I tend to agree with your point about wasted effort regarding enforcement of morality with law.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

TLDR; I don't think religion is the reason for Matt Murdock's not having serious relationship.

Your main point seems to be lack of explicit sexual content on DareDevil. You are tying that with Matt Murdock's (loose) Christian faith. I feel somewhat differently about DareDevil and it's story line.

[1] In season 2, Matt had relationship with Electra and they _do_ have sex in the boxing gym. Creators of the show did not show it _very_ explicitly.

[2] Matt's discussions with Father Lantom in the Church is more spiritual rather than religious, IMO. They discuss about morals, right/wrong etc. Notice that Lantom always uses "God" and not "Jesus" (AFAIR). I don't think anything Father Lantom says is picked out of Bible or looks like preaching. Just his observations on life. I am a Hindu and I totally related to what he was saying. Never felt he was preaching or giving sermons. I feel, you can rename Matt to something else and put a Temple of Mosque there and still all that Father Lantom says will be appropriate (story line wise).

[3] Matt is very clear in his priorities. Given his "other life", he simply cannot afford to have a serious relationship. He states it at some point with Claire Temple (Rosario Dawson). His will "weakens" in season 2 and begins relationship with Karen Page before Electra comes in and sours it. With all this background, and no serious relationships between other characters, having an explicit sexual scene seems contrived and needless.

[4] The original content from Netflix in the Drama section has about 10 series. I watched 4 of them to a certain lengths. The amount of explicit content, particularly sexual content, is too much for me. Many times I feel there is absolutely no need for it (especially with Marco and Sense8). In that light, I feel DareDevil is much better for me.

Sorry, my comment is too long than I intended. And it digressed from OP and more on DD's story line.

[2] Matt's discussions with Father Lantom in the Church is more spiritual rather than religious, IMO.

I disagree, Catholicism is a big part of the Daredevil character.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/04/netfli...

As per this article, you are right. However, my observations were solely based on the TV show. I didn't have knowledge about the comic series, the role of Frank Miller in reviving it and influence of Catholicism in the character. Good to know this history.

FYI, using "God" rather than "Jesus" when talking about the deity rather than the specific events of the incarnation is not a sign of spiritual vs. religious, it's fairly typical of Catholic (and, actually, lots of mainline Protestant as well) religious expression.

I watched "Deadpool" on a flight the other day. It warned me that it was edited for content, and I thought "hrm, that's a shame, but given that there may be children around me on a flight, I suppose that's reasonable."

I then watched an entire human body literally splatter against a wall without censorship, followed later by a heavily injured protagonist standing up facing away, presumably nude because they blurred out his butt.

It's as if children have never seen rears in the nude before. Not even their own.

Children must be protected from seeing nipples. There's nothing more abusive, corrupting, and unnatural than a small child encountering an adult female nipple.

This is precisely the reason I do not participate on any social media site that bans bare (female) nipples. There are much worse things to see and read than the naked epidermis.

How absurd! How can nudity be an issue? We're all naked under these clothes.

This is also why I believe religion should be ridiculed and shamed until it drops this utterly false pretense, until it -all of them- come out and publicly recall the sins of the flesh.

This is a simplistic answer. Look at East Asian cultures to seem a much more sexual conservative environment. Try to delve into the why and it's complicated! As far as I can tell it boils down to marriage stability. Most people date to marry (any relationships that don't lead to marriage are viewed as a failure). Promiscuity leads to sexual insecurity as the less experiences partner fears not living up to the more experienced partners expectations. So this creates a strong downward pressure on everyone to not be promiscuous (and in small communities peer pressure is overwhelming)

I can imagine that historically prostitution was kinda the equivalent of becoming a eunuch. Sure it maybe pays well, but you typically won't marry (I guess unless your stunningly beautiful?) and you won't carry on your family lineage (or the vague female equivalent)

>You can see it on TV. Take DareDevils TVSeries, but I'm sure you'll find many examples, there are countless raw violence scenes for free, but 3 seasons in and DareDevil hasn't been with a woman with the exception of a kiss.

Or perhaps that has more to do with the fact that Catholicism is central to Mathew Murdock as a character, so it makes sense he isn't sleeping around given that premarital sex is a big no-no for Catholics. Also, we're only two seasons in, not three.

I thought it funny that in Dexter, where the protagonist is a serial killer who carves people up as the central plot device, the topic of abortion was shut down. Dexter gets his girlfriend pregnant, and doesn't even get past the first sentence before she shuts down that avenue completely. Simply not an option for even a minor discussion.

There was plenty of dialog in seas 1 establishing that Matt knew how to find and bag the pretty girls whenever he wanted.

There's an entire flashback sequence where Foggy gets excited to learn Matt uses his "disability" to woo ladies. He figures some of that will spill over into his lap.

> sex was seen a something positive, a pleasure in which you should indulge in.

Can you back that up with evidence?

"Because religion" is a predictable response, but I think there is more to it than that. This argument fails to acknowledge the fact that sex is inherently an emotional activity, while other activities, such as bricklaying, are not. The social aspects of prostitution, and the implications on relationships between humans, are precisely why it is widely deplored beyond religious ideology. Religion is not some construct of imagination, it is the result of human cultural development over thousands of years.

...3 seasons in and DareDevil hasn't been with a woman with the exception of a kiss.

If you're looking for more, one might suggest the "affiliated" Hell's-Kitchen-in-Marvel-Universe-on-Netflix program Jessica Jones. Ms. Jones has a different philosophy than Mr. Murdock with respect to casual intercourse, which you might find more appealing. They appear to agree on plenty of the old ultra-violence, however.

>Religion, especially Christendom and it's various strains. Before that in many cultures, sex was seen a something positive, a pleasure in which you should indulge in.

Neither of those things are really accurate though. Christianity long considered sex positive too. Having sex with your spouse was in fact a legal requirement, your wife could sue you for not performing.

Most other cultures were the same way. Everyone having sex with everyone made for a pretty bad society. That's why there was so much focus on pairing off and creating a family.

Most likely having sex with a prostitute is not your spouse. Also, as someone who was raised Catholic it was very clear. If you're not doing it to procreate you are sinning.

(disclaimer: I do not believe that view)

That's not correct, but is a common misunderstanding. The Catholic Church's teaching is that sexual intimacy between spouses has both unitive and procreative dimensions, and that both need to be respected.

For a deep dive, see Pope St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body[1] and the late Fr. Paul Quay's The Christian Meaning of Human Sexuality[2].

[1] https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

[2] http://j.mp/QuayMeaningOfSexPDFscan

That's very interesting. It may indeed be incorrect but it is what my priest taught, it is what my teacher at Catholic school taught, and it is what the retreat I had to go on to get married in the church taught.

What does that retreat mean? What happens there? Sorry, never heard of such a thing so i'm curious.

You go to a retreat center for a weekend (usually somewhere secluded, in the woods, on an island, a mountain, etc) with a bunch of other couple who are also getting married and you talk about faith and marriage. It usually involves faith and team building. Some churches will let you get away with night classes but the retreat is usually over in a weekend vs the class that takes longer.

Thing is, I'm not particularly religion and neither is my wife, but our family insisted we get married in a Catholic church so we had to go through with it. So I opted for the retreat because it got it over and done with in a weekend.

A retreat is, generally speaking, a day or series of days (anywhere from 2 to 30+) during which one spends the majority of one's waking hours praying, reflecting silently, listening to presentations on some topic/s and/or attending workshops (which form the basis of one's reflections), and possibly engaging in one-on-one or group discussions (depends on the retreat's format, some entail silence throughout).

To lessen distractions from the cares of daily life, retreats are usually conducted away from one's domicile in some peaceful setting (mountains, coast, etc.), at a "retreat center" or some facility that provides sleeping quarters, bathrooms, meeting space, and a refectory. To make the whole exercise cost-efficient, a retreat is usually conducted for a small to medium-sized group, rather than for just one or two participants.

In the context of religious institutions, it is a fairly common practice to organize retreats for persons who are finalizing their preparations for a change in state of life, e.g. going from single to married, lay person to ordained, student to graduate, etc. The topics addressed at such retreats usually pertain to that change, with an aim to help participants better prepare internally for the obligations and challenges ahead.

Thank you, that was a better answer than the one I was able to come up with.

Thank you for that explanation. I was surprised I did not hear from it as I was raised in a strict religious community[0] and never heard about this.

[0] Not sure what it would be called in the US but something very strictly Christian where you cannot do anything on sunday, not only not work, but also not drive cars etc and in are not allowed to have (own or use) TVs, radio's, computers and have special schools schools which teach them this kind of thing. Thinking (yes thinking), at any moment, about anything that is not allowed, will land you in hell. The ordeal made me an atheist at a young age, but I remember the teachings well.

>Most likely having sex with a prostitute is not your spouse

That's my point. Christianity has long been very pro-sex, just with your spouse. As I said, you could be sued for not having sex with your spouse.

>Also, as someone who was raised Catholic it was very clear. If you're not doing it to procreate you are sinning.

That is totally incorrect. You aren't allowed to prevent conception, you need to "let god decide". But there's nothing suggesting the purpose of sex must be procreation. Again, there's a spiritual and emotional side of sex that is seen as vital.

That's a little bit of a technically. Saying you have to go all the way, so to speak, and you can't do anything to prevent it is the same as saying it has to be for that purpose. As a mental exercise, say every time you had sex you had to pull the trigger on a revolver that has a bullet in only one barrel. Sure there is a 5/6 chance you will be fine but who in their right mind would take that?

Someone can say it has an emotional aspect all they want (and they do, and it's true) but that doesn't stop the other part from being true too.

Note: I have a child and I love her more than anything. Buy saying you can't do anything to prevent pregnancy and saying the only way you can have sex if there is a chance you procreate is the same thing (unless your physically incapable).

>Saying you have to go all the way, so to speak, and you can't do anything to prevent it is the same as saying it has to be for that purpose.

No it is not. At all. Saying you can't barf up your food after you eat it is not the same as saying you can only eat solely for the purpose of nourishment. You can still eat for taste and pleasure. You just can't prevent yourself from getting the nourishment that goes with it.

>Buy saying you can't do anything to prevent pregnancy and saying the only way you can have sex if there is a chance you procreate is the same thing

Which has nothing to do with the subject. You are confusing intent with outcome.

I'm going to have to back away from this discussion. There is definitely more I can say but you and I are clearly on different pages and I do not wish to color my Hacker News account with a religious debate. Unless it is vim vs emacs :)

False.

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods."[1]

1. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

What is false? Nothing you said contradicts anything I said.

> Most other cultures were the same way. Everyone having sex with everyone made for a pretty bad society.

The opposite of true. I recommend "Sex at Dawn" for a good treatment of this topic

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships-e...

TL;DR "Everyone having sex with everyone" pretty much maintained social cohesion in small societies for millenia.

> In opposition to what the authors see as the 'standard narrative' of human sexual evolution, they contend having multiple sexual partners was common and accepted in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness.

> The book generated a great deal of publicity in the popular press, where it was met with generally positive reviews. A number of scholars from related academic disciplines such as anthropology, evolutionary psychology, primatology, biology, and sexology have commented on the book; most have been critical of the book's methodology and some of its conclusions, although some academics have praised the book.

Popsci is not compelling. That book was eviscerated by actual scientists.

You might try reading books by Frans de Waal. He makes a compelling argument that human biology suggests that monogamous pair bonding is a very long standing human tendency.

Yes, religion (especially Christianity) comes, once again, to mess things up. It is the cause of many problems we have today, and it affect us all, as it is deeply ingrained in politics and government.

I can go and sell blood, or work ten hours a day, or eat until I explode, yet I have someone dictating what I can or cannot do with my sex life?

Certainly more than a few remnants from the dark ages.

Christian thinkers have, over the past 20 centuries, developed a variety of views on when/how immoral actions should be tolerated by the state (and left to divine judgment) versus their being actively prosecuted.

There is a fascinating essay on the moral theology of Thomas Aquinas – one of the most influential thinkers in the history of Western Christian thought – as it pertains to the toleration of prostitution:

Aquinas on the Practice of Prostitution

http://www.illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL13/13ch4.html

> 3 seasons in and DareDevil hasn't been with a woman with the exception of a kiss.

Wasn't there a fairly explicit sex scene in the most recent season (which incidentally is 2, not 3)?

Which one?

DareDevil might have been the worst example you could have picked for your argument.

I agree. Also it seems the opposite is true: most dramas on streaming tend to force in obligatory racy sex scenes.

Sounds more like a statement of the mores of American television. Violence is OK to show, but sex is a big no-no. Interestingly, the reverse is true in Europe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com