Virginity for sale

nightmare.believer · Post by **nightmare.believer** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:51 am

OrangeDragon wrote:
JBTrain wrote:So ethical judgments of cultural practices should only be made by those who practice them?
To some degree... because of cultural context. Like lopping the tip of a child's foreskin off, permanent genital mutilation, despite evidence that it causes emotional damage, occasional lasting physical pain, decreased sexual enjoyment, social issues, etc. All because a 3000 year old culture dictates it.

It really comes down to one trying to assert their cultural norms on others with differing cultural norms.

You have a lot to say on children's genitalia.

JBTrain · Post by **JBTrain** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:53 am

OrangeDragon wrote:
JBTrain wrote:So ethical judgments of cultural practices should only be made by those who practice them?
To some degree... because of cultural context. Like lopping the tip of a child's foreskin off, permanent genital mutilation, despite evidence that it causes emotional damage, occasional lasting physical pain, decreased sexual enjoyment, social issues, etc. All because a 3000 year old culture dictates it.

It really comes down to one trying to assert their cultural norms on others with differing cultural norms.

Right and no need to relive a 30 page 440 thread on cultural relativism.

I have no problem coming out against animal torture whether it's based on my own ethical understanding or the first precept of Buddhism with which some Koreans may be familiar.

I agree that male infant circumcision is a perfectly legit topic for debate, the 3000 year old tradition argument would not carry the day in my judgment.

OrangeDragon · Post by **OrangeDragon** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:56 am

More accurately wouldn't it be moral relativism?

JBTrain · Post by **JBTrain** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:58 am

OrangeDragon wrote:More accurately wouldn't it be moral relativism?

Take your pick. We don't agree either way.

Understanding cultural context is one thing. Accepting it as The Best of All Possible Worlds is another.

In the Khmer culture of revenge it is accepted as a moral obligation to also murder the children of the party who has aggrieved you so that in later years they don't come after your family, as would be THEIR moral obligation. That there is an internal cultural logic to that should in my mind make it no less morally offensive.

ali baba · Post by **ali baba** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:09 am

OrangeDragon wrote:
JBTrain wrote:So ethical judgments of cultural practices should only be made by those who practice them?
To some degree... because of cultural context. Like lopping the tip of a child's foreskin off, permanent genital mutilation, despite evidence that it causes emotional damage, occasional lasting physical pain, decreased sexual enjoyment, social issues, etc. All because a 3000 year old culture dictates it.

It really comes down to one trying to assert their cultural norms on others with differing cultural norms.

I think the material conditions are a key component. It wouldn't occur to anyone to work in a beer garden or sell a child's virginity if they had viable alternatives.

There are studies that found that circumcision reduces a man's risk of contracting HIV, btw. I agree that the people who practice an act are the ones who have to decide to stop. Trying to force a community to give up it's traditions because some foreigners disagree is a terrible strategy and is often counter-productive as communities resist imperialism and assert themselves or become defensive.

JBTrain · Post by **JBTrain** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:58 am

ali baba wrote:
OrangeDragon wrote:
JBTrain wrote:So ethical judgments of cultural practices should only be made by those who practice them?
To some degree... because of cultural context. Like lopping the tip of a child's foreskin off, permanent genital mutilation, despite evidence that it causes emotional damage, occasional lasting physical pain, decreased sexual enjoyment, social issues, etc. All because a 3000 year old culture dictates it.

It really comes down to one trying to assert their cultural norms on others with differing cultural norms.
I think the material conditions are a key component. It wouldn't occur to anyone to work in a beer garden or sell a child's virginity if they had viable alternatives.

There are studies that found that circumcision reduces a man's risk of contracting HIV, btw. I agree that the people who practice an act are the ones who have to decide to stop. Trying to force a community to give up it's traditions because some foreigners disagree is a terrible strategy and is often counter-productive as communities resist imperialism and assert themselves or become defensive.

So the French ending the practice of slavery in Cambodia* (over the King's objections) was a strategic mistake, morally wrong or both? Or how about royally sponsored human sacrifice, a practice also ended by the French. Morally wrong or just strategic mistake to outlaw the quaint local custom of human sacrifice**? If the French had allowed these practices to continue into the mid 20th century you'd have a kinder view of the colonial period? You'd applaud the foreigners for taking the ethical high ground? I don't think so, we're not talking about dictating peoples' choice of hats here folks.

*One source cites 1/6 of the population as being slaves.

** Human sacrifice was not unknown in tribal areas in the region, but, according to Chandler, only in Cambodia was the practice both given royal sanction and accompanied by "Buddhist" rites.

vladimir · Post by **vladimir** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:44 am

JBTrain wrote:** Human sacrifice was not unknown in tribal areas in the region, but, according to Chandler, only in Cambodia was the practice both given royal sanction and accompanied by "Buddhist" rites.

Still happening today, they're just using SUVs now.

ali baba · Post by **ali baba** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:33 pm

JBTrain wrote:So the French ending the practice of slavery in Cambodia* (over the King's objections) was a strategic mistake, morally wrong or both? Or how about royally sponsored human sacrifice, a practice also ended by the French. Morally wrong or just strategic mistake to outlaw the quaint local custom of human sacrifice**? If the French had allowed these practices to continue into the mid 20th century you'd have a kinder view of the colonial period? You'd applaud the foreigners for taking the ethical high ground? I don't think so, we're not talking about dictating peoples' choice of hats here folks.

I thought we were discussing genital mutilation in the 21st century not labour laws in former colonies. Sure the gov't can legislate to end injustice but I'm not accepting altering laws you disagree with as a justification for imperialism.

"Quick, we must invade Iraq because marital rape isn't illegal!"

*One source cites 1/6 of the population as being slaves.

Please share your source and definition of slavery. I understand that indentured labour was common in Cambodia but slavery? Not so much.

JBTrain · Post by **JBTrain** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:49 pm

The French were here at Norodom's invitation, thus they set the rules. They could have preserved local custom or done what they believed was right, they chose the latter in the case of slavery.

I'm not in the mood for a pissing match over definitions of slavery as it rather misses the point, but you're quite wrong, in addition to shitloads of debt slaves you had three classes of hereditary slaves, captured tribesman (bought at PP Central Market for 150Fr), pagoda slaves, and royal slaves. Because of corruption the practice continued until around 1904.

Read for yourself Chenda Keo, Human Trafficking in Cambodia pp.39-41, or see Tully (2002).

Google books.

ali baba · Post by **ali baba** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:45 am

Thanks for the sources.
I don't why you want to come across as a dick today though. :/

Virginity for sale

Re: Virginity for sale

Re: Virginity for sale

Re: Virginity for sale

Re: Virginity for sale

Re: Virginity for sale

Re: Virginity for sale

Re: Virginity for sale

Re: Virginity for sale

Re: Virginity for sale

Re: Virginity for sale

Who is online

Register/Login to CEO with your Social Media Account: