Sex in the City

Brad postures in response to a classmates' intercultural account of a student exchange American dude who got his hands on no-fly zones of a Singapoean girl's, that hookers in Singapore's redlight district who have sex with men for cash utilities are unconservative; he also postures one more by saying that Asian or Singaporean girls who find themselves working in a bar are just as unconservative

Hi Brad,

The hookers in Geylang do not have a problem with conservative; instead they have one with rationalism. They were Asians and presumably brought up the way we think they were brought up which is conservative, traditional, and somewhat inhibited in freedom of thought, speech and action, very unlike individualist American or British culture or otherwise.

These Asians who so worked as hookers had a problem with rationalism because they can have a conservative set of morals, ethics and values, but then decide to forgo one or two of them if it brings about THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER ALA JEREMY BENTHAM'S UTILITARIANISM (18TH CENTURY FAMOUS CONSEQUENTIALIST PHILOSOPHER). THAT EXPLAINS WHY THEY TOOK UP THE HOOKER JOB!!!!

How do these hooker jobs bring about rationalism/consequentialism/utilitarianism or the greatest good for the greatest number?

Let's look at the hookers. They can be generalized to women who do not necessarily enjoy or take pleasure in the sexual act so much as they eye and enjoy better the velvet cash rewards that accompany sexual services and the pleasures of orgasm that their male customers concurrently experience of and with them; these are the benefits or the good which is the maximum and total sexual pleasures experienced by the hooker and her man, as well as those with respect to the self or self-interest in terms of the cash earn for day-to-day survival and making ends meet for their families, themselves and/or otherwise.

On the other hand what might be the greatest disadvantages or pitfalls of casual sex services? You name it, I got it: HIV, gonorrhea, herpes, syphilis, cervical and/or womb cancer, and some other mentally harrowing and sado-masochistic experiences thrown into the mix.

Having gotten and weighed the advantages and disadvantages of casual sex services, the women, whether accurately or inaccurately, derives a conclusion that due to exigent familial, personal, economic circumstances, she decides in favour of being a hooker; which is that she perceives the greatest good for the greatest number of people including any family members or friends and relatives and children she is trying to support, even the man she will fornicate and DEFILE herself with for being of service for his extrinsic pleasure.

In that sense she is not making a decision based on her conservativeness because she is by default of conservative socialization given her Asian background (if we presume all Asian socializations are more or less conservative); instead she is taking a decision based on self-interest or rationalism precisely because she is willing to overlook her conservative roots for some benefit to her outcome of life, which is often times cash-driven. She then calculates and perceives a greatest good for the greatest number and that cannot be faulted because she is rationally, albeit very mistakenly, giving more weightage to the perceived altruistic virtue of trying to support her family members or otherwise. That makes the most sense and perceptible to her because human beings are largely self-interested about oneself as well as one's circle of interests and rational when it comes to matters of day-to-day survival and staying alive and living on; and this is all the more defined and justified when these women are struggling to find a way out of poverty and are very desperate. She ultimately had to perceive, given her poor state, that there can only be the greatest good for the greatest number of people when she opts to moonlight in the streets of Geylang, or Vegas, Rappongi, Patpong.

She has made a decision consequentially a la utilitarianism, independant of her primary value system or morals and ethics and beliefs socialized into her. And most hookers who take the streets are really mostly doing it out of making daily ends meet and a job rather than a pastime or hobby. If they were doing such sex out of the love for it or hobby, then they can be implicated for being at odds with the presumably conservative and prohibitive Asian socialization they were schooled in: but they weren't for most cases!!!!

The same cannot be said of the bar girls at Boat Quay Singapore Brad! Those girls who work as bar girls might not be so desperate for cash and survival because if they would, they should have been selling their bodies instead of working in the bar. These groups of women are the in-between groups who dont demonstrate as dire a circumstance as hookers. Of course I'm generalizing here because these women might be working as bar interns as some one-off job and then they can rightly be implicated for trangressing Asian conservative ideals: but I dont see how that can be the case because I think they are also operating out of rationalism and self-interest and utilitarianism. They want the greatest pleasure--which is cash salaries as well as being desired and drooled over by men and having a surge of sexual estrogen and its attendant ravishes of feminine sensualities, for the greatest number---which include themselves and all the male customers they will serve, entertain, flirt, chat up with. So in a sense, they might be considered to be operating independantly of their primary conservative agency, in which of course inconsistency and contradiction exist hand-in-hand with more liberal bar or pole girl jobs. This is the same inconsistency and contradiction that would have been present in the hooker example given earlier.

Contradiction and inconsistency exist in every human agent, and that is as rule as that of night and day, light and darkness, hot and cold, yin and yang. The success of human agents in any aspect of living is and must be contingent upon the perfect balance of the contradictions which is MODERATION OR JUSTICE! Similarly, the 'success' of a hooker or bargirl must LOGICALLY be her ability to not feel the effects of the conflict between her conservative primary and liberal secondary agencies; which means the hooker and bargirl must be A VERY ABLED HOOKER AND VERY ABLED BARGIRL, who can be conservative when conservative calls for it around her family and friends outside of her job, at the same time be liberal and SEXUALLY WILD, SEDUCTIVE, AND UNINHIBITED while working her hooker shifts.

Note that I am deriving this concluding statements from pure consequentialist and philosophical logic and reason, without considering any deontological/religious/absolute morals and ethics that would ordinarily be relevant and incorporated and adjusted into the concluding statements. In effect, I'm trying to show you that while I use rationalism/consequentialism to derive my concluding statements on hookers and bargirls, it is not foolproof and it has shown its faults by heretically championing a hooker's/bargirl's line of work as long as she demonstrated skill in manoeuvring between the 2 contradictory sets of agencies; when we all know by cultural socialization or otherwise, something possibly reprehensible, or unworthy and morally depraved about such jobs.

Brad and one and all, WE ARE BACK TO THE SQUARE ONE ARGUMENT---MODERATION OR JUSTICE WITH A SENSE OF DEONTOLOGY!!!!! Please read the older article on deontology vs consequentialism to glean more information!

Cheers
Hookers and Bargirls
No las gustan, y tu?