Humanities desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 20

Engaging in prostitution? Is it possible?

This question was removed and then restored. See the talk page for the relevant discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:23, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

How does one dabble in prostitution? Say one wanted to engage in it for a short period, have only a few partners, for a short term monetary goal, without generally being part of that network/culture, how would one go about it? Assuming that it's both illegal and stigmatised in the society/country. Howie26 (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot provide advice of this nature. You state that prostitution is illegal in the country in which you are imagining engaging in it. Please don't ask us to assist you in breaking the law. However, if you wish to educate yourself, I would suggest contacting the English Collective of Prostitutes or a similar organisation in your country, which the ECP may well be able to direct you towards. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly offensive for you to assume that I am asking because I wish to begin a career, short-term or otherwise, in prostitution. The query is in regards to several highly influential rumours about the raised tuition fees in the UK leading university students into moonlighting in sex work. It is purely for research and, hopefully, a better picture of that economy. Howie26 (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's more than "fairly" offensive for you to be asking for advice on how to evade the law and to expect a "go ahead" kind of answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested in reading about Belle de Jour (writer). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See also COYOTE (a self-advocacy group in the U.S.) For a purely literary treatment not involving any practical current business or legal issues, watch the classic French New Wave film Belle de Jour (1967), directed by Luis Buñuel and starring Cathérine Deneuve, or read Belle de Jour, the 1928 novel by Joseph Kessel upon which the film is based. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you move to Nevada, you could work at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch. That way it's legal. Dismas|^(talk) 09:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(to OP) Not every society stigmatizes prostitution. There are some societies where it is normal to engage in prostitution. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, a great deal of sex work is legal. I suggest reading up on what the trade union says about sex working. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand also, prostitution is legal and political parties like ACT New Zealand vocally support prostitution. It does have a sex workers' union New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another good profession is to work as a sexual surrogate. A sexual surrogate provide sexual services to a client for medical reasons in return for money. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why be a ho when you can be a Courtesan? Brief quote from the article courtesan: a well-educated and independent woman of loose morals, eventually a trained artisan of dance and singing, especially one associated with wealthy, powerful, or upper-class men who provided luxuries and status in exchange for companionship. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Working as an escort could easily lead to being asked to perform sexual services for money. It would also provide a degree of screening of customers, so it might be safer. At least in the UK there are also establishments such as saunas which act as fronts for prostitution and advertise for staff. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few weeks ago I watched a documentary about lap/pole dancing in the UK (sorry can't remember the title or channel it was on). One of the women featured was an undergraduate student and claimed she was doing it for the money so she could pay her tuition. While she said she wouldn't go further, I can easily imagine there are those who will. In the US, you can advertise online (much to the dismay of protestors). Astronaut (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in a career as a sexual surrogate, you can consult International Professional Surrogates Association. It is a legal and respectable healthcare profession, with chances of being highly successful and famous. After earning a good reputation as a sexual surrogate, you can work as a sexologist or sex educator. But you must have in-depth knowledge of psychosexual development. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP specifically asked about how to evade the law. That's a request for legal advice, which is supposedly against the rules here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that they asked how "one" does so, not how they should. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. It's a request for legal advice, and it's against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a request for legal advice. If you ask "How did the Great Train Robbers do it?" or "How do confidence tricksters gain the trust of their victims?" that would not be a request for legal advice. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am sick and tired of the blatant violations of WP:AGF that repeatedly occur on the Reference Desk, as well as the quick removal of every question related to sex. The reference desk is increasingly becoming dominated by censors who arbitrarily judge the motivations of every OP before deciding whether to allow his question, even when such OPs have no history of being disruptive in any way. --140.180.5.239 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question... how would one go about it? Simple... tell people that you that you are willing to engage in sex for money, and then do so if/when someone takes you up on the offer. (It's kind of like saying how does one become a thief... steal something!) Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather simplistic answer. Obviously they don't want to be caught, and may not want all their friends and relatives to know about it, either. So, some subtlety is required. I believe working at an "escort service" is one method. Those who own the escort service may either not be aware that the employee is exchanging sex for money or may not care. The "escort" then would wait for the customer to make the offer, so they can claim entrapment if the customer is really a police officer. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the OP's later post makes it clear that he is referring primarily to the UK, the first thing to point out would be that his working assumption that prostitution itself is illegal is incorrect with regard to the UK. We might also helpfully point him to Prostitution in the United Kingdom which sets out the legal situation fairly comprehensively. Valiantis (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking only thinkable thoughts

Thread retitled from "is it meaningful and true and meaningful to say we are constrained to thinking only thoughts that can be thought?".

is it meaningful and true and meaningful to say we are constrained to thinking only thoughts that can be thought? Or is that not sensible (first 'meaningful') or in some sense false or at any rate not meaningful (second 'meaningful') i.e. a truism or simple vacuous tautology to say such a thing?

I think it is a valid constraint, an actual constraint. Much like the laws of physics constrains us, surely the space of possible thoughts constrains us to only thinking a thought that can be thought.

so do I have it right, or am I being meaningless or, worse, vacuous? 188.157.169.36 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing you can do that can't be done, and there's nothing you can sing that can't be sung. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to Trovatore's post, for the benefit of those who might not otherwise realise... Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the normal sense thoughts involve subjective consciousness. However, meaningful acts can be performed without this. So how are we defining thought.--Aspro (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that Wittgenstein´s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is the relevant reference to start pondering the question. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tautologically speaking, you can only think what can be thought. You can only sing what can be sung. You can only build what can be built. And so on. It's true but not profound in any way, because it gives you no indication of what an unthinkable thought might be, or even if such a thing even exists. What would be interesting is if you could speak meaningfully about a class of unthinkable thoughts. It's not a totally absurd idea for a hardcore logician. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And keep in mind that you can dream The Impossible Dream. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can a dog think about Goldbach's conjecture? Can he even grasp in some way the concept of such thoughts? I doubt it. Why would we be different? There's an unknown universe of thoughts the human brain can't handle. 84.197.178.75 (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike a dog, we can store thoughts outside our brains, in writings. Thus, we can build theories, devices, etc., too complex for any one person to understand, so long as each of us can understand the little part we work on. Thus, we have a collective brain, which dogs lack. Some other animals may effectively have a collective brain, too, like bees. However, since each of the individuals is so much less intelligent, and the number of individuals which cooperate (one hive) is so much less, their hive mind is far exceeded by ours. This allows us to come up with concepts like string theory, which doesn't match any of our experiences in real life. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people can. But the average person with an IQ of 100 will not come up with string theory. If the average IQ was 70 and the maximum 100, how far would we get? Why should we assume that we have crossed the line where such limitations no longer apply? Will we ever understand consciousness? Who's to say we don't all suffer from anosognosia for these limitations of our reasoning?84.197.178.75 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's rather my point, we don't all need to be capable of coming up with the most advanced concepts on our own, when, due to our "hive mind", we can all understand it (or at least a simplified version of it), anyway (with the exception of some mentally retarded individuals, perhaps). StuRat (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising the heading of this section from "is it meaningful and true and meaningful to say we are constrained to thinking only thoughts that can be thought?" to "Thinking only thinkable thoughts", in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question. Of course no one can think about anything that's not notable. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:11, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the question of what it feels like to be a bat, or to think like a bat--a question that I think comes from Thomas Nagel. We humans can think visually but not "echolocationally". More simplistically, if you don't speak Hungarian you are not able to think in Hungarian, right? Pfly (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, then deeper thoughts ought to come from people fluent in more robust languages. I wonder if anyone has studied this. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does one measure the 'robustness' of a language? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just the total number of words would be a rough indication of how "complete" a language is. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...what? Why? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you expect a language with only a few hundred words to be "complete" ? Conversely, a language with over a million words would have to be more complete than that, unless they had tens of thousands of synonyms for each of the same few hundred words. StuRat (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that language effects the way one is able to conceptualize things is called the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis or linguistic relativity. I haven't heard of robustness or "deeper thoughts" being part of it though. Pfly (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's poorly stated, at least.

Isn't it in the definition of a "thought" that you can think it?

I think I understand what you're getting at, but, as stated, it seems like it's just a redundant tautology. APL (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese "political intelligence" network abroad

I have long been fascinated by how much of the Chinese overseas intelligence apparatus is devoted to spying on (actual or perceived) "enemies of the state" (political opponents, dissidents, Falun Gong practitioners, etc), as opposed to government, military or industrial espionage. Though China no doubt does plenty of the latter as well.

If Chen Yonglin was indeed saying the truth in his claims, this appears to be a MASSIVE intel effort against individuals who pose no "military" threat whatsoever.

Of course, given the shadowy nature of such activities, I well understand that the answers to my questions here will be, by neccesity, somewhat speculative / estimations (albeit bases on reliable sources).

1. Which branch of the Chinese intel apparatus is responsible for such activities as monitoring Falun Gong practitioners and Pro-Chinese-Democracy activists outside China?

2. How much money and foreign-based personnel are devoted to these activities? How many people are stationed around the globe to keep tabs on such activists? (Chen Yonglin claimed "I am aware there are over 1,000 Chinese secret agents and informants in Australia, and the number in the United States should not be less." He also testified that "The United States and Australia are considered by the CPC as the base of the Falun Gong overseas". This would be befuddling indeed to the western mind, if true.

3. Training spies properly is expensive, and the number you can train to a high standard is limited. Does China consider itself to be getting "value-for-money" or "value-for-personnel" for all this (absurd-seeming) effort?

4. After China, which country would be the one devoting the most effort to such activities? Would Russia be a distant second? 58.111.224.202 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, China is very heavy into industrial espionage, not so much into the other forms. This supports their goal of becoming the dominant power through economics, rather than military means. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do the OP assume the ref desk volunteers will have answer to all these questions? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the OP, and no, I have no chinese background whatsoever, to my knowledge. Are there no academics who have tried to assess this shadowy world, it's structure, size, and activities? 58.111.224.202 (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President and privacy

Suppose President Obama got bored and wanted to watch a movie at the local theater, buy groceries at Food Basic, play paintball with his friends, attend a hackathon, and then go skiing with his family at the local ski resort. Is he allowed to do any of these things without being followed around by Secret Service agents? How much privacy does he have when he's out in public with the rest of us? --140.180.5.239 (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Service's job is to protect The President in general, not Obama in particular. So, no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Service is part of the Executive Branch; the President is head of the Executive Branch. Barring the terms of some law, which I don't believe pertains, he can order them to get lost and they'll have to do it (with, as you can imagine, strenuous objection, and much lollygagging about how precisely lost they were ordered to get). But obviously Presidents are realists, and don't dish out such orders, because the threats to them are very real. For others under USSS protection, the USSS give them as much latitude as is practical - I once shared a cinema with Energy and her agent sat at the end of the row behind her (in a very early evening showing, when the theatre was nearly empty), I imagine to tell anyone who wanted to sit in those two rows to sit elsewhere. That seemed to me to be about as far away from Energy and her buddies that the agent could reasonably be, and still do her job (I guess that somewhere else in the theatre was said agent's buddy - I didn't see them). And remember when Twinkle was ticketed by police for underage drinking (ref) and Turquoise had her fake-id confiscated (ref) - in both cases their respective USSS details would be in pretty close proximity and darn sure what was going on - clearly the agents felt that personal protection was their only job, and not enforcing Texas' or Connecticut's drinking laws. That certainly doesn't amount to privacy from Uncle Sam, but that's evidence of a determined effort not to intrude more than is necessary. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but from your description, being related to the President in any way condemns one to a sad and lonely life. I know a movie theater is not usually a place for socializing, but what if Chelsea wanted to sit with other people, instead of having no one around her for 2 rows? What if she wanted to go to a night club and hit on a boy or two? Does she have to accept the fact that Secret Service agents will be pointing and laughing at her poor tactics while she tries to talk sexy? I don't think sexual interests, or the desire for privacy while engaging such interests, magically disappear when someone's dad becomes president. --140.180.5.239 (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, that's just another facet of their job. They have to balance their core job (protecting their charges) with providing the amount of privacy that A) the situation calls for and B) the privacy that they've had requested of them. In the case of teenage charges, the President has likely had a conversation with both their children and their children's protectors to come to an agreement as to how much privacy that the kids should have. (How's that for an average American family conversation over the dinner table?!) Dismas|^(talk) 02:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was at least one West Wing episode which involved the president's daughter getting into trouble in a bar. I am sure someone can tell us precisely which episode:) I imagine the creators of that show had a better notion about how such things go than us. --99.113.32.198 (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't have to accept 'the fact that Secret Service agents will be pointing and laughing at her poor tactics while she tries to talk sexy' because any SS agent with such a poor level of discretion will likely be fired or at least reprimanded and reassigned to somewhere they are unlikely to cause problems. Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that if something horrible happens to a member of the President's family, it's not likely to result in significant changes to American history, unless the President is so distraught that he resigns or can't handle it emotionally. The President himself has to be protected. There is probably an endless list of would-be assassins of any President, and we don't need another 1963. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a law entrusting the President's protection to the Secret Service. They can be discreet about it—the Obamas like dining out at local restaurants—but that involves a considerable security operation and much inconvenience locally. By the time anyone becomes president, he's got to be used to having security. I personally would find it intolerable as I like my privacy, but I only write about politics, I do not engage in it. Bluntly, the security around a president is as airtight as they can make it, and if he objected, they would stall and send people in to see him and insist on written orders (leaked to the press, of course), etc. Read my current PR, Assassination of William McKinley if you want to see what happens when a president disregards security concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]