Sexy politics… (the profession of prostitution)

31 01 2007

When evaluating the ancient business of prostitution, one can only wonder: to ban… or not to ban? This is the topic that The Washington Post has presented, receiving a rather intriguing reply by one who has received the titles of political analyst, journalist, author and teacher; but more importantly, a man who had grown up in a society where the history of its culture as well as its politics has depended on the selling of sex.
Syria is one of the many Arab countries which social values and conduct have been ruled by sexual restrictions and seclusion. This, along with poor education, and a large percentage of people within poverty, are the main reasons why prostitution had played such an important role in their cultures. Although many believe this career to be immoral and only leads to immoral actions as well as breaks within social and family structures, prostitution has revisited countries which have banned it. As people are becoming more politically correct within growing societies, one must question how this profession has become, and still remains,” the oldest surviving profession in the world” (Moubayed). The answer is our dependency on the most taboo subject within the Arab nations; merely, SEX. The animalistic obsession of sex is formed in men especially, when they are deprived from it. In fact, divorce rates are seen by experts as incredibly high, mostly because of different sexual appetites between the couples. The problem is that within
Syria women are seen as only sexual objects, as this is what the men are deprived from the most. When men lack a sexual outlet for their needs, many problems arise. The first being the lack of respect for women. The second is that the lack of this sexual outlet, “actually fuels more dangerous sexual deviations… They can neither work or think properly, affecting overall production in society” (Moubayed). But what does this have to do with Politics (other than men contributing less economically)? Prostitution has been highlighted throughout Syrian history as not only a release of sexual frustration, but also a source of money and military assistance. When prostitution was legalized, the profession was not only taxed, but also considered an official governmental position. Prostitution centers were maintained by the government and watched over by military men. During wars the prostitutes became a tool of diversion for the other country’s soldiers; set up in order to prevent the rapping of Syrian women . Although prostitution may be viewed as wrong by Arabic leaders, as well as people from other nation , in many ways it can be recognized as helpful for the a government, economy, and mental state of men within society. Even if an Arabic country has attempted to eliminate the profession, as seen throughout history, prostitution still exists illegally.The point being made is that prostitution should be made legal throughout Arabic countries, especially
Syria. When reading responses from others such as lawyers, journalists, teachers, and other political enthusiasts, I found some interesting view points which I believe should be brought to light. Firstly, could there be another option, other than prostitution, to help the Arabic views of women and bruised mental state of men, lacking sexual relief? A Mid-Based journalist poses this question with an obvious answer that is easy to miss. When looking at
America today, we see a large percentage of the population of men who do not need prostitution as an outlet. This is probably because of the subjects of sex much less taboo, and chastity less stressed. Males and females are able to exist equally, and frankly. An option other than prostitution can be stressed education on sexuality and its norms as well as less of a barrier between the sexes. An evolution of knowledge is needed in order to gain respect and lessen the possibility of a psychological sexual disorder.

After reading the blog, I agree with Moubayed, that prostitution should be legal in these Arabic countries; most importantly,
Syria. But the question posted asks not if prostitution should be legal in
Syria, but if it should be legal anywhere. At first, when examining my own beliefs on prostitution, I realized that I respect women’s rights to her own body, and what she chooses to do with it. Prostitution is just another profession. Who am I to look down upon a woman who feels that this is her career path? Although we see most of
America content with prostitution being illegal, the profession still exists.  And in
America we see a rise in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. I believe that if prostitution were regulated we could also somewhat minimize the spread from prostitution, as well as create a more “safe and healthy environment” (‘Ahab the ancient Syrian’) for the women who chose this career path. Therefore, my vote is to not ban.

Question: Should prostitution be legal anywhere? 

Blog response by: Sami Moubayed


Who Screwed Up Globalization?

24 01 2007

For such a complex question there is a remarkably simple response. Just recently was the World Social Forum, a movement which started in Chile nearly six years ago, enforcing the seemingly contagious idea that while Globalization is striking its way into the future, our once optimistic hope for peace from unity has been poisoned. But as many have questioned WHO has poisoned it, I merely wonder HOW.

Till recently, I have thought highly of the new efforts that the world, and mostly our
United States, have been making. From all of the information the American media has provided– I, along with many other truly uninformed citizens– have been mislead to feel a sense of satisfaction and, dare I say, pride that our country is finally doing something positive in relation to the global betterment of our future as humans, not merely for the greedy benefits of just our own nation. When reading the title of this blog I was shocked to find that globalization was not working, because I had never heard a word of negativity yet on our global efforts. Once I read that there was a convention being held on the matters of stopping globalization, I pondered how the situation could be so bad that masses of people would decide to no longer support the idea of global unity. What was this huge dark side of globalization that overpowered the possible good which could come of it? The writting provided many compelling arguments to the problems with globalization such as new pollutants and diseases crossing over boarders and being harmful to the land they immigrate to, an increase of trafficking, and trade/purchase of drugs and weapons traveling with more ease through the market. But although these seem as major problems, each has been common negative factors to trade for hundreds of years. The true problem to globalization, which has just within the last decade made its way to be the popular consensus to why globalization would not work, is what we have prided ourselves on the most. “…the dark side of globalization is not the result of globalization at all. It is the dark side of U.S. predominance” (Weber, Ratner).
Because there is no predominant power or governance established by all nations to overview, protect, and establish rules and regulations over the world, there is nothing which can do this for globalization either. Globalization is controlled by the most powerful state, which today can be seen as the United States. The role that the U.S. has established for itself is one of power, and therefore great responsibility. This is much more than we can control. As we make the world more united, a larger amount of power is given to those which we feel can help our global problems such as the extremely important issue of today: the preservation and restoration of our environment. Programs which we need to create in order to help all states require a series of actions, “that benefit everyone but that no single government can provide, in part because they are expensive to create, sustain and enforce” (Weber, Ratner).
And as the U.S. has taken upon itself to rule over globalization and attempt to help/control all nations, we find ourselves with too small of a budget and too many other issues to worry about. The best option would be for the United States to share the power and rule of globalization with another powerful country or countries. We can only hope that with more nations governing, our greed and own personal country’s goals will not cloud the idea of a safer, cleaner, and more efficient world; as it has so many times before.



Who screwed up globalization?

Blame governments, not corporations, for the problems.By Steven Weber and Ely Ratner, Steven Weber is professor of political science and director of the Institute of International Studies at UC Berkeley. Ely Ratner is a doctoral candidate in political science and a research fellow at t
January 21, 2007

Hello world!

19 01 2007

Welcome to This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging! YAY