How much immorality is too much?

[LittleSoldier]

This is a very bad time to be looking at the media.

First was radio. A limited amount of things you could do with that.

True, although I love OTR and collect it.

Television reached production quality in the 1930s but World War II got in the way of mass production. Movies were now under the watchful eye of the Catholic Legion of Decency who attempted dialogue with filmmakers. These filmmakers made certain promises, some of which they did not act on.

Really? The Church did this? I’m surprised to learn of this. I know that some shows were banned by the Church but I thought that was just for Catholics. Wow.

Newspapers and magazines were well read, but they too, fell under the watchful eye of numerous groups. As time passed, even newspaper comic strips began to deal with certain subject matter in a less than comic way. Doonesbury was deemed too political by some newspapers and was moved to the editorial page or dropped or censored. This was entirely the right of the newspaper which was a privately owned entity.

IMO Doonesbury should have been moved to the editorial page a lot sooner than it was (not that I disagreed with its message).

Television, unlike movies, featured local programs and news. It became the engaging mass marketing medium advertisers were waiting for. At first, it was a welcome guest in our home. There were certain words you could not say and situations you could not show on television. Television stations had Standards and Practices Departments that would screen all programs and advertising to make sure no objectionable content was there.

This is where I start to feel a little creeped out. But I believe you. I’ve read a lot about the X-Files - not just the shows but what went on behind their production. There was a department that decided what could be aired and what couldn’t. And this was in the 90s!

It may surprise some here, but there was a real concern to live up to high standards, taste and modesty. In the 1950s and 1960s, TV shows were very reflective of Catholic ideals, values and morals.

But as I’ve stated, I wonder if this was a realistic reflection of morality in society. I don’t think it was.

That changed as programming became more risque in the 1970s. In the 1980s, Cable TV offered more channels, and more choices. No one told us about the porn, which eventually ended up in motels.

I’m sorry but I don’t understand what you mean by “ended up in motels.”

By the 1990s, things just became raunchier and raunchier on radio, TV, movies and magazines. Rap disrespected women. Howard Stern showed people what it was like to be an adult sexual pervert. Then, the internet.

So, what do we have today? Hyper-sexualization of the media. Soft porn in supermarkets. Dirty songs on the radio. And 24/7 global porn on the internet.

Oh yes, immorality has always existed but while I was on the internet at the library, my screen suddenly disappeared and I found myself on another site with graphic porn. I didn’t do it. That’s how it worked at first. Whether you wanted it or not - right in your face.

I think you need to update your virus protection. If porn pop-ups are uh, popping up, you have a problem. My sister had porn pop-ups showing up every few seconds and had to have her computer cleaned out so that it was back to factory specs.

That is why I tell Catholics: find a Catholic radio station. If you don’t have a local station, find one on the internet. Forget about TV except for the news. Magazines? Unless it’s about cooking, there are few left worth buying. Popular Science is OK, at least for now. Movies? Just skip past all the ones where boy meets girl and they hop in the sack. Which leaves you with the occasional movie from PIXAR and maybe one or two others - a year.

This is where we part company. I agree that a Catholic radio station is a good idea. But I don’t see any problems with any radio station and actually I’ve found a lot of Christian broadcasting when I’m on the road and that’s the only station I can pick up. Music? I have no problem with any music, but then I don’t consider rap (and disco) to be music. There is a lot of Christian and Christian country music that is excellent and I recommend that. My signature is from a Christian country song. As far as magazines go, if you limit yourself to cooking magazines (and Popular Scienceyou are limiting yourself to a tiny bit of what is out there. I get a lot of decorating magazines, also dog and cat magazines, and yes, I even get the Reader’s Digest (it was really cheap). There is Smithsonian, National Geographic, Sunset, and other magazines for people with other interests.

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continued from last post-----

The internet? I go to a handful of forums and have dumped the rest. The rest are usually filled with loud, obnoxious and incredibly rude people who enjoy insulting others. They think “freedom” means you can combine the dirtiest words you can think of in new and not really clever ways. Being a complete jerk is considered cool.

But you don’t think being a complete jerk is cool, do you? And I wonder how many people think that being a jerk is cool. I certainly don’t. But my time on the Internet is usually spent here or researching. The biggest problem I have is that I run across rabid anti-Catholic blogs and there are a lot of them. There is also CARM and youtube has gotten a bit out of control (IMHO).

It’s time Catholics realized that the PRIMARY character template on TV and in the movies is The Dysfunctionals. A bunch of messed up, out of control, hopelessly confused, fornicating bunch of people that are just stumbling along in life. Self-control? Who needs it?
Here’s an example: attractive girl goes to club with her attractive friend, she spots a guy that does not look like a serial killer. They dance. They have sex. She gets pregnant. It vaguely occurs to both of them that this is something they should do something about - sorta, I don’t know, maybe. The guy even sorta regrets what happened. Kinda.

I have to think about this. But I don’t see it because I don’t watch TV so it’s not a problem for me. My concern is that it might be a problem for others, especially those who are young and vulnerable.

Or how about this? Semi-attractive young doctor goes to bar and picks up guy for anonymous sex. After they’re done, guy attempts to talk, she nixes the idea and both leave. Kind of like two dogs meeting in an alley.

And, I saved the best for last. Dexter - that lovable serial killer on TV. Yep, the lead character kidnaps people and cuts them up, while he works at a police crime lab by day. Cool, huh?

Dexter? I’ve never even heard of him.

Wake up people. If you’re young, take up a hobby that doesn’t involve immoral actions. If you’re older, take a look at the time you have left and do something that has some virtue. Something fun and wholesome. Let the dirt and filth go. It’s not getting you anywhere.

Peace,
Ed

OK, I agree with a lot of what you’ve posted and I appreciate the concern you have for people. It is rather frightening to look back on your life and think about how much time has been wasted. My recommendation would be to give up TV and start reading classic books such as those written by Dickens and Dostoevsky. And get outside to look at nature. Do crossword or jigsaw puzzles. Actually talk to people. Garden. Swim. Ride a horse. Walk your dog. Pet your cats. Learn how to really cook. Pray. After awhile you might not even miss your TV. I don’t miss mine at all.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m sorry but I don’t understand what you mean by “ended up in motels.”

Specialty television channels offering pornography were offered to motels (and probably hotels, as well) as a way of increasing their business. You might remember all those signs along the highway - “XXX channels, only $19.95 a night,” and the like. Of course, now they all have them, so they no longer advertise them - although I did see an ad recently for the pornography package, with the tag line, “You won’t be interested in how well they act,” or something like that, with an obviously-amateur actress putting her hip forward and her finger on her lip.

 

[edwest2]

I’m not suggesting anyone buy the following book, but try a library.

amazon.com/Cross-Cinema-National-Catholic-1933-1970/dp/0275941930

Yes, there was a time when movie producers asked, “Will it play in Peoria?” This was a reference to an actual town where certain things got banned.

The human degradation being offered by the media today is beyond belief in some cases. I suggest reading the following publication:

ncregister.com/

Peace,
Ed

 

[LittleSoldier]

Specialty television channels offering pornography were offered to motels (and probably hotels, as well) as a way of increasing their business. You might remember all those signs along the highway - “XXX channels, only $19.95 a night,” and the like. Of course, now they all have them, so they no longer advertise them - although I did see an ad recently for the pornography package, with the tag line, “You won’t be interested in how well they act,” or something like that, with an obviously-amateur actress putting her hip forward and her finger on her lip.

Oh, I see!! The old “no-tell motels,” nudge, nudge, wink, wink, hubba hubba. Yuck. Thanks. I knew about those but had forgotten.

 

[edwest2]

It has been a demonic plot for ages to de-sensitize our moral sensibilities in a slow, gradual way, through the ages so that - by the time we get to 11/24/10 - we are not sure how much is “too much”.

Our current moral trend may have seemed apocalyptic mayhem to someone living in the 1940’s or 50’s.
The moral trend of 2015 or 2020 will probably seem like apocalyptic chaos to someone from 2010 or 2011.

It’s all relative to the success of demonic activity, world influence and our own concupiscience.

God help us. It is probably the reason why the Catholic church is viewed as antiquated, outdated, archaic and [just plain out of touch with the modern world]

In hoc signo vinces

I have to disagree. The passage of time changes nothing. Only bad choices causes change. Sometimes, that changed is imposed by those who are outside the Christian community. That’s what happened here.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

It may surprise people to know that they have NO right to dirty, immoral, disgusting ‘entertainment.’

Nor do its purveyors have the right to pump it into our homes, computers, and mailboxes 24/7.

It may surprise you to learn that we live in a free country, and that means sometimes things that you don’t like are nonetheless rights that others have, so consenting adults who wish to consume 'dirty, immoral, or disgusting ‘entertainment’ have an absolute right to do so, assuming someone is willing to publish it.

Besides, who gets to define what’s ‘dirty, immoral, and disgusting’ in the first place?

 

[kenofken]

How much immorality is too much? If the night’s festivities don’t land me in jail or the refrigerated section of the medical examiner’s office or lead my wife to change the locks, it wasn’t “too much.”

 

[edwest2]

It may surprise you to learn that we live in a free country, and that means sometimes things that you don’t like are nonetheless rights that others have, so consenting adults who wish to consume 'dirty, immoral, or disgusting ‘entertainment’ have an absolute right to do so, assuming someone is willing to publish it.

Besides, who gets to define what’s ‘dirty, immoral, and disgusting’ in the first place?

Onbviously, a possible answer to your question is no one - but that’s not true.

Go to www.fcc.gov

Every day, the Catholic Church is in the business of promoting morals not just to Catholics but to anyone willing to listen. This will not stop.

However, all Catholics, including myself, have to be more diligent about what we see, hear and read.

Lord have mercy,
Ed

 

[mangy_dog]

Ed,

I disagree with this:
It may surprise some here, but there was a real concern to live up to high standards, taste and modesty. In the 1950s and 1960s, TV shows were very reflective of Catholic ideals, values and morals

Unless, you think seperate beds for married persons is reflective of Catholic ideals. I’ve never been into the master bedroom of a married Catholic couple to know.

Remember my friend,

The operational word here is “gradual”.

While America was fast asleep in it’s blissful innocence…Bewitched, My Favorite Martian, Segregated water fountains and the drug culture were slowly creeping up on our collective conscience.

For those who only had a radio (or nothing at all), it was all baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet. But the clandestine satanic cults with their "L’Bianca/Tate incidents; presidential assasination & communist plots simmered and sometimes boiled over - giving us the impression that these were just far-off, isolated incidents when in fact there was a “gradual” escalation and corroding of our [moral fiber].

Within this wider context - yes - I think you are correct my friend.

 

[Seeker2010]

Every day, the Catholic Church is in the business of promoting morals not just to Catholics but to anyone willing to listen. This will not stop.

Promote away, you have a constitutional right to that, too. However, you endorse censorship and restricting freedoms, and that’s where you and I part ways. You’ll never get me, I’ll never get you, fine, to each their own, but the difference is that I don’t care how YOU choose to live, and you not only care how I do, you wish to prohibit activities that I partake in as a matter of law.

Fortunately, our constitution does not allow that.

 

[edwest2]

Promote away, you have a constitutional right to that, too. However, you endorse censorship and restricting freedoms, and that’s where you and I part ways. You’ll never get me, I’ll never get you, fine, to each their own, but the difference is that I don’t care how YOU choose to live, and you not only care how I do, you wish to prohibit activities that I partake in as a matter of law.

Fortunately, our constitution does not allow that.

Obviously, you do care about how I live, otherwise, why bother posting here?

And by the way, I’m not a judge or a politician or any other kind of person in civil authority, so what can I do to stop you from doing what you want? I’ve never looked into someone’s windows to see if they’re doing something wrong. I respect the privacy of others. And I will complain whenever I see profanity, obscenity and blasphemy. I don’t even know you.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

Obviously, you do care about how I live, otherwise, why bother posting here?

You think I post here because I care about how you live? That’s quite arrogant. I couldn’t care less if you are religious, non-religious, catholic, buddhist, or atheist. I don’t care if you go to church 7 days a week or never. I don’t care if you watch porn or don’t, go to strip clubs, or don’t, though I would prefer that you bathe from time to time if you’re going to be in public.

The difference is that you DO care about whether or not I do some of those things. You want to restrict me from watching porn by making it unavailable. You want to prevent me from going to a strip club by making them disappear.

See where I’m going here? You do your thing, and let others do theirs. Even if your thing is not their thing. Everybody will be a lot happier that way.

And by the way, I’m not a judge or a politician or any other kind of person in civil authority, so what can I do to stop you from doing what you want? I’ve never looked into someone’s windows to see if they’re doing something wrong. I respect the privacy of others.

You are an advocate, however. And the things you advocate would indeed violate others privacy, should they come to pass. You advocate censorship (of porn and swingers magazines). (BTW, it’s not the 70’s anymore, swingers ‘magazines’ are all online now.) You advocate that some private, consensual sex acts should be verboten by law. You stand in opposition to freedom. You wish to quash the first amendment.

No, you may not be in a position to enact what you advocate, but that doesn’t make you powerless, and the forces of freedom must stand opposed to the tyrannical principals you endorse.

 

[edwest2]

You think I post here because I care about how you live? That’s quite arrogant. I couldn’t care less if you are religious, non-religious, catholic, buddhist, or atheist. I don’t care if you go to church 7 days a week or never. I don’t care if you watch porn or don’t, go to strip clubs, or don’t, though I would prefer that you bathe from time to time if you’re going to be in public.

The difference is that you DO care about whether or not I do some of those things. You want to restrict me from watching porn by making it unavailable. You want to prevent me from going to a strip club by making them disappear.

See where I’m going here? You do your thing, and let others do theirs. Even if your thing is not their thing. Everybody will be a lot happier that way.

You are an advocate, however. And the things you advocate would indeed violate others privacy, should they come to pass. You advocate censorship (of porn and swingers magazines). (BTW, it’s not the 70’s anymore, swingers ‘magazines’ are all online now.) You advocate that some private, consensual sex acts should be verboten by law. You stand in opposition to freedom. You wish to quash the first amendment.

No, you may not be in a position to enact what you advocate, but that doesn’t make you powerless, and the forces of freedom must stand opposed to the tyrannical principals you endorse.

I stand for freedom as opposed to slavery. Slavery to the flesh. I also stand for right and wrong, not “my” version of right and wrong and “your” version of right and wrong.

Yeah, I know you in a way. You remind me of a character I created named Doctor B.Bob Bobb. “No one’s gonna take away my porn, and my dope, and my strip clubs, and my No-Fault Divorce, and my abortion!”

Yeah, and everybody yells First Amendment the moment anybody wants to take away something. Here’s a few words from the First Amendment Center:

firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/faqs.aspx?id=15822

Decency is still in the dictionary, the same with modesty.

Freedom is not unlimited. You should know that.

The “forces of freedom”? Where are they exactly?

And let’s not make this just about me, OK? The Catholic Church is for living without sin, as much as we, meaning Catholics, are able, and praying for God’s grace to be better.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

I also stand for right and wrong, not “my” version of right and wrong and “your” version of right and wrong.

If right and wrong were as clearcut as you portray, life as a human would be much simpler. For we would not need to have governments to debate legislation, as there would be no room for debate, no reason for discussion. There would not be competing religions, there would be no wars, and probably no countries.

On some things what’s ‘right’ and what’s ‘wrong’ IS fairly clearcut. We may debate the appropriate punishment is, but I’ve never seen ANYONE argue that murder, for example, should be legal. But for a good portion of human behavior is decidedly a grey area.

So it IS your right and wrong vs. mine. And yours is anti-freedom.

Yeah, I know you in a way. You remind me of a character I created named Doctor B.Bob Bobb. “No one’s gonna take away my porn, and my dope, and my strip clubs, and my No-Fault Divorce, and my abortion!”

So you’re so obsessed with eliminating porn, dope, strip-clubs, no-fault divorce and abortion that you have created a fictional character on the topic? He’s the ‘Anti-Ed’? Yeah, I can see that. But I’m guessing your anxiety levels must stay pretty high, because you’re losing (or have lost) on every single one of those fronts societally, and unless we see radical constitutional changes that’s unlikely to change.

Yeah, and everybody yells First Amendment the moment anybody wants to take away something.

As well they should! If you believe in the ideal that all men are created equal, that means a really, really good reason must exist for one free human to ‘take away something’ from another. And the first amendment guarantees that some things cannot be taken away regardless of the reason. And it’s a good thing we have it, too, otherwise YOUR version of ‘freedom’ (which really means catholic oppression) might just have a chance.

Here’s a few words from the First Amendment Center:

firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/faqs.aspx?id=15822

Your point? That obscenity is not protected by the first amendment? While I’d argue that there is no such exception actually in the Constitution, the reality is for purposes of our discussion here that is irrelevant because the things you rail against have been specifically found to NOT be obscenities, ergo they ARE in fact legally protected speech. As they should be.

Decency is still in the dictionary, the same with modesty.

Yes, but what is decent and what is modest varies from individual to individual. You, for example, likely (I’m being assumptive, apologies if I’m wrong) think a skimpy g-string bikini is indecent and immodest, but I assure you there are lots of folks who disagree. And while you may find a full coverage one-piece bathing suit suitably decent and modest, there are others who find it as offensive as you (likely) find the skimpy g-string.

Freedom is not unlimited. You should know that.

Of course not, unlimited freedom is anarchy. Unfortunately, our species is incapable of successfully living that way.

And let’s not make this just about me, OK? The Catholic Church is for living without sin, as much as we, meaning Catholics, are able, and praying for God’s grace to be better.

As I’ve already said to you, I don’t care what you, your church, or anyone else promotes. You have the same freedom of speech that gave us Hugh Hefner and Larry Flint. What I object to is when you legislate, or endorse legislating my rights away, which I’ve seen you do here many times, and my guess is this is not the only forum online in which you participate. My belief in human rights is so strong that I even advocate freedoms I never intend to take advantage of.

 

[edwest2]

If right and wrong were as clearcut as you portray, life as a human would be much simpler. For we would not need to have governments to debate legislation, as there would be no room for debate, no reason for discussion. There would not be competing religions, there would be no wars, and probably no countries.

On some things what’s ‘right’ and what’s ‘wrong’ IS fairly clearcut. We may debate the appropriate punishment is, but I’ve never seen ANYONE argue that murder, for example, should be legal. But for a good portion of human behavior is decidedly a grey area.

So it IS your right and wrong vs. mine. And yours is anti-freedom.

So you’re so obsessed with eliminating porn, dope, strip-clubs, no-fault divorce and abortion that you have created a fictional character on the topic? He’s the ‘Anti-Ed’? Yeah, I can see that. But I’m guessing your anxiety levels must stay pretty high, because you’re losing (or have lost) on every single one of those fronts societally, and unless we see radical constitutional changes that’s unlikely to change.

As well they should! If you believe in the ideal that all men are created equal, that means a really, really good reason must exist for one free human to ‘take away something’ from another. And the first amendment guarantees that some things cannot be taken away regardless of the reason. And it’s a good thing we have it, too, otherwise YOUR version of ‘freedom’ (which really means catholic oppression) might just have a chance.

Your point? That obscenity is not protected by the first amendment? While I’d argue that there is no such exception actually in the Constitution, the reality is for purposes of our discussion here that is irrelevant because the things you rail against have been specifically found to NOT be obscenities, ergo they ARE in fact legally protected speech. As they should be.

Yes, but what is decent and what is modest varies from individual to individual. You, for example, likely (I’m being assumptive, apologies if I’m wrong) think a skimpy g-string bikini is indecent and immodest, but I assure you there are lots of folks who disagree. And while you may find a full coverage one-piece bathing suit suitably decent and modest, there are others who find it as offensive as you (likely) find the skimpy g-string.

Of course not, unlimited freedom is anarchy. Unfortunately, our species is incapable of successfully living that way.

As I’ve already said to you, I don’t care what you, your church, or anyone else promotes. You have the same freedom of speech that gave us Hugh Hefner and Larry Flint. What I object to is when you legislate, or endorse legislating my rights away, which I’ve seen you do here many times, and my guess is this is not the only forum online in which you participate. My belief in human rights is so strong that I even advocate freedoms I never intend to take advantage of.

Your anxiety level must be high to require you to guess what I may or may not be doing. You talk about good reasons. Let’s look at a few things:

The good reasons to legalize graphic pornography were?

The good reasons to legalize strip clubs and topless bars were?

The good reasons to legalize abortion on demand were?

All I see you promoting is radical individualism, which amounts to anarchy as well. And you apparently want to play thought police as well. It reminds me of a thoroughly disgusting comedian who said: “You can think that but you’re not allowed to say it out loud.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

The good reasons to legalize graphic pornography were?

The good reasons to legalize strip clubs and topless bars were?

We are constitutionally entitled to freedom of the press and of expression. Pornography and strip bars are press, expression, or both. Not to mention that activities that occur inside a strip bar are between consenting adults, and you have no legitimate reason to tell them they can’t, for they are not (and not even hypothetically could) harming you or anyone else.

What possible justification do you have to prohibit such things and restrict peoples freedoms?

As for abortion, I don’t do abortion debates, they’re pointless. I will say that 5 minutes after conception it is not yet human, 5 minutes before birth it is. Where it changes in between, hypothetically could be a discussion, but your side is only interested in complete victory, without concession.

And you apparently want to play thought police as well.

How so? I’ve told you to promote anything you wish to promote, which to means whatever you want to THINK is fine, it’s when you wish to force others to live on the basis of YOUR thoughts that I object.

And you do wish to do so.

You have the absolute right to express your opinion. Your opinion about the right way to live is radically different from mine, and I disagree with just about everything you stand for. That said, I would literally fight, to the death if necessary, to preserve that right for you to express your opinion, despite our core disagreement. Because if YOUR rights are preserved, everyone’s are, and THAT is what’s important.

 

[jmcrae]

We are constitutionally entitled to freedom of the press and of expression. Pornography and strip bars are press, expression, or both. Not to mention that activities that occur inside a strip bar are between consenting adults, and you have no legitimate reason to tell them they can’t, for they are not (and not even hypothetically could) harming you or anyone else.

What about all the wives who have unmentionable diseases brought into their lives, and what about the children who are missing their Dad when he is out all night galavanting with strippers and prostitutes?

What possible justification do you have to prohibit such things and restrict peoples freedoms?

These particular things are a cancer on families - and families are the building blocks of societies - if we destroy our families today, we will have nothing left that is worth defending from the terrorists, tomorrow.

Every great empire was destroyed, not by the barbarians at the gate, but by the fact that, because of excessive vice, they had nothing left that was really worth defending, by the time the barbarians arrived at the gate.

 

[Seeker2010]

What about all the wives who have unmentionable diseases brought into their lives, and what about the children who are missing their Dad when he is out all night galavanting with strippers and prostitutes?

Well, my first observation is the point to which you responded was porn and strippers, neither of which has even a hypothetical possibility of spreading disease, so that’s a nonstarter. As to whether or not dad is out galavanting all night, you really think people who would treat their children in such a way are going to not do so, regardless of the law? And do you not realize that by prohibiting it completely, you’re also prohibiting it for people who have no children to treat badly?

You would restrict the right of childless people to act in a manner in which they’d like to act, without causing harm to others, because such actions if done by people with children may (or may not) cause emotional distress to the children? Seems unreasonable to me.

Just to address the point you made, even though it was outside the scope of the original argument, LEGAL prostitution would, if properly regulated, spread little (or likely no) diseases.

These particular things are a cancer on families - and families are the building blocks of societies

Those particular things (again, to reiterate, we’re discussing porn and strippers) are only a cancer to some families. And if you have two people who are so radically different as to be in a marriage with such different value systems, I think all involved are better off if such a relationship dissolves, as it’s unlikely they’ll ever see eye to eye.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, my first observation is the point to which you responded was porn and strippers, neither of which has even a hypothetical possibility of spreading disease, so that’s a nonstarter.

You seem to be incredibly naive. Let me tell you a secret - a “lap dance” has nothing to do with dancing.

As to whether or not dad is out galavanting all night, you really think people who would treat their children in such a way are going to not do so, regardless of the law?

They are less likely to do so if it would entail jail time and loss of their job and standing in the community.

And do you not realize that by prohibiting it completely, you’re also prohibiting it for people who have no children to treat badly?

What benefits to society would they be missing out on, if they were “forced” to engage in some kind of more wholesome activity, that doesn’t involve the objectification of women and children?

Just to address the point you made, even though it was outside the scope of the original argument, LEGAL prostitution would, if properly regulated, spread little (or likely no) diseases.

LEGAL prostitution would mean that your daughter or sister, if she finds herself unemployed, would not be eligible for unemployment benefits if she were to refuse to work as a prostitute. But it’s good that you admit that there are values involved - it’s one step in the right direction.