Is prostitution wrong?

No, Rieghn, ye're wrong.

As far as I can tell, ye're battling two separate issues. 1.) prostitution, and 2.) what you think might (or does) happen in the future.

Prostitution is simply a woman selling sex for money or some equal goods. I see nothing wrong with that basic, voluntary, simple transaction. I can't see how YOU or anyone else could, either.

Now ...that something ELSE "might" happen because of those transactions shouldn't reflect on the original idea. I.e., if someone kills a woman during or after having made the basic transaction, how can such a criminal act reflect upon the original, voluntray, simple transaction? Murder is already against the law!

That someone "might" contract some horrible disease is also NOT part of the basic idea of prostitution. That one woman "might" pass on that disease should NOT reflect on all other women who sell their bodies for money. Why should it? Surely you aren't saying that if one woman does such a horrible thing, then all women would do the same?

And what of a young girl/woman who, after a man buys her dinner and drinks, fucks or sucks his brains out? Is that prostitution? Should that be illegal?

And what if that same girl/woman does the same with 457,374 men? Does that make her a prostitute? And should that be illegal, too? Even if she, also, "might" pass on a horrible disease?

I find it rather strange how people think about sex and prostitution. I mean, a woman has a hole that she likes being filled; a man has a hard dick that loves filling that woman's hole. What's the big deal? Geez, we act like her pussy is ...well, made of gold or diamonds or something equally valuable! Hell, it's just a warm, wet hole, that's all ...kinda' cute, but it's still just a hole!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if a woman wants to give it up... thats great... its her problem...

there is a big difference between giving it up.... and selling it. PERIOD.

-MT
and spuriousmonkey... please tell me what she charged?? bananas maybe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a sad day when...

This kind of question is asked and and the answer seriously considered to be no.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why? if you think about it in an objective manner, it is no more "wrong" than owning a fruit stand where you sell bananas and apples. however, if you think that there is some kind of subjectivity to the action based on a moral principle that you were raised with and have never unlearned, than yeah i guees its wrong. but you should consider that its equally possible then that your moral beliefs and the effects their dissemination has on the population are possibly more "wrong" than prostitution is.

 

what is the difference? explain to me why it is wrong using a rationale other thatn "its wrong because its wrong and it hurts people because it does".

 

The same logic can apply to any profession in the world. If a woman wants to teach, that's great... it's her problem. But making her students pay for it! She's selling her brain. An intellectual whore! Oh gosh, it should be illegal!

What's the difference, really? Please explain. That was my original question. How is it less immoral to sell your body than it is to sell your mind? Isn't your mind more important or as important as your body?

 

Everyone who hasn't saved themselves for marriage are sluts. Raise all your hands. Yep yep. We've sure had a lot more fun than them religious nuts, no? Go Satan!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Prostitution is no damned different than a date or a one-night stand. People go on dates to have fun and hopefully get laid. And you know what happens? You gotta shell out money to make that happen! The only difference is that prositution cuts through the bullshit. At least they're putting out right off the bat than some girls that like to date multiple guys all for the sake of having them buy gifts for em.

Someone asked if I'd mind if my daughter was a prostitute? Nope, I wouldn't. Why? Because I know she'd already be sexually active and hell, probably with a couple at the same time with the way people have multiple boyfriends and girlfriends. I'd much rather her be an honest prostitute than some cock-tease who tries to milk a lot of gifts from guys like quite a few I know. I'd just hope she's careful with what she does, no different than going on dates or parties where she could be raped especially after having too much to drink, etc.

All you against prostitution are simply in denial. Or you're so ignorant that you think your child is a perfect little angel when they're not. Sex for money happens all the time. You've all probably done it yourselves as well. Any of you who has gone on a date and has had sex before marriage qualify for it. Get off your moral high horses.

- N

 

okay, well I wouldn't want my daughter to be a prositute. That would kill me. I'd really like it if my children (I don't really have them, but once I do) would wait until there married. I'm saving myself until I'm really really sure and in-love.
You saying that you've probably done it yourself, well that's crazy. Loads of people haven't done it with hookers. I never will.
I don't have anything against other people being a prostitute but if someone I loved was I wouldn't be crazy about it.
This is just my point of view though, of course.
Anyway if I was a prostitute I would hate going to confessions. haha.

 

Prostitutes are made by circumstances in their lives... and they only fall into prostitution because our society by its nature is selfish... and overwhelmed with concepts of freedom...

im sorry but freedom to become an addicted hooker is not a good thing.

but the simple fact of the matter is.... prostitution isnt going away.

and if it is to exist it must be regulated... highly... and there should be regulated and focued efforts insync with such... wherein girls can be trained with worthwhile skills by which they can leave said trade.

otherwise the women who become whores would have no hope of an alternative.

and there should be an age limit... of atleast 30 years old.

in this way... we are all sure.. at all times... that no dumb, young, nieve girl is being abused in anyway.

they are all fully adult women who know what they are doing and its not for a drug addiction.


either way... its wrong, and a constant pressure must be appplied by society in general to abolish such practices... with instead a focus towards familes.

as should be rational to all.

-MT

 

What's your ladies opinions on exotic dancers? The ones that don't have sex, but merely dance and strip and bump 'n grind?

- N

 

I always accept possibilities, but I also know how to weigh possibilities, and I'm fairly certain that "the effects their dissemination has on the population" are not more wrong than prostitution.

What I find interesting is that you're willing to make that statement without actually knowing what the underlying moral principles that I hold are which allowed me to make my previous post. Actually, you're going on a presumption of what my moral principles are. If I asked you to describe the moral principles that I hold, which, I imagine, you reject, I'm am quite certain that you could not. Which is curious, because I find that most people reject the reality of moral priciples or moral standards without actually having first defined a moral principle or standard to which reject. More often than not, people reject some vague, preconceived, or intuited idea of morality, instead of an actually defined one. I presume the reason they reject absolute morality is because they are unable to define it.

 

i was postulating a hypothetical. i didnt presuppose that you were anything. i was saying that i supposed that i could understand your statement if i put it in that framework, but without that particular framework its ambiguous.

there is your statment. since you believe it is sad that people would consider the answer to be "no", that prostitution is not wrong, then you clearly do not agree with prostitution. then one has to say, well why does this person not find at least some degree of subjectivity to this question? most obviously you would presume that they have a moral objection to it. now, morals based in pure logic would allow for at least a reevaluation of this question on a periodic basis, and also for an analysis of what exactly it is that is harmful to purveyors and recipients of the services of a prostittute. to do that logical analysis is to almost invariably come to the conclusion that the damage done to prostitutes is largely inflicted by its criminalization and the emotional effects of the negative social stigma that is attached to it. this is because criminalizing prostitution has forced it underground where its patrons are now mostly a subsection of society who has little respect for law, the feelings of others, moral standards, or hygenics. this results in the mistreatment of prostitutes both by pimps and clients, as well as a feeling of entrapment in the prostitute which is bred by fear of being prosecuted, stigmatized, and possibly sought after for reprisals due to their criminal conduct. this allows for a nearly endless cycle of physically and emotionally abusive conditions which would routinely turn even non-prostitutes toward drug use and other forms of escape, further deepening their involvement in criminality and dangerous conditions which put them at risk for more physical and mental abuse and helath problems.
you may speculate on what pre-existing conditions must be in place for someone to want to become a prostitute when they (presumably) know all too well the effects it will have on their life. it is, i think, often true that those who become prostitutes in places where prostitution is illegal have already experienced abusive or destructive childhood situations before moving on to the illegal sex-trade, with its many similarities. if you were to follow that train of thought, then much damage has been inflicted on a person before their entry into service as a prostitute, and their desire to participate in a criminal black market is more a reflection of their desperate circumstances than an expression of a desire by a "normal" person to expose themselves to a potentially abusive and damaging range of scenarios.

so, having said that, logically, you could say that prostitution itself is not "wrong", but that many of the negative effects of prostitution are created by external factors such as its criminalization and the disproportionately high level of emotionally and physically abused who become prostitutes in the first place. you may then go on to picture a world where prostitution is legal and highly regulated and destigmatized. in this scenario risks are relatively low, emotional abuse is at a minimum, and service providers are paid appropriately, work in a clean environment, and may actually enjoy thier work to one extent or another. i do not see what would be "wrong" about that in any moral sense.

however, if your stance against prostitution is based on a set of morals that are not based on reason, but inflexible rules of a particular tradition, then you would not feel the need to analyze prostitution or any of its possible alternative outcomes in the way that i have. this is because you accept a rule against prostitution and believe it to be wrong without equivocation, thus requiring no further analysis of the situation. that could safely be presumed by your statement since you offered no explanation as to why you believed it was wrong, do not see the issue as subjective, and have not considered the possibility that prostitution could be removed of nearly every single one of its negative stigmas through decriminalization, regulation, and an attitudinal shift among members of society in favor of sexual expressiveness instead of the current religiocentric model (in most civilized societies today) of sexual guilt.

i think thats a decent basis for my presumption. you can of course feel free to explain to me how i am wrong.

 

Well, your assessment of my stance is wrong, but I really don't feel compelled to express why. I will, however, say that it is based on reason, and not simply compelled by an inflexible religious rule or tradition. If I ever get the least hint that you actually care to hear my opinion, I'll proceed to let you hear it.

 

so what youre saying is that because you refuse to explain and i try to guess, that i dont care? come on. i was laying out for you what my impression was, its not a personal attack.

 

They invest in social bonds with sex. I rub your back now if you rub my back later. In this case something else is getting rubbed, and the return rubbing doesn't have to be sexual. It could also be social protection.

Or a banana

 

I didn't refuse to explain, I simply hadn't, and you didn't ask to hear my opinion, you simply decided to guess what it was. What I find offensive is the way you perceive me, based upon your guess at my stance. Because of my first statement, you automatically jumped to certain conclusions, which were expressed in your "guess" about the way I think, or believe. I find it interesting that you consider your rationalization of the prostitution situation to be the only logic to be applied, and that the fact that I came to a different conclusion than you in the matter meant that I must therefore not be using reason or logic, but rather that I'm instead adhering to inflexible religious tradition and law.

It might not have been a personal attack, but I still find it offensive that your impression of me is a mentally stagnant automaton who doesn't think for himself but merely follows what he's told.

That said, how could you possibly be interested in what I have to say? You strike me as a person who is interested in communicating with other intelligent free thinkers, and who would scoff at religious adherants because you think them mental sheep and nothing more.

 

no, i just told you what my impression of it was, i think that it is fair of me to assume that if i am wrong you will explain to me how i am wrong instead of just saying that i am without any further clarification. i believe that my analysis of the morality of prostitution is logical because logic includes the consideration of alternatives to rules or static moral axioms, and the "wrongness" of prostitution is nearly invariably based on an objection to the view that sex may be treated as a commodity instead of just a means of emotional expression. this view seems to generally be based on or influenced by a religious viewpoint, as the prevailing social view (at least in the west) often has judeo-christian underpinnings. if you think that yours is also a logical approach,yet reaches a different conclusion, let me in on it. im obviously waiting to hear it or i would have stopped responding three posts ago.

 

I don't mind them so much. I mean I wouldn't love the idea of my boyfriend going to a stripjoint or anything though.

 

Why is that?

 

because...well just to be straight out with you...If he's my boyfriend I should be the only girl turning him on. I don't really care what you allow your boyfriend/girlfriend to do, but I would like my boyfriend too not go to stripjoints. That's me.