Many cultures have seen prostitution as a necessary and legitimate service. And some people make the argument that all the ills faced by today's prostitutes are a result of the social outcast status they currently have. What do you think? Please remain respectful and on topic.
* To clarify, I did mean "prostitutes" as those who willingly choose to perform sexual acts for money. I did not intend this discussion to debate on the morality of sexual slavery, child prostitution, or prostitution by the mentally ill.*
Prostitution is, though I dissaprove with it, Ok.
The problem is that most prostitutes are, um, children.
Oh yes, nothing objectionable about comoditising the most intimate physical exirience two human beings can share.
Sex may not be sacred to you, but it is special, and shouldn't be in the realms of that which can be bought and sold.
Yeah so what about somebody who has a horrible physically deformity or something else wrong with them that will likely prevent them from ever finding someone? Surprise surprise! There are a lot of shallow people out there so if someone has had half their face ripped off their significant other (if they had one) might leave them, then what? They only chance they might ever have is with a prostitute, and since this is the most special intimate bond between two people chances are they're going to want to do it at least once. Perhaps they look fine but they have a weird fetish that no girl would ever want to participate in (lets just assume it's nonviolent and just weird) they really should be allowed to just try it out at least once.
Just because it's special and intimate doesn't mean that someone shouldn't be allowed to charge for it if someone is willing to pay. The act of charging for sex harms no one.
No, it definitely does.
Check it out: If you can put a monetary price on another's sexuality, then it becomes a thing. Admittedly, the act of sex could still be considered a "service," but I maintain that sexuality itself is objectified by prostitution, in a nearly literal way. You can't really argue that.
And once you turn sexuality into an object, then it's something can be stolen. This might seem pretty radical, but if you follow it logically, condoning prostitution implicitly relegates the act of rape to the same (im)moral level as theft. By extension, it severely downplays the severity of all forms of sexual abuse. It's a subtle thing, but it's there.
I never said "prostitution makes rape "simply" theft, but I think the ethos behind it--that is to say, separating one's sexuality from one's humanity/soul/whatever, which I clearly don't support--could justify that obviously erroneous and rhetorical jump in (il)logic.
Let me just put it way simpler, in a way you hopefully won't be able to misquote, okay? Victorian as it may seem, I think one's sexuality is more "sacred" than one's work potential. Not everyone shares the view, I'll grant you, but I maintain that physical union between two people who love each other is more, shall I say, beautiful than the relationship between coworkers, or a worker and his/her employer/customer. (Because of that, violations of one's sexuality [like rape, sexual assault, etc.] are--and I'm again using small words, so I hope we can agree on this--really really really really bad.) Therefore, putting it in the context of a business transaction diminishes its importance/sanctity; obviously, the act of rape likewise requires the actor to either neglect or diminish in their own mind the sanctity of another person's sexuality for their own ends. All I'm saying is that there's a parallel.
You have to have a messed up way of looking at the world if you think that prostitution makes rape simply theft.
I obviously do not think rape is "simply theft" under any circumstances. It's frickin' heinous, and, sir, I frankly resent the ad hominem on your part. To repeat as simply as possible, I think there are parallels between the mindset that necessary for prostitution ("Sexuality can be given a monetary value.") and the mindset necessary for sexual assault ("The sexuality of others has no value, except in ways that I can exploit.") The way I see it, either way is denying the truth: "One's sexuality is an intrinsic part of one's person, and you can hardly place a value on it."
Of course, the counter-argument is that rape is supremely offensive and morally heinous on a number of levels that have nothing to do with sexuality: It's a matter of people failing to treat other people like people. It's a violation of one's basic humanity, on arguably the most intimate level.
All that said--and I'll admit I've gone on quite long enough--that's just me. Plenty of people, I'm sure, don't think of sexuality as "sacred," or even very special. And as long as that's between two consenting adults, that's fine. I'm not going to shove that down anyone's throat. But for me, the answer to the thread question is, "No." It's not like I'm going to go berating prostitutes. (Rather, in my opinion, we should be trying to create better jobs that aren't so intrinsically degrading, but that's a whole different topic.) But yeah, I think one's sexuality is potentially really special.
1.) "This might seem pretty radical, but if you follow it logically, condoning prostitution implicitly relegates the act of rape to the same (im)moral level as theft."
Ok so I misinterpreted what you said to some extent, I'll try to restate it hopefully without saying anything like "Let me just put it way simpler, in a way you hopefully won't be able to misquote, okay?" or "-and I'm again using small words, so I hope we can agree on this" in the process because saying those things would make me a massive prick, you fucking prick.
I'll admit, I wasn't entirely sure if you were suggesting that raping a prostitute would just be theft. Well, I didn't think that you thought that sort of mentality was ok, but it sounded like you were suggesting that arriving to that sort of conclusion would be in some way logical so I was arguing that it would be a throughly illogical conclusion to come to so I would hope that nobody could be that stupid and because it's such an illogical conclusion it should not in anyway be considered a valid argument against the legalization of prostitution. I still hold that position. We shouldn't base what we legalize off of what moral implications stupid people would assign to things.
2.) "One's sexuality is an intrinsic part of one's person, and you can hardly place a value on it."
Yes you can, everybody puts a value on their own sexuality. For a prostitute it's just money, for a partier it might be a few drinks and a fun night, for someone like me some sort of actual emotional connection would have to occur before I let a girl in my pants, for other people it's marriage. There are other values associated with those things like time/money(money is practically always part of the equation)/emotions/whatever else happens between you two meeting and you two fucking. Everybody places a value on their sexuality, yours is just higher than what a prostitute or a trick might place on theirs.
3.) Rather, in my opinion, we should be trying to create better jobs that aren't so intrinsically degrading, but that's a whole different topic
Whats degrading is just an opinion. I would agree with you 100% if you said some prostitutes find their work degrading, but not all of them do. Some of them love it. Anyways most jobs are at least somewhat degrading and there are some jobs that (I think are) obviously far more degrading than selling sex. Anything involving dead bodies or sewage would seem way more degrading to me but like I said, what is and isn't degrading is just an opinion.
Oooookay. Look, I'm sorry if I was a little defensive, alright? But I sort of freaked when it seemed like you were trying to twist my words to make it sound like I was condoning rape. Apologies. No one here is a "fucking prick," the internet is just conducive to misunderstandings angry squids of hate.
1) Okay, fair. Stupid people shouldn't play into it... but stupid people often do. I mean, safety warnings are on most products for the lowest common denominator. You and I both know not to drink that liquid bleach, but someone out there who's just real thirsty might try it. (I'm kidding. Mostly. Anyway it doesn't have anything to do with morality, so fair play all around.)
2) Again, fair. I guess my response to the above discussion could have been a simple, "Well, I personally place a pretty high non-monetary value on my sexuality, and I think other people should, too, but of course I'm not going to impose that on anyone. Prostitution! It's complicated!" So again, no worries all around.
3) Yeah, degrading is also an opinion, but it's still one we usually feel comfortable as a society coming to a consensus on. I mean, if we didn't then there wouldn't be child labor or sanitary labor laws. Health plays a part in both of those, but the arguments that got them across rode on general appreciation for human dignity. Again, opinions opinions opinions.
So we're all chill?
Yeah, we're chill. I was just being defensive too, apologies.
1.) Right but if we always considered stupid people driving would be illegal because you might drink and using plastic wrap would be considered terrorism because if someone "accidentally" wrapped it around their head they would die.
2.) No worries, it's all opinions.
3.) Personally I think legalizing and (to an extent) regulating prostitution would increase the dignity involved in it, along with the safety and health but really some people (maybe you) will always see it as degrading work and thats fine but personally I don't think something broad and general like prostitution shouldn't be illegal simply because some people think it's degrading.
I cannot even begin to logically follow that. It makes as much sense as saying if you steal a car it is the same thing as writing a letter to a dead movie star.