Prostitution

[quatona]

The only problem I have with your statement is that affection, romance and passion should not be commodities for sale. Intimacy is something that can not be bought and sold and is what is lacking in this barter- recreational-sex.

Right. Can´t buy me love. Can´t by me emotions, anyways. That´s why they are not offered, neither in prostitution nor anywhere else. If you have problems and go to a psychiatrist, you are not paying for his personal interest in you, but for his professional service.

I know there is no promise of intimacy in casual sex, however because of the nature of the act one must either feign intimacy or completely objectify the other person and dehumanize them.

I don´t see how that follows. If people have intensive body contact that in a private situation is considered to be the expression of intimacy (like e.g. in a non-sexual massage), there is no need to apply those expections from one context to the other. A professional massage doesn´t come with feelings or the connotation of intimacy, and nobody is dehumanized.
It´s all in your head.

Neither of those is socially or psychologically healthy or worthy of our time, money or effort.

Actually, I am quite happy that there are prostitutes who sell sex to those who need it badly. They do a lot for the functioning of our society. Since I do not buy sex it´s not my money, my time or effort that you seem to be speaking of, and I am not in the position to tell others what´s worth their time, money and effort.

 

[Vegas]

A professional massage doesn´t come with feelings or the connotation of intimacy, and nobody is dehumanized.
It´s all in your head.

Actually, I am quite happy that there are prostitutes who sell sex to those who need it badly. They do a lot for the functioning of our society. Since I do not buy sex it´s not my money, my time or effort that you seem to be speaking of, and I am not in the position to tell others what´s worth their time, money and effort.

Your argument is shallow and unrealistic. Of course the masseur is dehumanized. He/she is merely a "machine" to work your muscles around for you. There is no personal relationship as you implied, so it is impersonal... deeeee-humanizing.
Equally so with prostitutes or sex industry workers... there is no personal relationship, it is mechanical and dehumanizing and therefore the trick views his/her hireling as an object... an object for fantasy, self pleasure or self abuse...while the pro views his/her self as a commodity and her trick as a dupe, rube or sucker.

 

[oat02351]

These aren't my words or experiences, but they voice my opinion well enough:

For years, I've patronized prostitutes, mostly through escort services. I practice safe sex, treat the prostitute with courtesy, and tip generously. These transactions, while illegal, are consensual freely chosen by the prostitute and the client. Our interaction may not be based on love, but few jobs are. And it is certainly higher paing and less dangerous than say, working in a coal mine used to be. Is there some ethical objection I'm missing?

I would like to add a line of my own: I can't see how this is any different from hiring (or being employed as) a landscaper, mover, or model. They seem to all be various forms of the same theme: you possess certain talents of a physical nature and make a living off of them. Why not?

I know already what the Bible says about prostitution. I don't much care about what it says or not -- for it to be reasonable, there must be a reason behind it. Please, provide.

Let's just say, I would not touch any guy who's been with one, not with a 10 foot pole! A guy who goes to one of them doesn't look at women as people but, thier own Playthings! Not to mention what it would do to marriages... !

 

[bammertheblue]

Let's just say, I would not touch any guy who's been with one, not with a 10 foot pole! A guy who goes to one of them doesn't look at women as people but, thier own Playthings! Not to mention what it would do to marriages... !

You can't generalize like that, though. The author of the piece the OP used says that he doesn't see prostitutes as "playthings", but as people to be respected just like any other people.
Yes, someone cheating on their partner by going to prostitutes would definitely be a problem in my eyes, just like someone cheating on their partner in any way would be.
It's not as black and white as you would make it out to be.

 

[kangitanka]

There is no personal relationship as you implied, so it is impersonal... deeeee-humanizing.

Do you have a personal relationship with every goods/service provider you come into contact with?
Most people dont, so your definition of dehumanizing happens every day, millions (or billions) of times.

If your definition of dehumanizing is an argument against prostitution (even legalized prostitution), then I guess you have an argument against shopping, going to the bank, going to a restaurant, and getting a massage as well

A guy who goes to one of them doesn't look at women as people but, thier own Playthings!

That's a mighty broad brush your painting with there.
You do realize, I hope, that a good number of men look at women as "playthings" at some point in their life?
Casual sex is casual sex, paid for or not. But having casual sex does not make a person unworthy of getting married, or incapable of having a successful marriage.

Not to mention what it would do to marriages... !

Well, infidelity of any kind can have detrimental effects on marriages, so that's rather beside the point

 

[quatona]

Your argument is shallow and unrealistic. Of course the masseur is dehumanized. He/she is merely a "machine" to work your muscles around for you. There is no personal relationship as you implied, so it is impersonal... deeeee-humanizing.
Equally so with prostitutes or sex industry workers... there is no personal relationship, it is mechanical and dehumanizing and therefore the trick views his/her hireling as an object... an object for fantasy, self pleasure or self abuse...while the pro views his/her self as a commodity and her trick as a dupe, rube or sucker.

I do not see how this makes my argument shallow and unrealistic. You seem to accept the parallels between massage and prostitution, but don´t give me any relevant differences that allow me to disapprove of prostitution and aprove of massages.
You call massage dehumanizing. Well, I´m not going to discuss semantics here (although I personally find this label a bit far fetched), so let´s call it "dehumanizing" for now. Is "dehumanizing" an argument against something? Do you consider massages (and other professional physical treatments) immoral, therefore?
Or were you speaking tongue-in-cheek? (Sorry, non-native speaker here, so I sometimes miss the subtleties).

 

[quatona]

Let's just say, I would not touch any guy who's been with one, not with a 10 foot pole!

Well, you are of course perfectly entitled to have your preferences and act upon them.

A guy who goes to one of them doesn't look at women as people but, thier own Playthings!

There is no reason to assume that he looks that way at women in general. So far we can at best (or worst, for that matter) conclude that he looks at those women as playthings, who offer themselves as playthings. And only for the period he pays for.

Not to mention what it would do to marriages... !

And what exactly would it do to marriages?
And how would that be an argument against prostitution in general - as opposed to an argument against married men buying sex?

 

[Vegas]

Do you have a personal relationship with every goods/service provider you come into contact with?
Most people dont, so your definition of dehumanizing happens every day, millions (or billions) of times.They are called transactional relationships

If your definition of dehumanizing is an argument against prostitution (even legalized prostitution), then I guess you have an argument against shopping, going to the bank, going to a restaurant, and getting a massage as well

That's a mighty broad brush your painting with there.
You do realize, I hope, that a good number of men look at women as "playthings" at some point in their life?
Casual sex is casual sex, paid for or not. But having casual sex does not make a person unworthy of getting married, or incapable of having a successful marriage.Apparently it does... see the above post...

Well, infidelity of any kind can have detrimental effects on marriages, so that's rather beside the point

Only you aren't paying for a hamburger or a massage... you are paying someone so that you can use their body for your own personal pleasure or pain... they are a object, not the massage, not a hamburger

 

[DavyCrocket]

I personally feel its a self-esteem issue, under the guise as a macho thing. But really, its pretty sad if you have to pay a women to be around you. Really, if you were a handsome or wealthy or muscular, or even just a plain nice guy, who had some confidence, why would you need to pay anyone? I think men who have to pay for a women's attention are pretty sad beings. They really need prayer.

 

[bammertheblue]

I personally feel its a self-esteem issue, under the guise as a macho thing. But really, its pretty sad if you have to pay a women to be around you. Really, if you were a handsome or wealthy or muscular, or even just a plain nice guy, who had some confidence, why would you need to pay anyone? I think men who have to pay for a women's attention are pretty sad beings. They really need prayer.

Plenty of handsome/nice/muscular/wealthy guys go to prostitutes. The really handsome/nice/wealthy ones go to high priced escorts!
It might be true that it's a self esteem issue, or some men might sometimes prefer to have sex with no strings attached and not have to pretend to be someone they're not to get it. Either way, that has nothing to do with the morality of prostitution itself.

 

[kangitanka]

They are called transactional relationships

Yes
Are you saying that THAT kind of dehumanization is okay?

Apparently it does... see the above post...

In and of itself, no it doesnt. Having had casual sex in the past, I can tell you that it has had no ill effects on my currently successful marriage of 11 years.
And which "above post" are you referring to?

Only you aren't paying for a hamburger or a massage... you are paying someone so that you can use their body for your own personal pleasure or pain... they are a object, not the massage, not a hamburger

Hmmmmm. When I pay a masseuse, I am paying him/her for my own personal pleasure. And it involves them using part (or parts) of their body to induce that pleasure. The only difference is, it's not a sexual pleasure.
So now, why is paying for sexual pleasure (because that's really what we're talking about here) such a bad thing?

 

[Vegas]

Yes
Are you saying that THAT kind of dehumanization is okay? The retailer is not the commodity...


In and of itself, no it doesnt. Having had casual sex in the past, I can tell you that it has had no ill effects on my currently successful marriage of 11 years.
And which "above post" are you referring to? #23


Hmmmmm. When I pay a masseuse, I am paying him/her for my own personal pleasure. And it involves them using part (or parts) of their body to induce that pleasure. The only difference is, it's not a sexual pleasure.
So now, why is paying for sexual pleasure (because that's really what we're talking about here) such a bad thing?

If you have to ask that question the answer is irrelevant. Why not ask why pay for it when you can touch? What difference does adding a person to the self pleasure pursuit make?

 

[Vegas]

I do not see how this makes my argument shallow and unrealistic. You seem to accept the parallels between massage and prostitution, but don´t give me any relevant differences that allow me to disapprove of prostitution and aprove of massages.
You call massage dehumanizing.

A massage is a massage... one can't give themselves a massage. An [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]... anyone can give themselves one. Or would you argue that one goes to a prostitute for some other reason?

 

[Vegas]

Plenty of handsome/nice/muscular/wealthy guys go to prostitutes.

This is indefensible. Why would you say something totally unsupportable? More importantly, "handsome, nice, muscular and wealthy", besides being relative and subjective, are not guarantors of self esteem.

 

[bammertheblue]

This is indefensible. Why would you say something totally unsupportable? More importantly, "handsome, nice, muscular and wealthy", besides being relative and subjective, are not guarantors of self esteem.

I was trying to say that not all men who go to prostitutes do so because they are so unfortunate that they can't get a woman any other way.
And no, they're not guarantors of self-esteem, which I said in the second part of that post.

 

[bob135]

I don't see a good reason why prostitution should be illegal. It is, if practiced by consenting adults, a victimless crime, just like driving without a seeatbelt (which is illegal in some places), flag burning (which some people want to make illegal), suicide, etc. It seems you are just wasting police time and resources when you go after prostitutes and fill the jails up with them.

Some people are worried about the effect it will have on marriages.

Some people are worried about the slippery slope... that even though you may not think to abuse the process, there are those who will... and so they lump all prostitution together for simplicity's sake. The sex slavery trafficing is very real and deals with people who are unwilling, underaged, and powerless. Some people find it difficult to make distinctions between the two: mutually agreed upon prostitution, and the much uglier other kind.

Couldn't legalizing prostitution would actually reduce sex slavery? If prostitution is regulated and taxed by the government, they can oversee it and reduce STD transmission, ensure that all workers are of legal age and consenting, and so on. This means that they will have a greater ability to pursue unregulated prostitutes. Also, since the legal prostitutes will probably provide superior service at competitive prices, sex slave prostitutes will be less desireable by comparison.

 

[quatona]

double post. sorry.

 

[kangitanka]

If you have to ask that question the answer is irrelevant. Why not ask why pay for it when you can touch? What difference does adding a person to the self pleasure pursuit make?

Have you ever given yourself a neck rub?
I have
It's okay. It feels good
But a massage from someone else (paid for or not) feels freakin' AWESOME by comparison.

THAT, dear vegas, is the difference.

IT...
SIMPLY...
FEELS...
BETTER.

Again, your "dehumanization" argument is falling apart.

Here's a service.
Some people pay for it.
End of story.

You seem to be conflating sexual pleasure with some kind of dehumanizing (beyond the norm) morality measure.

I'd like to understand the measure you are applying.

How is sexual intercourse (ie- contact between to humans for the express purpose of physical pleasure) fundamentally different (in a moral sense) from a massage (ie- contact between to humans for the express purpose of physical pleasure)

 

[quatona]

A massage is a massage...

No doubt.

one can't give themselves a massage.

Well, sure one can.

An [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]...

Good observation.

anyone can give themselves one.

But some like it better if another person participates.
I´m not sure I understand your argumentation.
So far I understand: Everything professional service is dehumanizing. Unless these services cannot be done by a person to itself, these services should be illegal.
Is this about correct?

Or would you argue that one goes to a prostitute for some other reason?

I don´t know - I guess most of them go for the whole process. And for the company. As you say, if it were for the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] only, they could do it to themselves and save a considerable amount of money. Thus, this seems not to be all it is about.

What about non-sexual escort services? Dehumanizing by your definition, if I have understood it correctly. Are you pleading for illegalizing them, too?

I can cook myself a meal - yet I sometimes go out and "dehumanize" a professional cook by having him cook for me, plus I dehumanize the waiters for bringing me the stuff, although I could easily fetch it myself. Immoral?

 

[Vegas]

I´m not sure I understand your argumentation.
So far I understand: Everything professional service is dehumanizing. Unless these services cannot be done by a person to itself, these services should be illegal.
Is this about correct?
I can cook myself a meal - yet I sometimes go out and "dehumanize" a professional cook by having him cook for me, plus I dehumanize the waiters for bringing me the stuff, although I could easily fetch it myself. Immoral?

You almost got it.

At the restaurant someone is providing good and services... at a whorehouse a person IS the goods... is the commodity... is the object. You admit it isn't about the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] it is about "company"... relationship... fantasy... all rented and paid for, and in the person of the hooker.