Prostitution

[HRE]

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.

 

[tel0004]

Theres really no need to post in multiple threads.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

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.

Edit. Speeling.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

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?

If increasing your personal gratification by using women who are selling their body for sexual services in exchange for money (out of despair, abuse, addictions, psychological problems, whatever the reasons etc.) seems moral or amoral to you, I would like to be that fly on the wall if or when you marry and try telling your new spouse that the act of sex has no moral value to you and that there will not be anything unique between what you and she may share than what you and some harlot already shared. It might be interesting to see the results... perhaps even enlightening to more than one person.

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.

If I am reading this correctly, it seems to imply that the Bible says something on a topic, yet there is no reason present. Perhaps there is a problem there.
There is a difference between reading something and knowing 'something' was said in the text and understanding what that text means with an ability to apply it.

As to the latter "there must be a reason behind it", I can only infer that you request reasons that would be void of any reasons that may have religious endorsement i.e. fully and unequivocally secular.
Would that be correct?

 

[HRE]

Theres really no need to post in multiple threads.

One deals with the legality; the other with the morals behind it. They can be two very separate topics, but they may, I realize run together.

If increasing your personal gratification by using women who are selling their body for sexual services in exchange for money (out of despair, abuse, addictions, psychological problems, whatever the reasons etc.)

Or volition -- it exists, you might want to know.

I would like to be that fly on the wall if or when you marry and try telling your new spouse that the act of sex has no moral value to you and that there will not be anything unique between what you and she may share than what you and some harlot already shared. It might be interesting to see the results... perhaps even enlightening to more than one person

Thanks. I'll be sure to let you know how it goes at the time. I cannot foresee myself ever frequenting prostitutes, as I find the sort of sexuality they usually sell unappealing. Now that we're done with the righteous morality of age, can we get down to some actual arguments?

If I am reading this correctly, it seems to imply that the Bible says something on a topic, yet there is no reason present. Perhaps there is a problem there.
There is a difference between reading something and knowing 'something' was said in the text and understanding what that text means with an ability to apply it.

If you truly feel that you would be able to shed some light on the Biblical texts that I was not aware of and would be relevant to the discussion, fire away.

As to the latter "there must be a reason behind it", I can only infer that you request reasons that would be void of any reasons that may have religious endorsement i.e. fully and unequivocally secular.

I mean that 'God / The Bible says so' is not an acceptable answer. If God makes an edict, it should, by its divine nature, make sense. If you say sex is an act of love, you will have to justify it. If you say God says prostitution is a sin, you will have to explain why it is a sin. Upon what basis does sin derive? In short, simply expect a chain of 'why' long past what might suffice in a more theistic audience.

 

[Stinker]

Corinthians 6:16 (New International Version)
16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."


When a man and prosititute engage in this, there is damage done to each of their souls. They may each hide it well from the public but eventually it is seen when they attempt to become intimate with someone they want a close relationship with.

 

[Nightson]

Corinthians 6:16 (New International Version)
16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."


When a man and prosititute engage in this, there is damage done to each of their souls. They may each hide it well from the public but eventually it is seen when they attempt to become intimate with someone they want a close relationship with.

Farthenagen 7:8
8Do you not know that peanuts slowly destroys the soul of those who eat them?

Therefore peanuts should be banned.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

One deals with the legality; the other with the morals behind it. They can be two very separate topics, but they may, I realize run together.

Or volition -- it exists, you might want to know.

Presumptuously based on a person stating that it is their will. Far from addressing anything whatsoever that might lead said person to declare that it is their will.

Thanks. I'll be sure to let you know how it goes at the time. I cannot foresee myself ever frequenting prostitutes, as I find the sort of sexuality they usually sell unappealing.

No thanks, but I do note the "I support it, but don't desire it for... "taste" reasons.
Would that mean the "ick" factor is credible to you as reasoning?

Now that we're done with the righteous morality of age, can we get down to some actual arguments?

Would that mean that you will be producing one soon?
Because as of yet, all I've seen is the fallacy based on argument of ignorance.
IOW - That because something has not been shown false (or in this case, that because someone claims there is no reason), that the position produces a true result by default (in this case that prostitution is moral or amoral). Not reasoned at all... or was I to take the OP's sharing of an "opinion" as having some sort of weight?

If you truly feel that you would be able to shed some light on the Biblical texts that I was not aware of and would be relevant to the discussion, fire away.

IIRC, it was you that stated that you know what the Bible declares. Starting from a position void of any kind of landmark for "what you do know" is a bit... vague. Try reading the Bible again would be an adequate recommendation for such vagueness, I suppose.

I mean that 'God / The Bible says so' is not an acceptable answer. If God makes an edict, it should, by its divine nature, make sense. If you say sex is an act of love, you will have to justify it. If you say God says prostitution is a sin, you will have to explain why it is a sin. Upon what basis does sin derive? In short, simply expect a chain of 'why' long past what might suffice in a more theistic audience.

Well, if reading the text results in the limited "the Bible says so" and the reason escapes that person, what indicates that more text in a personalized explanation would result in revelation? It isn't a given that someone can be "made" to understand.

Holding one person's ignorance (any person) as the standard of whether something is true or not is hardly "reasoned". As I said, it is an argument of ignorance to presume that one position is true or false, simply because the other side hasn't been accepted by someone. What I have seen are some opinions expressed in favor of a person expressing it receiving personal gratification and devoid of addressing any consequences or morality. Hedonism at best. The reality of it isn't a matter of whether you can prove me right or wrong or vice versa anyway. If a person wishes to exploit women for their sexual satisfaction, it doesn't require me to support it or the government to legalize it. Such things are done in the world despite it being illegal. You see, society can have their collective right to be ruled by laws they consent to and the minority that wishes to practice a social immorality may do so... albeit, with additional risks. I would have thought that you had realized this from your own OP:

"These transactions, while illegal, are consensual freely chosen by the prostitute and the client."

But back to the Bible commentary... if there really was a search for a reason, how about starting with something you have read in the Bible on the topic, but don't see the reasoning and someone might go from there.

 

[HRE]

Presumptuously based on a person stating that it is their will. Far from addressing anything whatsoever that might lead said person to declare that it is their will. No thanks, but I do note the "I support it, but don't desire it for... "taste" reasons.
Would that mean the "ick" factor is credible to you as reasoning?Would that mean that you will be producing one soon?

No. Since I apparentley must be explicit, I prefer a much more subtle sexuality. An elegantly clothed -- fully clothed -- woman is much more enticing to me than even the standard American teen in her mini-skirt and midriff. The simple nature of the sexuality that prostitution generally offers is a turn-off to me, in the same way that a girl with a vapid expression and a herd mentality is a turn-off. No ick factor, just personal sexual preference. Satisfactory?

IOW - That because something has not been shown false (or in this case, that because someone claims there is no reason), that the position produces a true result by default (in this case that prostitution is moral or amoral).

No -- I have not attempted to demonstrate that it is moral. You are correct. Nor am I assuming it is moral -- I have made no such statement anywhere in this thread. I asked for any reason why it is ammoral. If you wish to settle that there is no such reason, I will be more than happy to proceed in a discussion of why it is moral. Is that a condition you wish to accept?

IIRC, it was you that stated that you know what the Bible declares. Starting from a position void of any kind of landmark for "what you do know" is a bit... vague. Try reading the Bible again would be an adequate recommendation for such vagueness, I suppose.

Which vagueness? I have read the Bible. I know what it says. I do not consider it relevant in an ethical discussion without reasonable backing for the positions it asserts. If you wish to level an accusation of illiteracy on the subject at me, please, stop beating around and state it clearly. If not, move on to your reasoning.

But back to the Bible commentary... if there really was a search for a reason, how about starting with something you have read in the Bible on the topic, but don't see the reasoning and someone might go from there.

I am an atheist. The Bible is not solely adequate justification for me. In fact, any theological justification is not sufficient for me. If it justifies it as ammoral to you, great -- I would simply like to know whether you accept such an edict on the basis of verse alone, or if you believe there is some sort of independent reason thats upports it.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

No. Since I apparentley must be explicit, I prefer a much more subtle sexuality. An elegantly clothed -- fully clothed -- woman is much more enticing to me than even the standard American teen in her mini-skirt and midriff. The simple nature of the sexuality that prostitution generally offers is a turn-off to me, in the same way that a girl with a vapid expression and a herd mentality is a turn-off. No ick factor, just personal sexual preference. Satisfactory?

Acceptable.
Sexual preference is noted as reasoning.

No -- I have not attempted to demonstrate that it is moral. You are correct. Nor am I assuming it is moral -- I have made no such statement anywhere in this thread. I asked for any reason why it is ammoral. If you wish to settle that there is no such reason, I will be more than happy to proceed in a discussion of why it is moral. Is that a condition you wish to accept?

I would not agree that prostitution is amoral.
If that would not be your position either, I find it acceptable to settle it as so. Prostitution has a moral or immoral factor(s) to be considered.

Which vagueness? I have read the Bible. I know what it says. I do not consider it relevant in an ethical discussion without reasonable backing for the positions it asserts. If you wish to level an accusation of illiteracy on the subject at me, please, stop beating around and state it clearly. If not, move on to your reasoning.

I don't know which to address, the fact that no marker has been given to hint on where to start isn't obvious as being vague or the irony of wishing to level an accusation of another wishing to level an accusation.
In the spirit of actually getting somewhere, I'll just pass on both.
If an empty invitation to address what the Bible covers regarding prostitution is all that will be offered, then by all means, no starting point be needed.

I am an atheist. The Bible is not solely adequate justification for me. In fact, any theological justification is not sufficient for me. If it justifies it as ammoral* to you, great -- I would simply like to know whether you accept such an edict on the basis of verse alone, or if you believe there is some sort of independent reason thats upports it.

(*I think you may have intended that to be immoral)

It isn't an Either/Or and I'm not sure what you mean by independent reason.
It would be my contention that the wisdom found in the Bible has prospered me and many others in the learning and doing in whole AND because of that proven faithfulness, it in turn incites faithfulness where something may be unclear or not understood AND the teaching gives reasoning.

But to say the reasoning was "independent" would almost be as if that some sort of "state" of being apart from religious teaching somehow made the reasoning MORE credible. Almost an anti-religious idolatry i.e. a position can be stripped from having any kind of religious connection and magically it becomes credible all of a sudden. Perhaps further explanation regarding your qualifier will be needed.


But what I am REALLY interested in would be the portion of my post that you chose to remove and/or avoid:

Well, if reading the text results in the limited "the Bible says so" and the reason escapes that person, what indicates that more text in a personalized explanation would result in revelation? It isn't a given that someone can be "made" to understand.

Holding one person's ignorance (any person) as the standard of whether something is true or not is hardly "reasoned". As I said, it is an argument of ignorance to presume that one position is true or false, simply because the other side hasn't been accepted by someone. What I have seen are some opinions expressed in favor of a person expressing it receiving personal gratification and devoid of addressing any consequences or morality. Hedonism at best. The reality of it isn't a matter of whether you can prove me right or wrong or vice versa anyway. If a person wishes to exploit women for their sexual satisfaction, it doesn't require me to support it or the government to legalize it. Such things are done in the world despite it being illegal. You see, society can have their collective right to be ruled by laws they consent to and the minority that wishes to practice a social immorality may do so... albeit, with additional risks. I would have thought that you had realized this from your own OP:

"These transactions, while illegal, are consensual freely chosen by the prostitute and the client."

I can see why the red portion would prove problematic with trying to advocate prostitution, so it is understandable why there might be a motive to aviod it.

 

[HRE]

But to say the reasoning was "independent" would almost be as if that some sort of "state" of being apart from religious teaching somehow made the reasoning MORE credible. Almost an anti-religious idolatry i.e. a position can be stripped from having any kind of religious connection and magically it becomes credible all of a sudden. Perhaps further explanation regarding your qualifier will be needed.

Alright. Loose example: You can make a case that the Bible says abortion is wrong. Now, that's good and well, but what I'm asking is that you justify it with reasoning indepedent of the Bible: that what the Bible teaches be supported by common logic and rational. In the case of abortion, you can use indepedent logic and reasoning to discuss the beginning of life, the value of life, and hence logically justify the Bible's edict on abortion through indepedent reason.

But what I am REALLY interested in would be the portion of my post that you chose to remove and/or avoid:

I did not address it because it made -- as far as my initial reading yielded -- no direct comment on the morality of prostitution. There is an ongoing thread in the General Political Discussion forum talking about the legal side of prostitution, but this thread was meant to address whether or not it was actually wrong -- not whether the government should legislate it.

As to the first paragraph and beginning of the second, I did not address those because it would have been a rehash of statements previously made.

So, where are we now? Prostitution is either moral or immoral in action. Either case must be justified on its own.

If I follow that line of reasoning, it leads me to say that there are things that are moral and things that are immoral, but since:

~immoral =/= moral
~moral =/= immoral

then there is a realm of actions that are neither -- a sort of neutral moral range. In other words, there are good things and bad things and things that are neither good nor bad. Otherwise, showing something to be not bad would automatically make it good.

I can agree with that. There is obviously a range of neutral morality: I doubt anyone ascribes 'moral' or 'immoral' to using a coin laundromat, for instance.

That said, I could very happily let prost. rest in the 'neutral' zone, or I could make a case for its morality. It would be a challenge, but an entertaining one.

I'm awfully long-winded tonight. I should probably just go to bed before I say the same thing again.

 

[Vegas]

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?

The problem with prostitution is a pecularly Christian one. It is difficult to find in other cultures the prohibition and condemnation you find in Christianity.
There is a distinct difference between having your hair cut and having sexual [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][bless and do not curse] by another person in Christian philosophy. Discovering what that difference is will help you understand why being a barber or hiring one's services is preferred over a prostitute.
IN our society as a whole we wink at prostitution as the last chance for the "socially unattractive", and yet encourage sexual promiscuity (as long as it isn't purchased in a quid pro quo manner). One must have money or wealth to "date" certain people, be able to provide certain "goods" or services, or in other words have something to trade for sex. This is acceptable unless it becomes a Anna Nicole Smith situation, where it is too extreme. Prostitution is too blatant an exposure of societal trading of sex for value and therefore is discouraged... with a wink.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Its just another of those personal choices that religous folk like to enforce on others.

Christianity as a whole preaches that sex should only be between married peopl. The overall attitude comes off as that of sex being something dirty and bad. I will never tell anyone that they cannot feel that way, however it certainly does not apply to everyone, and I will readily tell you to mind your own business.

Sex for me is a fun activity that I engage in with a like minded woman. Is there a difference between the various times I have had sex? Yes, the sex I had in my two long term relationships had a different meaning, but this doesn't detract from the more casual, friendly sex I have engaged in.

They both were an activity I enjoyed, but the reasons behind the enjoyment were different. Neither type was wrong, and neither type is something I would ever be ashamed of.

Prostitution is really no different. Our society has judged it to be immoral, and made it illegal, and this has the consequence of making it a self fulling prophecy. With prostitution being illegal, you end up with the situation of the pimp and the harlot. In such a system the women are often abused, they often do it because they have no other means of survival, and they do get stuck in the lifestyle. However when prostituion is legal, we see an entirely different situation develop.

Take for example the Chicken Ranch outside of Las Vegas. There, sex isnt dirty, its fun. The women who work there do so because they make really good money doing an activity they enjoy. There is no shame at the ranch, there is fun and safe sex. The women work regular hours, make a regular pay check, and provide a service for their clientel that is free from the social stigma applied by the rest of society n a safe and controlled enviornment.

Have I ever used a prostitue? No, the dangers involved in hiring a prostitute in an illegal system are too great, plus I don't want to further degredate women that have been forced into doing something they do not want to do.

However if I should ever find myself in a place where it is legal and safe, and find myself looking for an evening of fun sex, I would definately think about it.

Why some people in this society are so concerned with what I do in my private life I will never understand, or accept as a valid reason. Keep your beliefs to yourself, and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[bammertheblue]

Its just another of those personal choices that religous folk like to enforce on others.

Christianity as a whole preaches that sex should only be between married peopl. The overall attitude comes off as that of sex being something dirty and bad. I will never tell anyone that they cannot feel that way, however it certainly does not apply to everyone, and I will readily tell you to mind your own business.

Sex for me is a fun activity that I engage in with a like minded woman. Is there a difference between the various times I have had sex? Yes, the sex I had in my two long term relationships had a different meaning, but this doesn't detract from the more casual, friendly sex I have engaged in.

They both were an activity I enjoyed, but the reasons behind the enjoyment were different. Neither type was wrong, and neither type is something I would ever be ashamed of.

Prostitution is really no different. Our society has judged it to be immoral, and made it illegal, and this has the consequence of making it a self fulling prophecy. With prostitution being illegal, you end up with the situation of the pimp and the harlot. In such a system the women are often abused, they often do it because they have no other means of survival, and they do get stuck in the lifestyle. However when prostituion is legal, we see an entirely different situation develop.

Take for example the Chicken Ranch outside of Las Vegas. There, sex isnt dirty, its fun. The women who work there do so because they make really good money doing an activity they enjoy. There is no shame at the ranch, there is fun and safe sex. The women work regular hours, make a regular pay check, and provide a service for their clientel that is free from the social stigma applied by the rest of society n a safe and controlled enviornment.

Have I ever used a prostitue? No, the dangers involved in hiring a prostitute in an illegal system are too great, plus I don't want to further degredate women that have been forced into doing something they do not want to do.

However if I should ever find myself in a place where it is legal and safe, and find myself looking for an evening of fun sex, I would definately think about it.

Why some people in this society are so concerned with what I do in my private life I will never understand, or accept as a valid reason. Keep your beliefs to yourself, and leave the rest of us alone.

Also (and correct me if I am wrong), with legal prostitution such as the situation you were describing in Nevada, the prostitute can turn down a john for any reason. (Creepiness, abusiveness, poor hygiene, etc). This is generally not true of your average sex worker on the street, and in my opinion this contributes to the oppressiveness of the situation.

Edit because "hygience" is not a word.

 

[Robinsegg]

Christianity as a whole preaches that sex should only be between married peopl. The overall attitude comes off as that of sex being something dirty and bad.

I wanted to comment on this statement. While Christianity does speak to married sex being the only "not sinful" sex, Christianity (and, in fact the Bible itself) speaks of married sex as a beautiful gift to the married partners. The part of Christianity I've been a part of and heard on the radio, etc. have not vilified sex, but taught what the Bible says about married vs unmarried sex.

I guess I just wanted to clarify, for anyone who might not know.

Rachel

 

[Robinsegg]

"Safe sex" is a misnomer. You can have "safer sex", but prophylactives do not protect against all STD's, nor are they 100% effective.

Prostitution, over all (as far as I know and apart from ones like temple prostitutes) has historically been one of the ways that women were degraded, devalued, and used by men. Even now, authorities are finding children (for now, I'll define "children" as people under age 16) being forced into prostitution, some times after having been kidnapped from their families. In view of its' history, our society has called this practice "immoral".

Rachel

 

[bammertheblue]

"Safe sex" is a misnomer. You can have "safer sex", but prophylactives do not protect against all STD's, nor are they 100% effective.

Prostitution, over all (as far as I know and apart from ones like temple prostitutes) has historically been one of the ways that women were degraded, devalued, and used by men. Even now, authorities are finding children (for now, I'll define "children" as people under age 16) being forced into prostitution, some times after having been kidnapped from their families. In view of its' history, our society has called this practice "immoral".

Rachel

I don't think anyone's going to disagree with you that kidnapping children and forcing them into prostitution is immoral! But that's a separate issue.
I think in this thread people seem to be saying that the potential for exploitation is one of the things that concerns them about prostitution. I think if it were legalized, this would reduce the potential for exploitation because women would not need to rely on pimps, etc. for protection.
If a woman (or man) wants to have sex for money, and isn't forced or coerced into it, I really don't see how that's immoral. It certainly doesn't harm anyone else, if the woman is doing it because she wants to and not because she feels she has no other alternative.

 

[Robinsegg]

I don't think anyone's going to disagree with you that kidnapping children and forcing them into prostitution is immoral! But that's a separate issue.
I think in this thread people seem to be saying that the potential for exploitation is one of the things that concerns them about prostitution. I think if it were legalized, this would reduce the potential for exploitation because women would not need to rely on pimps, etc. for protection.
If a woman (or man) wants to have sex for money, and isn't forced or coerced into it, I really don't see how that's immoral. It certainly doesn't harm anyone else, if the woman is doing it because she wants to and not because she feels she has no other alternative.

I see your point. However, this question is on the morality of it. The way things stand now, I see it as immoral. In all honesty, as religion informs my decisions and opinions, making it legal would only negate one set of the immorality of it for me (breaking the law is also immoral, unless done "for the greater good" or because of religious oppression *you will worship this way*). My religion (informing my outlook) tells me that sex outside marriage is immoral for many reasons. But that's not the question here, either.

Rachel

 

[Seeking...]

Prostitution isn't immoral. Provided the prostitute is an adult, has entered into the transaction willfully and without coercion and all parties concerned fufill their end of the agreement without willfully causing harm to the other.

What concerns me is the coercion that takes place within human trafficking and streewalkers, but I do see those as very different issues.

Simple prostitution is "I give you sex and you give me something I want", now most sexually active women I know have done that at least once - most often with their husbands...

 

[Vegas]

Prostitution isn't immoral.
Simple prostitution is "I give you sex and you give me something I want", now most sexually active women I know have done that at least once - most often with their husbands...

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