Prostitution

[Rebekka]

I would like to ask the question a bit differently:
Why is it that with some things that come with problems people hold the problems against the thing itself (i.e. advocating to do with it altogether or making it illegal), whilst with others they advocate regulations that help freeing the thing from the problems?

Like:
Drug abuse is overproportional in prostitution, sports and the showbusiness. With the latter two I never hear the frequent drug abuse mentioned as an argument in favour of criminalizing sports or pop music.
There are thousands of transmittable diseases. These are never brought up as an argument for criminalizing the behaviours by which they are transmitted or the professions in the context of which they are transmitted overproportionally - unless it´s sex-related.
There are many businesses in which exploitation and "objectification" occur. However, I don´t hear that brought forth as an argument against the sort of business per se - instead people advocate regulations that prevent exploitation. Unless it´s the sex business.

That, to me, suggests that these reasons that are commonly brought forth against prostitution are not the actual reasons, but mere a posteriori rationalizations of something else: The feeling that there is something "inherently" wrong with it.

Good point. I do believe that there is something inherently wrong with prostitution so you're right in my case.

 

[TooCurious]

There's a huge grey area between voluntary and forced prostitution. Legal prostitution doesn't really solve problems, at least not over here. So why make it legal?

This, I think, is the key point where we disagree. You're asking, "why make it legal?" because the current state of affairs, the status quo, is that it is currently illegal. I ask, "why is it illegal in the first place, and is there sufficient reason for it to be so?" Because if the government is going to have the authority to restrict individual choice and action in a particular fashion, there had better be a valid reason for them to do so. In the case of prostitution, I simply do not see a sufficiently compelling reason.

You appear to feel that prostitution is morally wrong, and that is a valid opinion. But it's not the government's job to make people behave themselves. It is the government's job to stop people from harming other people, so in cases of forced prostitution or sex slavery, then yes, there is a governmental right to intervene--because of the force, not because of the prostitution. Not every instance where money is exchanged for sex involves that sort of harm, and so it isn't the prostitution itself that should be against the law.

Let me make an analogy. Some people think that drinking alcohol is morally wrong. When some people drink alcohol, they might become violent toward others, or choose to drive a car, putting other people at risk. These things--violence toward others, and driving under the influence--are illegal (I can only speak from the legal perspective of my own country, since I know the laws here). Drinking alcohol, in and of itself, is not illegal, because not all cases of alcohol-drinking involve harm or risk to others.

The point I'm trying to make here is that it is not the act of exchanging sex for money, in and of itself, that causes harm to people. Some people may cause harm to others within the context of that activity, and that harm should be illegal (and the laws enforced as strongly as possible). But the act itself is not the source of the harm, and as such there is not sufficient justification for the laws against it. That makes them bad laws.

There's nothing wrong with believing that prostitution is morally wrong. However, not everything that's immoral ought to be illegal; some things just aren't the government's business, and that includes the bedroom activities of consenting adults (as long as they are, in fact, consenting--and if they're not, then that's a different issue).

 

[quatona]

Good point. I do believe that there is something inherently wrong with prostitution so you're right in my case.

Well, unfortunately such a belief doesn´t leave much space for discussion.

 

[Futuwwa]

The problems associated with prostitution may not go away entirely in places where it is legal, but they are certainly significantly diminished. When prostitution is made illegal, prostitution does not go away; it merely becomes less safe for those individuals who, by choice or by circumstance, make their living in such a manner.

This is a utopistic fallacy. Nothing ever goes away entirely by prohibiting it. Nobody has claimed that it will. The interesting question is rather, will its prevalence go down enough for a ban to be worth it?

It is of course debatable how much it would go down following prohibition, which would depend on a number of factors. But to claim that it would be just as prevalent as before prohibition is ludicrous. It would assume that the prostitution business would manage to stay completely invisible from the authorities, while every man anywhere who decides to buy sex would instantly know where to find it. Secrecy and outreach are mutually exclusive.

 

[Rebekka]

This, I think, is the key point where we disagree. You're asking, "why make it legal?" because the current state of affairs, the status quo, is that it is currently illegal. I ask, "why is it illegal in the first place, and is there sufficient reason for it to be so?" Because if the government is going to have the authority to restrict individual choice and action in a particular fashion, there had better be a valid reason for them to do so. In the case of prostitution, I simply do not see a sufficiently compelling reason.

You appear to feel that prostitution is morally wrong, and that is a valid opinion. But it's not the government's job to make people behave themselves. It is the government's job to stop people from harming other people, so in cases of forced prostitution or sex slavery, then yes, there is a governmental right to intervene--because of the force, not because of the prostitution. Not every instance where money is exchanged for sex involves that sort of harm, and so it isn't the prostitution itself that should be against the law.

Let me make an analogy. Some people think that drinking alcohol is morally wrong. When some people drink alcohol, they might become violent toward others, or choose to drive a car, putting other people at risk. These things--violence toward others, and driving under the influence--are illegal (I can only speak from the legal perspective of my own country, since I know the laws here). Drinking alcohol, in and of itself, is not illegal, because not all cases of alcohol-drinking involve harm or risk to others.

The point I'm trying to make here is that it is not the act of exchanging sex for money, in and of itself, that causes harm to people. Some people may cause harm to others within the context of that activity, and that harm should be illegal (and the laws enforced as strongly as possible). But the act itself is not the source of the harm, and as such there is not sufficient justification for the laws against it. That makes them bad laws.

There's nothing wrong with believing that prostitution is morally wrong. However, not everything that's immoral ought to be illegal; some things just aren't the government's business, and that includes the bedroom activities of consenting adults (as long as they are, in fact, consenting--and if they're not, then that's a different issue).

Yes, we disagree, and my objections against prostitution are moral, but also, I fail to see practical advances of it not being illegal. One of the reasons why I think prostitution should be illegal - and many non-christians will disagree with me here - is that I think that yes, the exchange of sex for money, is harmful in itself. I believe it to be harmful mostly for the prostitute, but also for others involved.

 

[mpok1519]

Legalized prostitution will sever ties to organized crime to a high degree, though there will still be remanents of prostitution managed by the organized crime syndicates, but the majority would be, inspected, regulated, well maintained and top of the line, catering to the tastes of the highly wealthy clientelle; we're talking a multi-billion dollar industry. You might still catch a disease if you go to the five dollar bodega, but most likely not from a two hundred-dollar an hour escort service. And much like companies with failed or inferior products, such cheap five dollar bodegas have a good chance of terminating service.

I think that it should be legal in small isolated places, like the bunny ranch in nevada, but certainly not nationwide.

 

[TooCurious]

This is a utopistic fallacy. Nothing ever goes away entirely by prohibiting it. Nobody has claimed that it will. The interesting question is rather, will its prevalence go down enough for a ban to be worth it?

It is of course debatable how much it would go down following prohibition, which would depend on a number of factors. But to claim that it would be just as prevalent as before prohibition is ludicrous. It would assume that the prostitution business would manage to stay completely invisible from the authorities, while every man anywhere who decides to buy sex would instantly know where to find it. Secrecy and outreach are mutually exclusive.

I think you highlighted the wrong part of my post. The more relevant half of the sentence, the half immediately after the part you bolded, was "it merely becomes less safe for those individuals who, by choice or by circumstance, make their living in such a manner." Therefore, the interesting question to me becomes, "is the reduction in the prevalence of prostitution substantial enough, and important enough, to justify the additional risk to these individuals? Thus my point was, if making prostitution illegal will not make it go away completely, but will instead put a number of people at greater risk, is it worth doing?

Yes, we disagree, and my objections against prostitution are moral, but also, I fail to see practical advances of it not being illegal. One of the reasons why I think prostitution should be illegal - and many non-christians will disagree with me here - is that I think that yes, the exchange of sex for money, is harmful in itself. I believe it to be harmful mostly for the prostitute, but also for others involved.

Again you say that you "fail to see practical advances of it not being illegal." My point is that you're coming at the topic from the opposite, and what I would consider the wrong, direction. My point is that there needs to be a sufficiently compelling reason for it to be made illegal in the first place, rather than just maintaining the status quo. If such sufficiently compelling reasons cannot be given, it's not the government's business. The default state is legality, not illegality; one has to justify making a law against something, not the other way around.

You also say that the exchange of sex for money is, in itself, harmful. That might be a reasonable idea, but I'm curious as to what sort of harm you mean. Your statement can be interpreted in a number of different ways, and I don't want to misunderstand you. Could you elaborate?

 

[Futuwwa]

I think you highlighted the wrong part of my post. The more relevant half of the sentence, the half immediately after the part you bolded, was "it merely becomes less safe for those individuals who, by choice or by circumstance, make their living in such a manner." Therefore, the interesting question to me becomes, "is the reduction in the prevalence of prostitution substantial enough, and important enough, to justify the additional risk to these individuals? Thus my point was, if making prostitution illegal will not make it go away completely, but will instead put a number of people at greater risk, is it worth doing?

That would depend on how great the proportional reduction would be, and how great the proportional increase in harm done per prostitute (to herself as well as overall society). If the harm per practitioner is doubled but the prevalence drops to a quarter, the total harm done has halved.

 

[Rebekka]

Again you say that you "fail to see practical advances of it not being illegal." My point is that you're coming at the topic from the opposite, and what I would consider the wrong, direction. My point is that there needs to be a sufficiently compelling reason for it to be made illegal in the first place, rather than just maintaining the status quo. If such sufficiently compelling reasons cannot be given, it's not the government's business. The default state is legality, not illegality; one has to justify making a law against something, not the other way around.

LOL, yes, my direction is probably opposite because I'm conservative (in a literal way, not in a political way, even though you might think that, since I'm anti-prostitution and christian) - I'm usually only for change if I see good reasons for change.

You also say that the exchange of sex for money is, in itself, harmful. That might be a reasonable idea, but I'm curious as to what sort of harm you mean. Your statement can be interpreted in a number of different ways, and I don't want to misunderstand you. Could you elaborate?

For me, there are several reasons; for atheists, most will not be relevant.

I think prostitution is harmful to the prostitute because it's not an equal relationship: one person pays the other, so the paid person is obliged to do what the other person asks; after all, s/he has paid for it. The prostitute becomes an object, a thing that can be bought. Prostitutes are vulnerable. Not his/her wishes matter, but only the person who pays for it. In a (what I see as) normal, equal relationship, both parties' pleasure is the goal. In a prostitution situation, only the paying party (usually the man) gets what he wants in terms of pleasure. *what makes it more questionable is that the paying party is usually physically stronger, so the customer can use force.*

I think it's harder for prostitutes (and for example for victims of sexual abuse, where sex was separed from a loving relationship, too) to enjoy sex because it's business - so it ceases to be pleasure.

What bothers me as a feminist is that most prostitutes are women, and most people who have sex with prostitutes are men. This makes prostitution a sexist environment, where women are (still) seen as inferior, as property (that you can buy, if only for half an hour). I think it degrades women.

Although I think there may be exceptions, I think most prostitutes are not proud of their profession; they sell their body, and I think this leads to self-esteem issues. It's hard for prostitutes to quit, they are often trapped, stuck in their profession. This borders on practical problems though (and the question of forced prostitution, etc), so I won't go further into it.

From a christian point of view, I think sex belongs in a loving, committed and faithful relationship. Prostitution isn't a relationship, it's a business transaction.

I hope this clarified it a bit; you don't have to agree with me, I know that most of my atheist friends don't.

 

[TooCurious]

That would depend on how great the proportional reduction would be, and how great the proportional increase in harm done per prostitute (to herself as well as overall society). If the harm per practitioner is doubled but the prevalence drops to a quarter, the total harm done has halved.

I suppose that's fair... if you think you can measure harm to a person in precise, quantifiable terms, and if you are comfortable with the idea that great suffering for a few people is less important than moderate suffering for many people. I guess that's more of an individual determination; I'm not really sure how I would feel about it.

LOL, yes, my direction is probably opposite because I'm conservative (in a literal way, not in a political way, even though you might think that, since I'm anti-prostitution and christian) - I'm usually only for change if I see good reasons for change.

That is, admittedly, a very different perspective from mine, but I suppose I can understand it, at least in theory. I'm curious, though... In the case of a (hypothetical) country that had never passed laws forbidding prostitution, do you think there is sufficient reason for the government to make it illegal, based on what you describe below as your feelings about prostitution? If not, what would constitute sufficient cause?

For me, there are several reasons; for atheists, most will not be relevant.

Fair enough. I hope you don't mind if I comment on them?

I think prostitution is harmful to the prostitute because it's not an equal relationship: one person pays the other, so the paid person is obliged to do what the other person asks; after all, s/he has paid for it. The prostitute becomes an object, a thing that can be bought. Prostitutes are vulnerable. Not his/her wishes matter, but only the person who pays for it. In a (what I see as) normal, equal relationship, both parties' pleasure is the goal. In a prostitution situation, only the paying party (usually the man) gets what he wants in terms of pleasure.

I think that this concern is somewhat negated by your later remark that "Prostitution isn't a relationship, it's a business transaction." In any business transaction, it's true that the customer pays money so that the businessperson will provide him a service that he wants. If a man hires a plumber to fix his toilet, it doesn't really matter if the plumber doesn't like toilets and would rather work on a sink; if that plumber advertises that he fixes toilets, and the customer is willing to pay his asking price, then he has the right to expect a repaired toilet. In a business transaction, each party gets what they set out to achieve; the businessperson gets money, and the customer gets a product or service. Generally speaking, this is considered an equitable arrangement. In an environment where prostitution is treated as any other sort of business transaction and in which prostitutes have as much protection and legal recourse as any other businessperson, that fairness would exist in that arena as well.

*what makes it more questionable is that the paying party is usually physically stronger, so the customer can use force.*

The same could, in theory, be said of any other trade in which women the majority (since I'm assuming that you were referring to most prostitutes being female and most of their customers being male when you referenced physical strength)--for instance (and I might be stereotyping here slighty), house-cleaning or home health care. If a woman takes a job as a man's cleaning lady, she places herself in a position of vulnerability. She is alone with him in his home, where he might physically overpower her and harm her.

I think it's harder for prostitutes (and for example for victims of sexual abuse, where sex was separed from a loving relationship, too) to enjoy sex because it's business - so it ceases to be pleasure.

I have no personal experience in that regard, so I cannot speak to whether prostitutes do have a difficulty enjoying sex or not, but I think that, in cases where an adult woman chooses of her own volition to have sex for money, then it's her business, and not the government's, as to whether or not she has difficulty enjoying sex afterwards.

What bothers me as a feminist is that most prostitutes are women, and most people who have sex with prostitutes are men. This makes prostitution a sexist environment, where women are (still) seen as inferior, as property (that you can buy, if only for half an hour). I think it degrades women.

Though I will emphasize that the key word here is "most," and not "all" (in other words, that there are some male prostitutes, as well as some female customers), this might be a fair concern. The important question, though, is whether this constitutes sufficient justification for the government to step in and attempt to remove individual choice from both the prostitute and the customer--and whether doing so will actually improve the perception of women on the part of anyone involved.

Although I think there may be exceptions, I think most prostitutes are not proud of their profession; they sell their body, and I think this leads to self-esteem issues. It's hard for prostitutes to quit, they are often trapped, stuck in their profession. This borders on practical problems though (and the question of forced prostitution, etc), so I won't go further into it.

While it's certainly not my intention to minimize the plight of anyone who has had to resort to prostitution in order to survive, I feel the need to point out that these statements would largely remain true if you swapped in the phrase "McDonalds drive-thru worker" for "prostitute." There are a lot of jobs that many people don't want to do, and would find degrading. (Perhaps not as degrading as prostitution in many cases, but still.) Yet we haven't outlawed 99-cent hamburgers. It doesn't make sense to me to outlaw a "job" because most people don't want to do it. In fact, it strikes me that for those people who feel they have no other choice but to go into prostitution, making it illegal only makes their lives harder. Now they feel that they don't even have recourse to the police if a customer hurts them.

From a christian point of view, I think sex belongs in a loving, committed and faithful relationship. Prostitution isn't a relationship, it's a business transaction.

I actually kind of agree with you on this one; I also think that sex belongs in a loving and committed relationship--for me. I just think that other people should be free to make their own decisions, as long as those decisions pertain only to informed, consenting adults.

I hope this clarified it a bit; you don't have to agree with me, I know that most of my atheist friends don't.

It did clarify things, and thank you for explaining. I find these discussions tend to go a lot more smoothly if each party understands where the other is coming from.

 

[quatona]

I think prostitution is harmful to the prostitute because it's not an equal relationship: one person pays the other, so the paid person is obliged to do what the other person asks; after all, s/he has paid for it. The prostitute becomes an object, a thing that can be bought. Prostitutes are vulnerable. Not his/her wishes matter, but only the person who pays for it. In a (what I see as) normal, equal relationship, both parties' pleasure is the goal. In a prostitution situation, only the paying party (usually the man) gets what he wants in terms of pleasure.

I don´t seem to understand why you expect a professional service to match the standards for an equal committed relationship, in just this particular case.
Getting myself a physiotherapeutical massage (or giving such) isn´t anywhere close to a normal, equal relationship. The massagist is paid for, so she is obliged to do what I ask, after all, I have paid for it. This, in your reasoning, makes the massagist an object, a thing that can be bought. I have never understood this terminology (in my view it´s the service that´s being bought and paid for, not the person), but no matter what you call it - "objectification" seems to be a perfectly accepted phenomenon in all service businesses.
Applying your argument consistently would cause a revolutionary paradigm shift to pretty much every business branch, in that all service jobs will be made illegal.

 

[Rebekka]

That is, admittedly, a very different perspective from mine, but I suppose I can understand it, at least in theory. I'm curious, though... In the case of a (hypothetical) country that had never passed laws forbidding prostitution, do you think there is sufficient reason for the government to make it illegal, based on what you describe below as your feelings about prostitution? If not, what would constitute sufficient cause?

Good question. I think it depends on what other laws that particular country had. In theory I would still want to make it illegal because I see it as immoral and degrading (you don't see it morality as a government issue, but I do, to a degree, and I think this is serious enough).

Fair enough. I hope you don't mind if I comment on them?

Not at all.

I think that this concern is somewhat negated by your later remark that "Prostitution isn't a relationship, it's a business transaction." In any business transaction, it's true that the customer pays money so that the businessperson will provide him a service that he wants. If a man hires a plumber to fix his toilet, it doesn't really matter if the plumber doesn't like toilets and would rather work on a sink; if that plumber advertises that he fixes toilets, and the customer is willing to pay his asking price, then he has the right to expect a repaired toilet. In a business transaction, each party gets what they set out to achieve; the businessperson gets money, and the customer gets a product or service. Generally speaking, this is considered an equitable arrangement. In an environment where prostitution is treated as any other sort of business transaction and in which prostitutes have as much protection and legal recourse as any other businessperson, that fairness would exist in that arena as well.

Yes, it is a business transaction, but IMO it shouldn't be one - I don't think one should trade sex for money. For me, sex belongs in a loving committed relationship. And because I'm a christian, I see this as absolute, not as relative. Sex is far more intimate than plumbing. I think it damages us when we abuse sex, e.g. through prostitution. Also, in theory prostitution has fewer negative sides than in reality, because many prostitutes can't quit their jobs as easily as a plumber or hamburger seller could; they're often not really free. Often they can't even keep their wages (a lot of prostitutes are slaves - but we covered that already; just wanted to say that it's not an honest business transaction because of this reality. Many customers know that many prostitutes are not free - also when you take drug addiction into account).

The same could, in theory, be said of any other trade in which women the majority (since I'm assuming that you were referring to most prostitutes being female and most of their customers being male when you referenced physical strength)--for instance (and I might be stereotyping here slighty), house-cleaning or home health care. If a woman takes a job as a man's cleaning lady, she places herself in a position of vulnerability. She is alone with him in his home, where he might physically overpower her and harm her.

Yes, but other professions being dangerous doesn't make prostitution less so.

I have no personal experience in that regard, so I cannot speak to whether prostitutes do have a difficulty enjoying sex or not, but I think that, in cases where an adult woman chooses of her own volition to have sex for money, then it's her business, and not the government's, as to whether or not she has difficulty enjoying sex afterwards.

OK. I think that most prostitutes ultimately didn't really choose their career voluntarily, so it's likely that they won't have thought of this risk beforehand. I think the government may protect vulnerable groups against this (Americans tend to be more against government interference than Europeans, and I'm typically European in this regard, so this explains why we disagree on the role of the government in things like this).

Though I will emphasize that the key word here is "most," and not "all" (in other words, that there are some male prostitutes, as well as some female customers), this might be a fair concern. The important question, though, is whether this constitutes sufficient justification for the government to step in and attempt to remove individual choice from both the prostitute and the customer--and whether doing so will actually improve the perception of women on the part of anyone involved.

In my opinion it does.

While it's certainly not my intention to minimize the plight of anyone who has had to resort to prostitution in order to survive, I feel the need to point out that these statements would largely remain true if you swapped in the phrase "McDonalds drive-thru worker" for "prostitute." There are a lot of jobs that many people don't want to do, and would find degrading. (Perhaps not as degrading as prostitution in many cases, but still.) Yet we haven't outlawed 99-cent hamburgers. It doesn't make sense to me to outlaw a "job" because most people don't want to do it. In fact, it strikes me that for those people who feel they have no other choice but to go into prostitution, making it illegal only makes their lives harder. Now they feel that they don't even have recourse to the police if a customer hurts them.

I think there's a difference, morally speaking, between selling hamburgers and selling your body. I think selling your body is far more degrading. The going to the police part is important, but police in the Netherlands have noticed that prostitutes are in most cases still afraid to go to the police for protection, compared to a few years back when prostitution was still illegal. So in theory you're right, but in reality it may not make much of a difference, sadly. One thing that might (at least in theory) improve the situation for prostitutes is making it illegal to visit a prostitute, not to be a prostitute. So in this situation, the customer gets punished, not the prostitute. (I believe this is the situation in Sweden.)

I actually kind of agree with you on this one; I also think that sex belongs in a loving and committed relationship--for me. I just think that other people should be free to make their own decisions, as long as those decisions pertain only to informed, consenting adults.

People are still free to make this decision, only if it's illegal they will break the law by doing it. As I said, me being a christian makes it a non-relative thing for me. People don't always know what's best for them, and the government plays a part in protecting its citizens (as I said, most Americans are far more "it's none of the government's business if we want to do X" - I'm of a different background).

It did clarify things, and thank you for explaining. I find these discussions tend to go a lot more smoothly if each party understands where the other is coming from.

You're welcome. And that's true.

 

[Rebekka]

I don´t seem to understand why you expect a professional service to match the standards for an equal committed relationship, in just this particular case.
Getting myself a physiotherapeutical massage (or giving such) isn´t anywhere close to a normal, equal relationship. The massagist is paid for, so she is obliged to do what I ask, after all, I have paid for it. This, in your reasoning, makes the massagist an object, a thing that can be bought. I have never understood this terminology (in my view it´s the service that´s being bought and paid for, not the person), but no matter what you call it - "objectification" seems to be a perfectly accepted phenomenon in all service businesses.
Applying your argument consistently would cause a revolutionary paradigm shift to pretty much every business branch, in that all service jobs will be made illegal.

You and I disagree on what's being bought in case of prostitution. A massage therapist doesn't sell his body, he sells his skill. I think a prostitute sells his (her) body, not the service. If you only see it as a service, then I can understand why you have no moral objections against prostitution. But for me, sex doesn't belong in a business transaction.

 

[quatona]

You and I disagree on what's being bought in case of prostitution. A massage therapist doesn't sell his body, he sells his skill. I think a prostitute sells his (her) body, not the service. If you only see it as a service, then I can understand why you have no moral objections against prostitution.

However:
I think the important question is not what you or I think it is, but what the contract says.
I find it indeed very important that none of the participants is in error about the subject of the deal.
Being a private teacher I would not like it if my students worked from the assumption that they buy me, my mind or my body - instead of my skills or service.

But for me, sex doesn't belong in a business transaction.

Fair enough, but that would be an entirely different point than you made above wouldn´t it?

 

[rppearso]

I guess the bottom line is if there is a demand there will always be a supply. You have to figure out why there is a demand and remove the demand because you can never remove a supply for which there is a demand. Removing that demand generally involves a shift in society and the rolls of males and females, when I first posted I got a very self rightious response. The top 2 reasons for divorce are sex and money, I will admit that there are scum bags out there that will do things for no reason but alot of men go to prostitutes out of desparation because there needs are not being met at home (1 cor 7:5)

 

[WatersMoon110]

You and I disagree on what's being bought in case of prostitution. A massage therapist doesn't sell his body, he sells his skill. I think a prostitute sells his (her) body, not the service. If you only see it as a service, then I can understand why you have no moral objections against prostitution. But for me, sex doesn't belong in a business transaction.

Then the real question I have would be: why should everyone be legally forced to abide by your moral view of sexual intercourse? Shouldn't Christians (who presumably also see sex in the same manner that you do) be able to avoid the temptation of seeing a prostitute while non-Christians are free to do so if they wish?

You can't force people to be "saved," they have to make that choice for themselves. So why should your moral views need to be law, in order to protect people who don't agree with you on it being the "wrong way" to have sexual relations with someone?

 

[cantata]

alot of men go to prostitutes out of desparation because there needs are not being met at home (1 cor 7:5)

This is utter nonsense.

Firstly, not everyone who visits prostitutes is a) a man or b) married.

And secondly, sex is not something whereby, if you're getting lots from one person, your desires are necessarily all met. Sex is far more complicated than that, and you totally underestimate it. I should imagine that one reason that men visit prostitutes is that they can do things with a prostitute that they wouldn't want to do with their wives (things they're embarrassed about, for example). Another reason might be that they simply get off on sleeping with someone who isn't their wife. Or they have a thing about women who look a particular way, and their wife isn't one of them. Or they get frisky when they're away from home, or they are pressured into it by their peers, or their wife is getting old and wobbly and they want someone young and firm, or whatever.

Anyway, what if the "needs" of a man are unreasonable? What if he "needs" sex four times a day, seven days a week, and wants to urinate on his partner? What even counts as reasonable when everyone's sex drive and sexual inclinations are different? At what point is it reasonable for a woman to say that she can't and won't keep up?

And finally, do you really think a relationship where a man has sex on demand, rather than when his partner also wants to have sex, is a happy relationship? I can tell you now that a sensitive and thoughtful man will know when his partner is not enjoying herself, and it will diminish his enjoyment. And there are few things that make sex less enjoyable than feeling under pressure to have it whenever your partner feels like it.

So, in summary, no wife has a duty to provide sex on tap, and the visiting of prostitutes need not have anything to do with whether or not a woman is sexually giving herself over entirely to her husband.

 

[Rebekka]

However:
I think the important question is not what you or I think it is, but what the contract says.
I find it indeed very important that none of the participants is in error about the subject of the deal.
Being a private teacher I would not like it if my students worked from the assumption that they buy me, my mind or my body - instead of my skills or service.

Fair enough, but that would be an entirely different point than you made above wouldn´t it?

For me, the two points are related. Sorry. I have several objections against prostitution, and they all play a part simultaneously.

 

[Rebekka]

Then the real question I have would be: why should everyone be legally forced to abide by your moral view of sexual intercourse? Shouldn't Christians (who presumably also see sex in the same manner that you do) be able to avoid the temptation of seeing a prostitute while non-Christians are free to do so if they wish?

You can't force people to be "saved," they have to make that choice for themselves. So why should your moral views need to be law, in order to protect people who don't agree with you on it being the "wrong way" to have sexual relations with someone?

They don't need to be the law, but if a majority votes that this be the law, then I don't see what's so wrong with it. If you want to prevent me from voting for a party that wants to outlaw prostitution, all you have to do is vote for another that wants to keep it legal. Morality is "forced" on people all the time. There are people whose own morals say that murder is alright, or theft is alright. Yet we force our laws on them, too.

I don't force people to be "saved". The term "saved" is mostly used by protestants, by the way. I don't look at people as "saved" vs. "not saved".

 

[quatona]

For me, the two points are related. Sorry. I have several objections against prostitution, and they all play a part simultaneously.

Well, what I was trying to communicate:
The first point you brought up makes no sense in itself. The argument has no merits, unless for someone who shares your feelings that you described in the other point. They are indeed related - in that the first point entirely depends on the second.
This means that - if we wanted to discuss - we would have to discuss your second point. Since this point is merely a description of your feelings, there is nothing to discuss.