Ethics of Prostitution

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

William
 
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:25 pm
@Theages,
Theages;83928 wrote:
No, it really is not.


In all due respect, considering this is your only post in this thread, don't you think it would be proper to offer a reason for your "in depth" opinion......Huh?

William
 
Theages
 
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:30 pm
@Theages,
William;83931 wrote:
In all due respect, considering this is your only post in this thread, don't you think it would be proper to offer a reason for your "in depth" opinion......Huh?

Uh, shouldn't you be asking the same thing to jgweed?
 
William
 
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 11:13 pm
@Theages,
Theages;83934 wrote:
Uh, shouldn't you be asking the same thing to jgweed?


Well........no, not really. He was merely offering a suggestion, not a conclusion. Your response was about as "a matter of fact" as one can get offering no proof what so ever. I think the ball is in your court to explain why you differ from his offering. There is a big difference in being quizical and emphatic. He was asking for opinion of which you gave none, which in my opinion served no purpose and wasted computer ink. In affect, he was asking a question and you offered a response that was vaccuous considering it is the only response you have had in this thread. Either get involved or be a spectator. That would be respectful. Perhaps we should start a thread on what the word "respect" really means. Huh?

William

---------- Post added 08-18-2009 at 01:01 AM ----------

.....or better still, perhaps we need a button to go along with the "thanks" button that says "you're full of sh*t". How would you like that? It would save wear and tear on your keyboard. One click is all it takes. :a-ok:

William
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 11:43 pm
@William,
William;83943 wrote:

[/COLOR].....or better still, perhaps we need a button to go along with the "thanks" button that says "you're full of sh*t". How would you like that? It would save wear and tear on your keyboard. One click is all it takes. :a-ok:

William


Khethil wrote:
Please do not attack one another; if this happens, that post will be either reported, result in an infraction or simply be deleted. Attack the ethicacy of other views, if you wish, but not the person (including your estimations of their intelligence, motives or any other about the individual)


What about this did you not understand?
 
Theages
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 12:31 am
@William,
William;83943 wrote:
He was merely offering a suggestion, not a conclusion.

Perhaps you've forgotten what he wrote. I'll remind you:

Quote:

Why would an act of prostitution be an ethical action, or even be seen as one? Isn't this really the prior question to be asked?

There are two questions here. The second one is obviously rhetorical. While it is not explicit, he is proposing without argument that all actions should, in effect, be judged as unethical until proven otherwise. Right or wrong, this is not "merely" "a suggestion". Since he proposed this without argument, I felt perfectly comfortable denying it without argument.
 
Grimlock
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 12:37 am
@New Mysterianism,
New Mysterianism;83866 wrote:
You didn't provide any examples of (morally relevant) below-the-surface differences. Not very informative.


And you have never f*****d a prostitute. Which one of us bears the burden of proof here?

To answer your question, as I do not believe in extrapersonal (as in "universal") morality or ethics as real things, I could only give you examples from my own life. Do you really want me to describe how sex feels? Perhaps you would find it enlightening.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:09 am
@Khethil,
How can it be right/ethical when one is selling their body for sex?
It is not ethical because sex is a thing that should be given freely and willingly, if your handing over money then it is not free. I say freely because in order to enjoy sex you have to submit your body to someone for the sake of love/lust and be completely free, not bound to an exchange, (of money for sex), cant see that involving money portrays any of these things.
Prostitution should be made legal to make it safer for the girls, like in Amsterdam, they've got it right. But it is only safer, like safer sex, it's never completely safe, (a condom could break).
 
Theages
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:17 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;83976 wrote:
It is not ethical because sex is a thing that should be given freely and willingly

That's a circular argument.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 03:24 am
@Theages,
Theages;83977 wrote:
That's a circular argument.

Explain please........
 
New Mysterianism
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 05:11 am
@Grimlock,
Grimlock;83960 wrote:
And you have never f*****d a prostitute. Which one of us bears the burden of proof here?

To answer your question, as I do not believe in extrapersonal (as in "universal") morality or ethics as real things, I could only give you examples from my own life. Do you really want me to describe how sex feels? Perhaps you would find it enlightening.


Firstly, please lose the petulant and combative tone.

Secondly, you claimed that my previous post amounted to a "word-game masquerading as a meaningful argument," presumably because it ignored (morally relevant) below-the-surface differences in the two examples I provided. Therefore, I would like you to back up your assertions. This reasonable request shouldn't require a detailed account of your sexual escapades.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 07:59 am
@Theages,
Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. I think I owe a response to all on this point (that at least Gosh and Zeth have brought up):

Zetherin;83921 wrote:
I don't really know if I like the phrasing of this question. "Ever be" seems to imply I must consider that prostitution is regarded as a 'bad' practice to begin with... In others words, the question doesn't seem neutral. It appears loaded, to some degree.


GoshisDead;83902 wrote:
This is a semantic argument about goodness. Much of western thought is influenced by a history of sexual repression, or at the very least sexual restraint. Can it be good if it defies a cultural norm that is part of the bedrock of the defenition of the word 'good'?


You both are quite right - the question, as phrased, does seem to presuppose an innate 'badness' (something which I don't believe, as I stated in my own view). This wasn't intentional

Thanks

---------- Post added 08-18-2009 at 09:03 AM ----------

William, Grim:

Both of you have outstanding views and opinions to present, but the below quoted passages are over the line. I took a risk opening up a thread like this. Please accept my personal plea to not resort to personal attacks and obscene references:

William;83943 wrote:
.....or better still, perhaps we need a button to go along with the "thanks" button that says "you're full of sh*t". How would you like that? It would save wear and tear on your keyboard. One click is all it takes. :a-ok:


Grimlock;83960 wrote:
And you have never f*****d a prostitute...


Let's all continue cordially and show ourselves that we can debate such an emotionally loaded issue as considerate and respectful folks.

Thanks guys

---------- Post added 08-18-2009 at 09:24 AM ----------

Mornin All,

salima;83890 wrote:
... sex between human beings can be everything from a totally animal act or the highest expression of spiritual unity...


Very nice way to put it.

New Mysterianism;83920 wrote:
... However, I think that any analysis of sex which imputes a moral character to sexual acts in themselves is wrong. There is no morality intrinsic to sex, although general moral rules apply to the treatment of others in sexual acts just as they apply to all human relations. We can speak of a sexual ethic as we can speak of a business ethic, without implying that business in itself is either moral or immoral or that "special rules" are required to judge business practices which are not derived from rules that apply elsewhere as well. Sex is not itself a moral category, although like business it invariably places us into relations with others in which moral rules certainly apply....


I couldn't have said it better.


William,
I can empathize with virtually everything you've said - I just feel the same on every aspect (and I don't think its productive to get into each individual disagreement). You've taken the time and effort to respond in depth, so I'd like to respond to just a few of your questions/responses:

Khethil;83845 wrote:
...but also the emotional, very personal element. So this isn't just a commodity, to me personally. But I can very well see how it might be for others not of my mindset.
William;83923 wrote:
Khethil, what others and why don't they have this "right" mindset? I don't wish you to name names, but give some thought as to why others have the mindsets they do? I think you truly "don't see" because you don't want to see the real wrong nature of what a chemically laded woman of the street goes through to survive in this world to "earn a living". In all due respect. Call girls are women of the street, only 10 floors up.

As far as who these others might be, that don't share my current feeling on the implications of sexuality, just look at this thread. Many folks have enunciated the view that prostitution's morality (selling sex) depends on the circumstances, as have I. Also, know that what I've said was couched as how I feel, not what is a "right" mindset. I just wanted to clarify that.

And yes, I think I can understand who others feel the way they do - at least I can attempt to empathize; as with you even though you and I don't agree on this completely. As far as me "not see"-ing the nature of others' mindsets because I, "... don't want to see the real wrong nature of a chemically laden woman...", take care, you've no idea what I've seen.

William;83923 wrote:
Money has always been the problem. I have been talking about this in over a 1000 posts. Charging a price to live on this planet is the number one reason for all the ill's plagued by man and woman.

On this point, for sure, we do agree. Nicely put. I wonder if there's anything left we haven't sold.

Thanks again
 
William
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 08:45 am
@Khethil,
PoeticVisionary;83821 wrote:
New Mysterianism until 2 1/2 years ago I would have agreed 100% with you. But my perspective has changed, drastically. I now have a daughter. So my simple male egocentric answer has become a conundrum.


Well said.

Zetherin;83921 wrote:
I have absolutely no problem with someone purchasing sex. It is a service, like any service. As long as both (or however many) individuals are comfortable, I see no problem.


Quoted from Answers.com

Prostitution is defined as "the act or practice of engaging in sexual activity for money or its equivalent" (Garner 1999, p. 1238). Except for parts of Nevada, it is a criminal act in the United States. Prostitutes are also referred to as commercial or public sex workers. It is estimated that over 92,000 men, women, and juveniles are arrested yearly for prostitution (FBI, 2000). The number of juveniles engaging in prostitution is estimated at between 100,000 and 300,000 per year.

The greatest health consequences of prostitution are drug abuse, violence, and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS (human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), gonorrhea, pelvic inflammatory disease, and syphilis. The risk for HIV infection is increased because of multiple partners and limited safe sex practices-some customers are willing to pay more for a sexual encounter if they do not have to use a condom. Based on research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of HIV infection for prostitutes is three times higher if they smoke crack cocaine. Intravenous drug use also increases the risk of HIV infection for a prostitute.
Prostitutes are often victimized by the person for whom they work, and by their customers. Other health issues related to prostitution are early pregnancy for juveniles, rape, tuberculosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, assault, and other acts of violence-including murder. There are also negative consequences besides those related to health issues. In places where it is common, prostitution lowers the value of property. It also degrades the status of women. Published research studies concerning prostitution as a public health issue in urban communities have come primarily from developing countries.

Theages;83928 wrote:
No, it really is not.


See above.

Zetherin;83951 wrote:
What about this did you not understand?


Zetherin in lieu of the "definition" I provided above, your reprimand of me is biased, in my opinion, and should not be a part of a moderators duties if they are so engaged in the debate themselves of which you are. I will agree you are entitled to your opinions just as every one else, but in this case I think it wrong for you to utilize your "powers" to stifle what I did say, which I will also agree was sarcastic. So was the "hit and run" comment theages made to Jg's offering, considering theages has not participated in the discussion "at all" up until that point only that it "agreed" with your assessment noted above of which the definition I provided shows there can be nothing "ethical" regarding prostitution which more that solidifies the offering Jg made.

Grimlock;83960 wrote:
And you have never f*****d a prostitute.


And you said nothing regarding the above comment?

Khethil, I apologize for the remark. IMO, hit and run tactics no matter how subtle they may be are extremely damaging to discourse of any nature as I will agree Jg could have been more expressive in what he did offer himself and my "bias" as I totally agreed with his offering of which I expoinded in detail in the rather lengthy post I wrote as I gave reason as ot why I can see nothing even considered "ethical" about prostitution as the added definition clearly offers.

Again, I apologize for my sarcasm. It is indeed one of my human frailties.

William
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:19 am
@Khethil,
I don't have a problem with people selling themselves for money, it's up to them, it's their body and it's their right but I think it should be done in the safest manner possible. I don't think it's right or ethical because sex should be natural and making money out of it to me isn't natural.
 
New Mysterianism
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:49 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;84015 wrote:
I don't have a problem with people selling themselves for money, it's up to them, it's their body and it's their right but I think it should be done in the safest manner possible. I don't think it's right or ethical because sex should be natural and making money out of it to me isn't natural.


Two questions:

What do you mean by "natural"?
What makes "natural sex" ethical and "unnatural sex" unethical?
 
Theages
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:54 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;83979 wrote:
Explain please........

Here's what you said:

Quote:
It is not ethical because sex is a thing that should be given freely and willingly
You were attempting to demonstrate the proposition "Prostitution is not ethical." This is the same as saying. "Sex should not be exchanged for money."

Your proof was "Sex should be given for free." This is the same as saying "Sex should not be exchanged for money."

In other words, the proof for your claim was simply a restatement of the claim. You presupposed your conclusion in your argument. This is the definition of a circular argument.

William;84010 wrote:
See above.

See above for what? What does any of that have to do with metaethical procedures?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:58 am
@Khethil,
I did not say sex should not be exchanged for money, I said that I believe that sex that is sold for money is unethical because I believe that paying for sex in essence is not natural. I did back up my points.
 
Theages
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:08 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;84024 wrote:
sex should not be exchanged for money

Quote:
sex that is sold for money is unethical

There is no difference between these two statements.

Quote:
paying for sex in essence is not natural

What do you mean by "natural"?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:14 am
@Khethil,
Sex in it's natural state doesn't involve money Theages.
The point i'm trying to make you understand is explained in my previous posts, that a person has a right to do what they want with their body and if he/she chooses to do so than that's their right, I do not have the right to say to them I believe you should stop doing it but i myself believe it is unethical.
 
New Mysterianism
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:23 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;84033 wrote:

Sex in it's natural state doesn't involve money Theages.


Human vision in its natural state doesn't involve visual aids (glasses, contacts, optical surgery). Is visual aid unethical? The domesticaton of wild crops for human consumption differs from its natural state. Is eating macaroni unethical?

Edit: sex in its natural state doesn't involve contraception. Is contraception unethical?
 
Theages
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:27 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;84033 wrote:
Sex in it's natural state doesn't involve money Theages.

You didn't answer my question. What do you mean by "natural"?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/24/2024 at 02:42:47