No, you had only made circular arguments and vague allusions to an undefined teleology. Now that you've revealed your teleology, I'm asking you to explain precisely how to distinguish ethical sexual acts from unethical ones.

It's unlikely that the potential for psychological harm can be eliminated in any legal human interaction.

For example, I used to work at a grocery store. I was given a mediocre wage, worked long hours, had few benefits, and endured verbal abuse from impatient customers.

I would hazard to say that these conditions were less tolerable than those experienced by a professional call-girl, but more tolerable than those experienced by a drug-addicted streetwalker.

We need to make a distinction here between the "visible" and "invisible" elements of prostitution--between the street-based sex workers who are mostly engaged in sex for survival, and the professional call-girls who often employ security personnel and who hold their clients to strict rules of hygiene and safety.

Much of the divide actually is the result of harsh legality. Depending on law and zoning, many women who would prefer working in numbers indoors (for security) are pushed outdoors by government (e.g., a criminal record for prostitution-related charges prohibits people from working as licensed out-call escorts).

No matter how "high class" the prostitute, he or she is selling her body for money. This is immoral.

Why is it immoral? Like any paid labourer, we need our bodies to do our jobs, and we receive monetary compensation for our services.

I have, it involves money which isn't what sex is about.

But it does involve pleasure and lust, which according to you it is "about".

Yes I said that's what involves, what's your point?

Excuse me for being unclear. Prostitution involves pleasure and lust.

Because prostitution degrades the sense of sexual intimacy and reciprocal affection, love or lust, the practice is harmful, and therefore immoral.

That's alright. Only from the man's point of view.

There are prostitutes who enjoy what they do.

There are prostitutes who enjoy what they do.

This logic results in absurdities. For example, one could use the same reasoning to argue that because ear-wiggling degrades the natural purpose for which ears were intended--hearing--ear-wiggling is harmful, and therefore immoral.

You can't compare ear wiggling to prostituting your sex because your ears are on display to the public and your sex isn't, it's private, something I've explained before.

The problem here is that you keep inserting hidden criteria into your principle.?

First, you had "engaging in any activity which differs from whatever purpose it serves in its natural state is unethical."

Now, you have "engaging in any personal activity which differs from whatever purpose it serves in its natural state is unethical."

So the next question is: why is this public/private distinction morally relevant?

I do?

Because to me it is the most intimate and private parts of your body, it's like a one night stand with a stranger, normally you don't feel too great about it the next morning, why is that? Because maybe you didn't know the person well enough to share these intimate and special things. Thanks.

Well to me sex is for pleasure, love and lust, and procreation. I thought I had clarified it.

I can wiggle my ears and not feel shame, I'm not getting your examples because you're just picking up on what im saying about a natural state, if you want to make a comparison then I would think that ripping his ears off for someone elses pleasure would be more appropriate

You can't compare ear wiggling to prostituting your sex because your ears are on display to the public and your sex isn't, it's private, something I've explained before.

I did? Where?

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.

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.

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

I think in answer to your question I believe it is unethical to share your body for money and for money only as that is not what sex is for.

And your point is?
Lol. Ya missed one.
Yay!