Why are people agiants prostitution?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, I see the problem here. The thing we are disagreeing is that on a PERSONAL level, a person can believe that their system of morals is objective, but, for the sake of trying to live in harmony with others, there are things that are best not to have legal intervention.

But that doesn't make it right. Like if there was a referendum in a country and most people agreed to start a genocide against a minority would you be ok with it? The danger in saying that morality is subjective is that if societal standards and values change, then the "morals" change with it. Like, for example, the UN would not need to draft resolutions regarding human rights and international law if morality was subjective. I mean, the society may change in the future and tolerate torture. Maybe people would be OK with child abuse one day.

I didn't say it made it right.

Exactly. How can genocide be only "subjectively wrong"? If it was, then it can also be "subjectively right". I just ate dinner so I had new thoughts on this....

Why would you want someone in jail for something they did that was "subjectively wrong"? If everything was subjective, why would we need laws? People would find that it is a restriction to the "subjectiveness". If you can send someone to jail for doing something "subjectively wrong", then no one should have a problem for sending people to jail for anything that is thought to be "subjectively wrong" by at least a group of people. What about sending someone to jail for the crime of "being a homosexual"? Some people think that "homosexuality" is wrong enough (in their subjective opinion) to send someone to jail.

If morality was subjective, would the slavery abolitionists have the motivation to achieve their goals? Why bother abolish slavery if it was "subjectively wrong"? It was devastating to the economy at the time and so there would be no reason to abolish it if it was just an opinion that the slave trade was immoral.

And with subjective morality comes contradiction. Some people will fight to the last drop of sweat to put homosexuals in jail while others will also fight to the last drop of sweat to support gay rights. What do you make of that?

Some things to think about.

Again, to objective v. subjective:

Genocide is the right thing to do for those who believe in their reasons for doing it. Consider (oh god, I hate to use this as an example but.....) Islamic extremists who believe that according to the quoran (sorry if I misspelled no disrespect intended) he is to kill all infidels...... the christian philosophy on that is different...... to very subjective points of view. Is one more right or wrong? Well, depends on which side of he looking glass you're on. And the what about the Spanish Inquisition? They believed it was their duty to save the Jews on way or another, these men of God. It was in their subjective opinions of the word of God and in their subjective morality these events occurred. If asked whether or not killing was the right thing to do, odds are they believe(d) it is (was) in their souls.

You also raise the question of jailing someone for something that is subjectively wrong...... we are discussing morals not laws. There are two very different things. Again a murderer may believe his reasons for killing are just, but legally he will be prosecuted.

There are countries where homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment or death. I think it's awful. It is illegal to be homosexual in those countries. Is it f***ed up, yes. But it is the law. Just the other day I saw a documentary about homosexuality in Iran. It addresses that very issue. The gov't. will pay for their sex change operations...... no one is happier, but it is legal, they also perform temporary islamic marriages to allow prostitution.

I have a headache and don't feel like the same redundant argument.

Your views kinda creeps me out a bit. I just hope that there will never be a day when you believe that murdering me is the right thing to do. (The 2nd sentence was said with a little humour but at the same time I am serious). Terrorism is wrong especially when it doesn't make a situation end well (like the whole 'ends justify the means' debate. In the case of Islamic terrorism, I can't even see how the 'ends' are good).
However, I agree that you can't say straight up that the US is "being moral" in its "war on terror". But to say that terrorism can be the right thing to do...yah...I have a problem with that.

Sorry my views creep you out I was more so trying to give you examples of where morality is subjective. I'm hardly an extremist or violent. lol. I just like playing devil's advocate. It doesn't matter, I am not making my point, or you're fixating on the details an not willing to or able to see the whole subjective v objective thing .

morality is an individulal choice. Yours and mine are clearly very different (which makes it subjective). How ever it doesn't make either of us bad people. I life my life lawfully and assume you do as well.

How does his views creep you out? He is not stating that his views are the same as Islamic terrorists. He is stating his side of the debate, which is "morality = subjective or objective?" I think you took his examples out of context. He is actually making intelligent points on the discussion in my opinion.

I think that is the core of it. The demand far exceeds the "natural" supply, so women end up doing into the "profession" for inappropriate reasons, and become victimized at some level in the process. The entire industry is based on subjugation, and thus is ripe for abusive practices.

To the extent there truly are
1) women who just "enjoy" providing the service (and weren't coerced into it by financial or other situational means)
2) providers who are able to do so safely and cleanly (the STD's are definitely an issue and a problem, so I'm not sure safely and cleanly is even possible)
3) and customers that are not married men sneaking off on their wives (wives face emotional and financial betrayal, while being given health risk),
then maybe society would be OK with it, but that isn't the reality we've historically had.

There is a fairly simple instinct and societal need underlying much of it: the need to know parentage, and to know that children will be provided for. Gets a bit foggy with paid service in this area, and historically it made quite a mess.

I realize that there are modern ways to cut down on the negative side effects with respect to parentage issues, but those are not all without ethical questions. The base morality set by Christianity and other religions reflects the fact that most of us (and I realize not all) are much happier when we have simple and reliable family units, and confine the act of procreation to those units. Therefore, the social norms to do so developed.

Plus, as noted in the earlier post, it really isn't as simple as most women in the profession doing it freely. Most do NOT choose it. Make it legal and the demand will still far out-strip the supply. It isn't the illegality of it that forces European trafficers to trick women from Eastern European countries into service; it's the supply and demand gap. As long as that exists, you can not have an "honest" profession.

I dare anyone who feels there is no abuse to research the real life story of the person they pay. Not just ask; those women are taught good lines; RESEARCH.

Which makes one wonder, why can't the guys so desperate for sex simply accept it from the women most desperate for sex: older ones who have been around the block a few times. But, Noooo, it's got to be some young innocent type, skinny and pretty.

Seriously, folks, how many young and pretty women really want to sell themselves? Does that really add up?

Those Caribbean guys are ripped and attractive and those same older women wouldn't consider the dregs of men. By instinct, women are more loathe to lower their standards than men, it is just simple biology.

As someone who has an enthusiasm for "The Hobby", there are certain rules to go by:

1)No streetwalkers
2)Independents only, no pimps
3)NO Russians
4)No sex tourism

I personally think that it should be legalized (along with a number of other things).

Nearly every human relationship has a transactional basis of some sort or the other.

yup!! !!

There are multiple reasons prostitution is not a practical profession.

-the proliferation of disease. viruses can travel through a condom. if 1 in 4 adults in the U.S. have herpes alone,presuming most adults have far fewer partners, dont you think you're odds are good of getting something other than sex?

-there's an entire worldwide sex slave trade, including many underage girls

- even if it were legally monitored, it would be ripe for abuse.

-many prostitutes are abused by pimps or potentially customers

And from a more personal standpoint, if you believe in the saying you've slept with every person the person you're sleeping with's partner, than you would be attached to a long string of partners. I'm not religious by any means but if there's over x amount of partners someone's had sexually, it grosses me out immensely, I guess from a hypochondriac perspective.

Sexually frustrated have the option of porn, masturbation, sex toys, etc. Its not like people are going to die if they dont get laid.

In the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal; many of the prostitutes are Eastern European or North African in origin, and often are coerced into their jobs, and find it very hard to move on. Even in a legal system pimps still exist and there is still violence towards these women.
Additionally, if selling ones body for money is an easier alternative to pursuing a career and education, what message does that give young women? As if there aren't enough problems with modern society. It cheapens the whole idea of sex, to me. I've never had to pay a girl for sex, and I never will. Frankly, 'Johns' are pathetic hedonists. I know a guy who lost his virginity to a prostitute. Whenever he talks about women and his experience with them, all of the group that knows about it looks at him like hes a total idiot and loser, which he basically is anyway.

He is saying that there's no telling if Islamic terrorists are doing the wrong thing. And that there is no such thing as unarguably wrong. I'm glad that he views certain things as wrong, but if you say that nothing can be plain wrong, then its a scary world out there, with certain individuals doing certain things when it is convenient to do so.