What's actually wrong with Prostitution?

Prostitution is morally wrong. It's as simple as that. Yes, if someone is willing to get paid for sex, then that is their choice, but that doesn't make it okay.

Sex is something to be shared with one special person, not with countless people. Not only does having sex with lots of random people spread STDs, but it also nullifies the true purpose of sex, which is to express your love for one person (hopefully that you're married to). It has special meaning, but that meaning is destroyed when sex is used to make money.

And what happens when pregnancy comes into the picture? Either a baby will be born to a prostitute and possible drug addict, or the baby will be aborted. Prostitution is not a lifestyle known to be great for parenting. And birth control never works 100% of the time, even when used properly, so that won't eliminate the problem.

Another issue is that they're not ever really happy. Many prostitutes become prostitutes because their lives are screwed up (not necessarily the person, although that happens too). They've been abused or are on drugs. Prostitutes generally don't have much self-respect, and just because they're willing to be used for money doesn't make it right.

Now, I understand that some people become prostitutes because they don't have any other options. They are literally out of money and are living on the streets. That is a slightly different issue, but I will say that there are almost always other choices (except in cases of slave labor, which sadly does still happen). Many people just don't recognize that they have options other than prostitution.

 

What makes you think that we as humans are any better than other organisms? Sex holds no special purpose over the need to survive for almost all other organisms (apart from some primates which do actually get joy from it).

Are you saying that female animals with multiple male partners are all whores? Humans don't deserve any special mention, and no high and mighty "moral" sense has ever stopped us from committing the various evil acts we are most known for, prostitution certainly not being one of them.

 

Whether humans are better than other organisms is completely irrelevant. And how did other organisms even get brought into this discussion? But now that you mention it... are you saying that a female prostitute has the same needs as, say, a female cat? Or perhaps a bird? Humans have more complex feelings than animals do. It's not a matter of being "better".

And could you please point out in my post where I said prostitutes were evil? I believe I was talking about prostitution, not about individual prostitutes. Show me one instance where any great civilization or community was built on prostitution.

As for moral sense... that is what defines good and evil, is it not? Are you saying that because some people are immoral and commit evil acts, all humans with moral sense will commit evil acts? Or are you saying that all humans are just immoral? And if they're immoral, how do you define "immoral" without a moral sense?

 

What I am saying is, humans are very prone to being arrogant. We are all animals, just because we are sapient doesn't mean we can discard our ancestry.

A woman (or a man) owns her body, energy and time. Why should she/he not be allowed to spend that time and energy and use their body to make people happy and get paid for it? Other people choose to work in offices, others dance. Prostitution is only considered wrong because we are told it is. This stemming from religious teachings which are pretty silly to begin with (I mean really, regulations on what to do if your belongings get mildew on them? xD).

I never said that you said prostitutes are evil. I likened evil to immoral, which is very often the case. Morals can only go so far, and more often than not they go way too far.

I agree that we need to draw a line someone (like murder and rape for example) but prostitution is certainly not beyond the pale.

 

Theres nothing wrong with it.... unless you have high morals. Its illegal because the Government can't make money off of it.

 

Yes, humans are prone to being arrogant. What does that have to do with prostitution? And just because humans have evolved and developed a moral code does not mean we have "discarded our ancestors". Whatever that means.

Are you seriously comparing prostitution to working in an office?

Prostitution is illegal, and I do not support legalizing it. HOWEVER. I am not making an argument about legality, I'm talking about the morality of it.

Uh... it's considered wrong because it IS wrong. Reality has shown that it causes harm to communities as well as individuals, in many complex ways. So really, it's not just the individuals that get hurt, but also the communities they're in.

And like I said before, God gave us the gift of sex to share with one person, not lots of people. So when we do have sex with a lot of people, it's wrong.

Religious teachings are silly? I must admit, as a strong Christian, I am slightly offended by this.

Have you heard all religious teachings? Are teachings such as "don't tell lies" silly? How about "don't steal"?

No. Immorality and evil are not interchangeable. There is a difference between being immoral and being evil. Telling a lie is immoral, but it is certainly not evil.

Morals can do quite a bit of good and do go quite a ways. Please explain what you mean by morals going "too far".

 

What I meant was that we hold ourselves as high and might over other creatures when there is only a fine line separating us. I see I am getting nowhere with this line of argument so I am dropping it.

Laws are often dictated by morals. They are at the very least linked.

No, it is considered wrong because way back when a group of people decided to make it wrong. They had no evidence or reason apart from a book of dodgy authorship.
Also, the only reason people are hurt is because it is currently ILLEGAL. No government regulation means they have to fend for themselves. They are not protected in any way and are forced to move to communities which are already "damaged".

Other than "because god said so" what else can you come up with? Basing your entire argument on the assumption of a beings existence ain't very sturdy.
I never said all religious teachings, I meant the one's referring to law. Most of the Old Testament is ignored or treated as "metaphorical" (hah, an excuse for selective interpretation) just because it is so ridiculous. As I have said before, relying on assumptions for your so-called moral standing is not the way to go.

Telling a lie can be evil, although it does all depend on what you consider to be evil.

Morals going too far is when people see a list of morals and follow them blindly, strictly adhering to each and every one of them without stopping to think about the morals. Think "why is this a moral/immoral thing to do?". This obviously hasn't happened for a while as it would require too much effort. Religion has a way of ingraining such ways of thinking into societies so they are very hard to extract.

 

It depends on the reason why they are going into prositution, I mean if it's just because, it's wrong because they souldent be giving them selfs up like that. But, like dancewaterdance said, If they have nothing else left and they REALLY REALLY have to do it, then it might. But there are other choices then this, In my own op.

 

If the person wants to sell himself/ herself then that's okay because we do not control him/ her. But, if a person tries to sell another unwilling person then that's the wrong kind of prostitution. Mostly prostitution is the last resort for most people.. or rather the last resort for really desperate people in need of money.

 

Give me a moral difference. I'm curious.

I can't follow your logic on that. It's considered wrong because it IS wrong? What makes it simply wrong? Your opinion? Or a vast majority opinion? And on what basis does that immediately make it irrefutable?

I know plenty of people who sleep with more than one person and are 1) fine people, 2) smart people, some religious, actually, and 3) stop using God as a claim for morality. Morality is so subjective, it's essentially like replacing the word with God, since you seem to intertwine the two words so loosely.

I say that because you say "it just is," with no proof, no explanation, other than "God."

I don't think that applies to the teachings themselves... just the method of expression.

=/

Lol, they might as well be interchangeable. They are so subjective my eyes and brain are about ready to bleed. >_>


Incidentally, the entire debate is void because of how subjective this thread is, which is being debated over societal understandings that have been shoved into our brains... so in a sense, we're all completely off and biased no matter what.

I love it.

 

The STD thing, not so much a factor I don't think. Cause when you look at places like brothel houses those girls are tested very often. If they fail they are kicked out. The only things I see is that:
1. Seeing that seperation of church and state isn't really 'enforced' to much I feel a may be a religous reason behind it.
2. Just like marijuana its can't be taxed, because people can easily walk the streets and do so, or resort to doing so over various sites such as craigslist.

Whether or not these are the actual reason, I see nothing wrong with it. Its a state jurisdiction though not a federal. In the state of Nevada prostitution is legal just not within the city of Las Vegas and maybe Reno, not sure about that one though.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Did you read my post? God is not the only thing I mentioned. I also said that it hurts the communities that the prostitutes are in. For one, it's not possible to have prostitution *anywhere* without it being degrading to women (even if they choose that path). It's degrading to family, because sex is going to produce children (I like how you didn't address that issue). And it's really not emotionally healthy for the men. What do you think prostitution teaches men about how to treat women, even ones who aren't prostitutes?

And yes, generally things that ARE bad are CONSIDERED bad. This is because overtime (as in thousands of years) communities run into problems with certain behaviors, like, oh, prostitution. So those behaviors become outlawed. I never said it just was bad, I gave good reasons, more than just God.

Point out where I said that people who sleep with more than one person are not fine, smart, and religious. All prostitutes are people who sleep with more than one person, but every person who sleeps with lots of people is not a prostitute.

I'm not using God as a claim for morality. I'm simply making a connection between the two, because there definitely is one. And many of the same arguments can be made under natural law.

Oh, and for the record, religious arguments are much more complex than just "God said so." I am making no such argument.

I gave an explanation other than God, although I really don't understand the problem with that argument. And I never said "it just is". I said that it was considered bad, because it is. Like I said before, most bad things are considered bad because of human experience.

Which particular method of expression? There are quite a few.

What exactly do you propose as a standard of good and evil? On what would you found civilization?

Perhaps societal understandings have been shoved into your brains. But don't assume that everyone accepts what they have been taught without question or thought. Even people I disagree with don't necessarily accept what they've been taught without question. And I'm certainly not dismissing what you are saying because you disagree with me. All I'm doing is sharing my opinion on the subject.

By the way... I'm not seeing much evidence that contradicts my view, except that you don't seem to like the mention of God.

 

Selling your body out to people that could be carrying diseases?
Gee, Idk you tell me?

>.>

 

So there's only a fine line separating us from, maybe... a goldfish?

Generally when you don't get very far with an argument, it's because it's flawed. You haven't been contradicting anything I've been saying; you've simply been rewording what you're trying to say so that it will actually make sense.

Yes...?

No, they decided it was wrong because they saw evidence of it. They saw what it was doing to the communities where these prostitutes were, and made it illegal.

So, if prostitution was legal, female prostitutes wouldn't be treated like garbage by men? If it were legal, STDs wouldn't spread? Babies wouldn't be born into dangerous and unstable environments?

No, it's not. I don't believe that's what I'm doing. I gave other reasons, you have just chosen to ignore them.

I will also say that basing your argument (even part of it) on the assumption of a being's non-existence isn't very sturdy either.

That doesn't even make sense. Why is it so ridiculous? Yes, it may be ridiculous now, but was it ridiculous 5000 years ago? Context, my friend, context.

Yes, you're correct. Telling a lie can be evil, depending on what it is. If a murderer says "No, I didn't kill that person." when he did, then that's definitely evil. If a fifth-grader says "Of course I did my homework, Mom!" when he didn't, that's not evil. However it is immoral, which brings me back to my point of immoral and evil not being interchangeable.

Excuse me? So because I have morals, I must not think about them too hard and I just follow them blindly because that's what I've been taught?

Do you think I haven't thought through why things are moral and immoral? Don't you think I've reasoned through things like lying? The person you lie to is hurt that you didn't tell the truth, and it breaks down the trust you have with that person. Don't you think that at some point in my life, as a young child, I didn't understand why taking something that belonged to something else was bad? Once I though through it and reasoned it out, I realized that stealing someone else's property was wrong because it wasn't rightfully mine, I didn't pay for it, and the person I steal from becomes very hurt by my theft. I am not a person who believes whatever they're told without giving it some serious thought. And you would be very wise not to accuse me as someone who does.

Now, since you said you were going to drop it, I will leave it at this and "drop it", unless you wish to continue.

One last note: A lack of religion also has a way of ingraining its own "such ways" into societies. It's not only religion that can do that.

 

You say you gave other reasons, my point was that I took these reasons and showed how these were flawed.

Sex does not always produce children. Children are only produced if the proper procedures are not followed. A prostitute would certainly be on the pill, possibly have the implant, IUDs, condoms etc. There is plenty of contraception out there, all it takes is government legislation making contraception mandatory for prostitutes and those who make use of their services.

I also like the way you are so incredibly sexist. You seem to assume that all prostitutes are woman and that they have it to rough because men treat them like dirt etc etc. There are male prostitutes too, with different sets of problems. And I'm sure most men treat prostitutes well, otherwise it would be much more prominent on the news. It is also very certain to be true that the image prostitutes have (after being demonised by society, mainly [or almost exclusively] because of the church) is because of the "back street" nature of their profession. It is seen as dirty and "in an alleyway" kind of thing, all because it is shunned by society.

Hence, society is causing a lot of the problems you state about prostitution, simply by treating it the way it does.

The reason I dropped that line of argument (which is perfectly valid) is because I seem to be unable to convey its message to you. I don't know what the reason behind that is, possibly because you don't want to listen but I wouldn't want to make assumptions as to the reason.

xD You just proved how ridiculous it is. If it was only valid 5000 years ago, why should it even be considered to apply now? We are much more "enlightened" (I use the word loosely) and understand things a lot more. Better perspective, better insight and generally less ignorant. This meaning that what may have been socially acceptable back then is almost certainly completely different now. Way to defeat your own argument.

I do not ignore peoples points (at least not on purpose). I rebuked all of your arguments with my own reasons and it is you who ignored these rebukes.

Also @ Gamerben21: Have you actually read anything that has been said in this thread? STDs would be effectively halted if it was legalised. Mandatory government health checks would mean that any infected prostitutes or clients would be screened out and hopefully offered treatment. It could even potentially save governments billions every year in the reduction of cases of STDs, as well as thousands of lives.

 

Condoms are extremely unreliable. And birth control pills do not work 100% of the time, even when used properly. They never do. You think women who are on birth control never get pregnant? The only completely effective way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence, which obviously prostitutes do not practice.

I am well aware there are male prostitutes, thank you. But don't you think there is more of a problem of men abusing women than vice versa? Women are weaker than men. That is a fact of life. Therefore, men are much more able to resist a woman trying to force him into sex than a woman trying to resist a man. And I'm not talking just about prostitutes. I'm talking about women in general, although prostitutes are included. Again, what about pregnancy? How many men do you think stick around to help take care of a child they helped created with prostitutes?

I feel like I'm going in circles...

So if society accepted prostitution then STDs wouldn't spread?

Oh, you wouldn't? That's kind of you. I seem to be having just as much trouble conveying the message of my argument to you. I wonder why that is? We are equally convinced that our own arguments are valid.

Understanding more has nothing to do with it. And what on earth makes you think that people have a better perspective and insight now than we did 5000 years ago? Yes, we do have a better perspective at times, depending on what the subject is. You can't just make a sweeping statement like that.

Also, I did not quite say that it was only valid 5000 years ago. I said it may be ridiculous now. For instance, there are specific parts of the Old Testament that refer to cleanliness that deal with things such as preventing the spread of disease, when often one's cleanliness could be a matter of life or death. Nowadays getting an infection will often not be deadly. And there are a few other things that are not applicable or don't make as much sense now. That's fine. Should you just dismiss the entire Old Testament because of a few things that don't make sense? Are going to ignore all the good stuff and pick out the bad?

I have also rebuked your arguments with my own reasons, and you have also ignored these reasons. How many of my points have you actually addressed? I see you sticking to only a few.

 

As I said, I try to answer as many as I can and I read through your previous response several times and believe I got all of them. Point out ones that I have missed and I will gladly attempt to rebuke them.

Condoms are not "extremely unreliable". A simple search brings up that if used properly there is only a 2% risk of pregnancy, and that is not taking into account other contraceptive measures. Normal use is stated at between 10 and 18%, which I would hardly call "extremely unreliable".
But yes, abstinence is certainly the foolproof way of avoiding pregnancy but that is hardly a viable option.

You seem to have very little faith in men. Plenty of men stay when they get a woman pregnant, the media only concentrates on the negative. And as for women being "weaker" than men, I hope for your sake that there are no feminists reading your post. Women can certainly have more willpower than men and they certainly have a higher pain threshold (with giving birth and all that). Don't discard women as being weak and unable to throw off a mans advances, and don't assume that men force sex on women and get violent when they don't get their way.

You are taking my arguments to their extremes in an attempt to disprove them. There is no such thing as a perfect system. STDs could still continue to spread even if prostitution was allowed to become socially acceptable, only a moron would think otherwise. But spreading caused by prostitution would be drastically cut down by health checks and screening. You are denying this?

The point is, the Bible is said to be the word of god, meaning that it is all the truth and should be lived by. You cannot pick and choose if you are to call yourself Christian. You wouldn't be following gods word then, would you?

(P.S. There is also a helpful comparison table here as to the effectiveness of different contraceptive measures. Of course, most of these are considered individually when in reality they would be used in conjunction with each other.)

 

It spreads mass disease that can kill or scar you (physically and emotionally). This is a very immoral task and to people, it gets addicting, which leads to poverty and, like I said, death.

 

Again with the not reading ANYTHING in this thread. I really do dispair.

STDs are spread by lack or regulation, checks and screening. All of which would come into force if it became legal.

 

Yes, but would you really take the prostitute to get checks and screenings for STDs beforehand? I don't think there's a person that's done that yet. Once you've got an STD, you've got it.