12
   

Morality Concerning Prostitution

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 05:57 pm
@stevecook172001,
Quote:
Quite a lot of sex work is tied up with violence and coercion. Either directly or indirectly.
traditionally quite a lot of sex acts have been tied up with violence and coercion, I dont see what happens with sex workers to be an aberration of norms.

It is not a one way street either, sex workers have been known to coerce customers out of more money, or out of less than the agreed upon servicing.
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 06:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Quite a lot of sex work is tied up with violence and coercion. Either directly or indirectly.
traditionally quite a lot of sex acts have been tied up with violence and coercion, I dont see what happens with sex workers to be an aberration of norms.

It is not a one way street either, sex workers have been known to coerce customers out of more money, or out of less than the agreed upon servicing.

I challenge you to provide evidence of a widespread problem with sex workers being violent to their customers to anywhere near the extent to which sex workers have violence perpetrated against them both by their customers as well as their pimps

I challenge you to show that non sex work related sex has anywhere near the same level of violence attached to it as compared to sex work relared sex
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 06:32 pm
@stevecook172001,
Quote:
I challenge you to provide evidence of a widespread problem with sex workers being violent to their customers to anywhere near the extent to which sex workers have violence perpetrated against them both by their customers as well as their pimps

I challenge you to show that non sex work related sex has anywhere near the same level of violence attached to it as compared to sex work related sex
I can do neither...my point was that zero violence and coercion is a fantasy ideal that rarely/never occurs when it comes to sex. We should not point to some violence or coercion in the sex industry and then claim grounds to criminalize the whole business. It should motivate us to come up with ways to conduct the business in a more smart way.

stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 06:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I challenge you to provide evidence of a widespread problem with sex workers being violent to their customers to anywhere near the extent to which sex workers have violence perpetrated against them both by their customers as well as their pimps

I challenge you to show that non sex work related sex has anywhere near the same level of violence attached to it as compared to sex work related sex
I can do neither...my point was that zero violence and coercion is a fantasy ideal that rarely/never occurs when it comes to sex. We should not point to some violence or coercion in the sex industry and then claim grounds to criminalize the whole business. It should motivate us to come up with ways to conduct the business in a more smart way.



Where have I indicated that my arguments on this thread involved an active pursuit of zero violence? This is a straw man. However, i would be surprised if you are advocating that policies to lower the levels of violence would be anything other than desirable. in any event, you have now changed tack from saying that prostitution involved no more violnce in the sex act than any other form of sex to saying that it's pointless trying to stop such violence. This is rhetorical obfuscation and is intellectually dishonest.

Where have I indicated that prostitutes should be crimninalised. Indeed, I have indicated the opposite Another straw man

For a philosophy forum, this site is proving to have a poor level of integrity when to comes to debate.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 06:50 pm
@stevecook172001,
Quote:
Where have I indicated that my arguments on this thread involved an active pursuit of zero violence? This is a straw man. However, i would be surprised if you are advocating that policies to lower the levels of violence would be anything other than desirable. in any event, you have now changed tack from saying that prostitution involved no more violence in the sex act than any other form of sex to saying that it's pointless trying to stop such violence. This is rhetorical obfuscation and is intellectually dishonest.
considering that the PC line is that violence is never appropriate in sex, and that there is no point in knowing how much goes on or why because all of our efforts must go into stopping it, we are not in a position to talk about what you want to talk about. The question of magnitude and functioning of power in sexual relationship both now and in history is taboo, science has not been allowed to seek the answer.

You sell yourself as being a class above, but really you are naive.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 06:53 pm
I believe that prostitution between consenting adults is completely ethical. Let me answer the points here.

1) Adult already has a legal definition. Once a person reaches the age of 18, they are adults. Anyone over the age of 18 should be allowed to be a prostitute, or pay for a prostitute.

There are several jobs that already have this restriction, spot welder being one of them.

2) Child prostitution is immoral and should always be illegal. In modern Western society, this should mean any person under the age of 18.

3) Violence or forced sex should always be illegal.


0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 07:03 pm
@Krumple,
Very nicely done! Legalization is the lesser of the two evils by a substantive margin.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 07:07 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
Obviously, I was wrong, and the topic is prostitution. Too bad. It had potential.
Well if you'd like I'll argue that everything seems wrong.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 07:20 pm
@Chumly,
Thanks for noticing, Chumly. I really thought the subject concerned those things we were sure were wrong, but couldn't rationally object to. This is the sentence I focused on.

brainspew wrote:

Something in me says it's not right, but if that "something" remains only a "something", then I have no reason to feel this way.


Obviously, prostitution it is, and my position is that it is not immoral. I prefer not to use the same toothbrush used by a bunch of unknown strangers, but that's a matter of personal taste.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 08:58 pm
@roger,
Quote:

Obviously, prostitution it is, and my position is that it is not immoral. I prefer not to use the same toothbrush used by a bunch of unknown strangers, but that's a matter of personal taste.


Would you share your toothbrush if someone gave you $10 million for it?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 09:18 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Quote:

Obviously, prostitution it is, and my position is that it is not immoral. I prefer not to use the same toothbrush used by a bunch of unknown strangers, but that's a matter of personal taste.


Would you share your toothbrush if someone gave you $10 million for it?



Well first of all I would share my tooth brush and I have shared my tooth brush, I have absolutely no problem with sharing my tooth brush.

Secondly don't assume that every person has never had a sexual partner before you. I think all these self righteous people who dislike the idea of prostitution always try to use these nonsensical arguments about sharing a tooth brush when in fact you already do in a way share your sexual partner.

I am sure that there are many people who got married under the impression that their husband or wife never had a previous sexual relationship with anyone else but in fact they had. I think it is absurd to expect or assume that they never have just because you don't like the idea of it.

So to actually put the perspective of the sharing the tooth brush analogy, chances are you have already shared your tooth brush so why is this question even valid?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 09:24 pm
@ebrown p,
Yes. It's still a matter of taste, not a moral issue.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 09:32 pm
@roger,
It's an interesting point how the conflicted mind can still be at ease; it demonstrates our illogic and hypocrisy.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 09:33 pm
@Chumly,
are you chumly, or chumlyII.

now I'm confused...

(you speak unclearly in circles much like the original guy, btw...) Wink
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 09:43 pm
@Rockhead,
Clear to me.

The usual answers seem to be: it's against God's will, it ain't natural, or "That's just wrong!"
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 11:54 pm
@Rockhead,
To simplify, it's all too common for people to hold conflicting / hypocritical beliefs in such a fashion as to view themselves consistent and rational.
0 Replies
 
fobvius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 12:56 am
@brainspew,
If, brainspew you have a problem with whores, then you are in the wrong establishment fobvius reasons.
0 Replies
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 03:15 am
@BillRM,
I could write the same swan-song about my Town Amsterdam and Holland in the 16th and 17th Century. We were supreme rulers of the Oceans, our Navy outnumbred the English, French and Spanish navies combined. We had the very first stock-exchange in the world, or colonies were privately held by commercial compagnies. Bankers and traders governed the city which had freedom of religion. We were a laissez-faire economy avant la lettre...

The system corrupted. Investments were not made but nice estates were build instead. Capital was invested in emerging countries and the entrepeneurs became pensioners. The country weakened quickly and in 1804 we became a French Kindom.

Futhermore: US was symbolic in it's presence during Great War; during the second World War US joint when attacked herself. Before that Europe paid full price for her arms. It was self-motivated because of geo-political reasons, not to "save" Europe. A third European intervention I can't think of, or it must have been bombing the Chinese ambassy in Belgrado.

Concerning human rights U are also not well informed. In Europe we have a council, independent from the governments, who decide in cases a national judge refers to them. The counsil is more pan-european then the EC and includes Russia, Georgia, Norway and other non-EC countries.

Like in Holland 200 Years ago, US has to shape up. Look at Holland, now a stupid Kingdom instead of the Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden !
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 03:17 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
You got a King; we've got Congress. Want to make a deal?
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 04:18 am
@roger,
Sure... We keep our Queen and female descendents on Aruba just in case we need them next century. You are welcome to our Crown Prince William (Prince Beer we call him).

We be happy to receive your members of Congress. Oldest members first... Maybe they can apply for polical asylum and get some money to cover the bills. Will there be need for Republican and Democratic separation ?

Can we have your First Lady as well ? You will like our PM; he lies much more in a christian way the GW Bush ever could. He is an extra in Holland since his run for European presidency.

Ooh ! I have to make clear I am pro-republic, very much against modern royalties. The amount of Law-making it took to given some legal status to nowadays royalty in Western-Europe. It has become a farce.
 

Related Topics

Define Morality - Question by neologist
Relativity of morality - Discussion by InkRune
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
Morality. - Discussion by Logicus
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Morality (a discussion) - Discussion by Smileyrius
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 05:29:11