[RD] Prostitution

[Kozmos]

children do get used tho, making the Abhorrent stuff

Sure, but by now, there are probably terrabytes of stuff, conceivably enough for anyone to go through his life without molesting kids.

 

[Berzerker]

prostitution is unethical and should be prohibited (at least prohibited to buy sex).

This has to do with my views about how the individual is driven by external factors, that it is sort of alienating, that it doesn't "create anything of value" and that it's I'd say indecent. Sex should be an activity in of itself between those who really want it, not some petty service.

but I believe I am in the minority opinion, and in this thread you can tell me how wrong I am either with counterarguements or about how weak my "arguements" are.

People need to work to pay for stuff, seems unethical to deny them a job... And the value is for the customers to consider, not critics. Prostitution is not a petty service, some of these socially stunted mass shooters needed to get laid and prostitutes are the pros.

On the other hand I imagine it'd be mentally rough on some people to sell sex, its not a job I'd want if I had options. But thats true for so many jobs out there.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The problem with prostitution is mostly men. Women should be able to sell their time and bodies for money if they are of the mind.

Men, though, want to control it (for the money, power and free sex); they want to treat the women poorly for internal private reasons (as a pimp or john); men want more sex than women want to offer in general so demand is high; The social/sex drive in men to have sex frequently creates situation ripe for both physical and mental abuse.

Legal, regulated prostitution won't work well until the "man problem" is fixed.

 

[The_J]

I'm sure that the reason for prejudices here is not the fact that the clients are being considered losers (as you mentioned, some of them are very wealthy people).

Might not be the only reason, and maybe not for everyone, but is definitely a reason.
At least it's how I feel after I bought services.
Like "how far down have I come?"
It's the most bottom you can reach, unlike the other examples you've given.

But also applies for the prostitutes. It's the least wanted "job" which there is. To do it, there cannot be another choice for you. Also makes you a loser.

 

[red_elk]

Legal, regulated prostitution won't work well until the "man problem" is fixed.

Human's drive for domination and sex cannot be fixed, it can only be restricted.

Like "how far down have I come?"

It should depend only on how much other people were harmed. Though like I said above, it's understandable if you felt otherwise.

 

[Traitorfish]

The problem with prostitution is mostly men. Women should be able to sell their time and bodies for money if they are of the mind.

Men, though, want to control it (for the money, power and free sex); they want to treat the women poorly for internal private reasons (as a pimp or john); men want more sex than women want to offer in general so demand is high; The social/sex drive in men to have sex frequently creates situation ripe for both physical and mental abuse.

Legal, regulated prostitution won't work well until the "man problem" is fixed.

I mean, most men are content to fill the gap between the sex they want the sex they get with a website and a box of tissues. The guys who go out and smack a hooker around have more deeply-rooted problems with women than an uneven sexual supply:demand ratio.

You're right that there's a serious point to be made here about certain gender-dynamics making prostitution, and sex work more generally, breeding-grounds for abusive behav iour, but pathologising an entire gender isn't the way to go about it.

 

[Akka]

I'm struggling to understand how this differentiates prostitution from any other kind of service work.

It's about sex and selling your own body as a service. I hope I'm not having to point that sex is something having far more impact about human's psychology than fixing cars, and that there is always something uncomfortable about considering bodies as goods ?
(though considering the completely outlandish and disconnected from reality arguments I see often here, I'm afraid I'll have to)

 

[Bugfatty300]

It's about sex and selling your own body as a service. I hope I'm not having to point that sex is something having far more impact about human's psychology than fixing cars, and that there is always something uncomfortable about considering bodies as goods

"I feel X about sex so everyone does/should feel X about sex too"

 

[Dachs]

It's about sex and selling your own body as a service.

This is not an accurate appraisal of the situation. Sex workers don't sell their bodies any more than, say, construction workers do; they sell their expertise.

 

[Akka]

"I feel X about sex so everyone does/should feel X about sex too"

Not everyone feels the same way about sex. But that's a completely, entirely different thing than claiming sex isn't something very important and very special in the human psyche. It's obvious for everyone who's not playing dumb to win an argument on the Internet, and it's ubiquitous to nearly every person in the world.

That's the reason rape is much harshly punished than punching someone, or that banging a child is considered a terrible crime.

This is not an accurate appraisal of the situation. Sex workers don't sell their bodies any more than, say, construction workers do; they sell their expertise.

Do you actually believe in this BS or is it just the "playing dumb to win an argument on the Internet" as above ?
Because if you consider that having sex is comparable to doing manual labor, your world must be pretty different than the one everyone else live in.

 

[Kozmos]

Well...expertise is part of it, but it is more body than expertise in regards to construction workers and sex workers. I don't think I know a single construction worker in his 50s who doesn't have a buttload of injuries and associated medical costs that go along with decades of hard manual labor. Most of them had serious back surgeries and are on constant pain medication.

 

[Dachs]

Do you actually believe in this BS or is it just the "playing dumb to win an argument on the Internet" as above ?
Because if you consider that having sex is comparable to doing manual labor, your world must be pretty different than the one everyone else live in.

I believe it because it's the claim advanced by actual sex workers, and I think that, as a manual laborer, it's not an unreasonable claim to make.

But ignore the comparison if you like, and you're still left with the point that, again, sex workers are not selling their bodies, they are selling their expertise. Selling bodies is slavery. You could reasonably talk about selling bodies if the sex worker doesn't have the ability to refuse service or limit the sorts of things that s/he will do, but that's not an accurate characterization of all sex work either. It's an accurate characterization of some sex work, especially in places where sex workers lack protections under the law and where limitations on human trafficking are low - but then, that's true of many other forms of labor, including soldiery, domestic service, and begging.

Well...expertise is part of it, but it is more body than expertise in regards to construction workers and sex workers. I don't think I know a single construction worker in his 50s who doesn't have a buttload of injuries and associated medical costs that go along with decades of hard manual labor. Most of them had serious back surgeries and are on constant pain medication.

That's why I made the comparison. They are both forms of employment that rely very heavily on the human body and the condition it's in.

 

[Akka]

I believe it because it's the claim advanced by actual sex workers, and I think that, as a manual laborer, it's not an unreasonable claim to make.

Of course they're selling services. That part is obvious and not a problem.
The part which is pure BS is that "it's the same" as services which don't involve sex. Because that's a pretty big and central difference, and the entire point why this discussion even exists.

But ignore the comparison if you like, and you're still left with the point that, again, sex workers are not selling their bodies, they are selling their expertise. Selling bodies is slavery. You could reasonably talk about selling bodies if the sex worker doesn't have the ability to refuse service or limit the sorts of things that s/he will do, but that's not an accurate characterization of all sex work either. It's an accurate characterization of some sex work, especially in places where sex workers lack protections under the law and where limitations on human trafficking are low - but then, that's true of many other forms of labor, including soldiery, domestic service, and begging.

*sigh*
That's some high-grade semantic nitpicking to drown the point under a lot of mud, and it's annoying because you exactly know what I meant by "selling your body".

 

[innonimatu]

I believe it because it's the claim advanced by actual sex workers, and I think that, as a manual laborer, it's not an unreasonable claim to make.

But ignore the comparison if you like, and you're still left with the point that, again, sex workers are not selling their bodies, they are selling their expertise.

They are not selling their expertise, they are selling the use of their bodies in ways that most people would not sell. If they were selling expertise they'd be giving lectures! I've knows prostitutes to describe themselves as dancers, masseurs, escorts, and even actors... I've known not a single one to describe himself or herself as consultant! Clients sometimes will want an escort or a massage without the sex, but they most definitely are not interested in lectures about sex! There are the occasional virgins, but they want a "practical lesson".
Also regarding expertise, it is worth pointing out that prostitutes usually start out with very little expertise - and are often valued more in the "market" for that! Temporary financial difficulties or outright poverty remain the main thing driving new bodies into that market, people who certainly * around before but are no "experts". There are no prostitution minors or majors available in colleges... that also says something about how well accepted "sex work" is ever likely to be in our society: not at all.

As someone already pointed out, our laws repress far more heavily the use of a person's body for sex against his/her will than they do the use of a person's body for, say, painting a wall. Coerce a person into one night of sex - rape that person - and you will be facing between years and life in jail. Coerce a person to paint a wall or lay some bricks for a day and you will risk a fine or a few months jail. Therefore the law in all "modern" societies attaches far more significance to the use of a person's body for sexual gratification than it does the use of manual labor. Do notice that this is a very modern thing: up until the 18th century in Europe rape might not even be a crime, and where it was the ability of a victim to seek any redress was virtually nil unless said victim was of a high social status. Therefore "sex work" has not been "normalized" by our modern and "more civilized" societies, it has been pushed even further into a special status. Still tolerated, for the sake of satisfying and acknowledged demand, but most definitely not like other lines of work. Prostitutes remain marginals.

That's why I made the comparison. They are both forms of employment that rely very heavily on the human body and the condition it's in.

You will probably be surprised, and shocked, if you investigate that aspect of prostitution more thoroughly.

 

[Old Hippy]

Of course they're selling services. That part is obvious and not a problem.
The part which is pure BS is that "it's the same" as services which don't involve sex. Because that's a pretty big and central difference, and the entire point why this discussion even exists.

*sigh*
That's some high-grade semantic nitpicking to drown the point under a lot of mud, and it's annoying because you exactly know what I meant by "selling your body".

a quick google will show a lot of services prostitutes sell don't involve selling their bodies, but a role playing fantasy of some sorts instead.
the argument against prostitution always seems to come down to what the seller dose (mostly women) not what the buyer dose (mostly men)
at its most basic it involves a small difference between a genuine back massage and a 'stress relief' massage so it dose boil down to the same as services that don't involve sex, as it is a fine line between a 'legit' sports therapy studio and a studio of a different sort

 

[innonimatu]

I will add something else: I've seen enough misery associated with "sex work", even in a "liberal" country, that I cannot condone treating it as a "normal job". And I've had some rather strong arguments with people who genuinely believe that the campaign to rename prostitution as "sex work" and to make it normal is the best way to improve the lives of prostitutes. Legalization has helped, I do believe. But it all but the extreme cases (beatings, repeated threats) prostitutes don't actually complain to the police anyway: they keep regarding the state as a enemy, evading taxes and declining state mediation of conflicts. If there were regulations they'd evade those too.

That is one of the reasons why forcing regulations to make it a "normal business" will not help: many will evade those and remain in a "black market". But I have an objection to the principle itself: regulating prostitution will only be rehashing the old medieval attitude: "since we must have these people around, we should make sure they're clean from diseases and discreet - in the interest of society". Which is to say, in the interest of costumers. The concern, in this attitude, is not about the prostitutes! Apparently it is also "in the interest of society" that people be poor or facing difficulties, so that they can be had for sex cheaply... to support regulated prostitution is to support a social status quo that demands and enforces pushing people into prostitution. Well, I have never paid for sex and I will never pay for sex, nor support the idea that prostitution is some kind of "necessary social service" - I don't want to be a party to that.

 

[red_elk]

That is one of the reasons why forcing regulations to make it a "normal business" will not help: many will evade those and remain in a "black market". But I have an objection to the principle itself: regulating prostitution will only be rehashing the old medieval attitude: "since we must have these people around, we should make sure they're clean from diseases and discreet - in the interest of society". Which is to say, in the interest of costumers. The concern, in this attitude, is not about the prostitutes!

I would rather expect such attitude from people who consider their profession immoral.

 

[FriendlyFire]

children do get used tho, making the Abhorrent stuff

Japan draws the line at Manga, but then that Japan they dont have school shootings, very low crime and a strange cultural acceptance of sex while being extremely xenophobic.

I'd imagine robots would be a way of solving this entire ethical problem. Provided it too is regulated and controlled.
People will likely still be against robots I'd imagine they can go join the increasingly marginalized beliefs and swim vainly against the tide of scientific advancements.

 

[Arwon]

I will add something else: I've seen enough misery associated with "sex work", even in a "liberal" country, that I cannot condone treating it as a "normal job". And I've had some rather strong arguments with people who genuinely believe that the campaign to rename prostitution as "sex work" and to make it normal is the best way to improve the lives of prostitutes. Legalization has helped, I do believe. But it all but the extreme cases (beatings, repeated threats) prostitutes don't actually complain to the police anyway: they keep regarding the state as a enemy, evading taxes and declining state mediation of conflicts. If there were regulations they'd evade those too.

That is one of the reasons why forcing regulations to make it a "normal business" will not help: many will evade those and remain in a "black market". But I have an objection to the principle itself: regulating prostitution will only be rehashing the old medieval attitude: "since we must have these people around, we should make sure they're clean from diseases and discreet - in the interest of society". Which is to say, in the interest of costumers. The concern, in this attitude, is not about the prostitutes! Apparently it is also "in the interest of society" that people be poor or facing difficulties, so that they can be had for sex cheaply... to support regulated prostitution is to support a social status quo that demands and enforces pushing people into prostitution. Well, I have never paid for sex and I will never pay for sex, nor support the idea that prostitution is some kind of "necessary social service" - I don't want to be a party to that.

This is a significant problem with "regulation" and "legalisation" models. You retain the state as interfering and threatening.

It is exactly why most sex worker organisations advocate decriminalisation in the vein of New Zealand and New South Wales, where sex work is simply regarded as work and is governed by the same workplace health and safety laws, industrial relations regime, tax law and local zoning laws as other fields of work. That's rather than regulatory or special legal framework models or the "nordic model".

 

[Narz]

There are plenty of people who will never have sex unless they pay for it. And plenty of others who'd rather screw for $200 an hour than flip burgers for $8/hr. Who are you to deny them?

If you're not involved it's not your business. Like drugs, it's gonna happen anyway so why criminalize those involved in a victimless crime (note : human trafficking is a crime but direct to consumer selling of one's body is victimless).