Is prostitution wrong?

Its just a bad option for desperate people, unless you just want to delude yourself and thinking its all great but that is just not reality. Weather legal or not cant see too much difference.

yeah i don't really give a shit about the legality of things; that's trivial. if people want to leave ethics in the hands of politicians and policemen, they're not thinking clearly, or clearly not thinking.
 
imo, a glorified form of slavery.

I'd suggest that the lack of ownership of human beings makes for a fairly significant amount of glory for manual labor, relative to slavery.

being used, and not being appreciated as a whole human being, body, mind, and soul.

So, then, manual laborers also suffer un-washable disgrace for submitting to be used by entities that do not value their mind or soul. No?

Do you have any objections to prostitution above and beyond general objections to manual labor?
 
yeah i don't really give a shit about the legality of things; that's trivial. if people want to leave ethics in the hands of politicians and policemen, they're not thinking clearly, or clearly not thinking.

I think anything you would ask someone else to do you should be willing to do yourself. So if he is willing to give the ok then he should be willing to give it up too.
 
I'd suggest that the lack of ownership of human beings makes for a fairly significant amount of glory for manual labor, relative to slavery.

and yet relative to complete freedom, pretty much sucks ass.



So, then, manual laborers also suffer un-washable disgrace for submitting to be used by entities that do not value their mind or soul. No?

yes. edit: not "un-washable". but a shower's not going to cut it.

Do you have any objections to prostitution above and beyond general objections to manual labor?

not really. i think prostitution fits in perfectly with this cesspool of a society we live in. ;)
 
Last edited:
I think anything you would ask someone else to do you should be willing to do yourself. So if he is willing to give the ok then he should be willing to give it up too.

damn good point john. damn good. because you know those prostitutes are beneath them (literally and figuratively). that mentality is what makes it so easy to use and abuse someone. bravo and good call.

also in this same vein, i was thinking about masturbation, and i would have to say that if i had a choice to either stay home and objectify myself, or go out and objectify someone else, i would stay home, and be pathetic.
 
You may have covered it, but you didnt really come to any conclusion.

a conclusion as to what?

i'll reiterate my stance...

in a right world...in a good world...there would be no money, and nothing and no persons would be bought, sold, or rented. people would not own anything. they would share resources freely, and no one would be greedy or lazy, or take more than they need. everyone would make the greater good...the common good...the highest priority. people would create things, or work, because they want to, and for the purpose of intrinsic or inherent value, whether that be utilitarian or artistic in nature. everyone would love each other and help each other, and everyone would appreciate each other as entire human beings, mind, body, and soul, and of equal value to themselves in all ways.

so my conclusion is, that humanity and it's society are entirely fucked up, and that prostitution fits into that society nicely.

getting laid and getting paid. wow...what a great job we're all doing of taking care of each other.
 
Last edited:
First of all, you gave far more examples than just spouses. Secondly, there ARE people in this world for whom prostitutes provide a welcome third person in their sex life. I have lived among many different cultures in this regard, and I assure you that it IS a cultural thing.

I made the original statement so attack one area of it then. The majority of any of the cited examples put into a socially acceptable situation with men and women present (not men joking in a bar) would be in alignment with an innate feeling of disgust at prostitution and what it represents and harbours.

Going back to a super-sexualised male (ego and sexual feeling) dominated roman-style society is not what women want. Would you reintroduce deep-seated male chauvinist attitudes that ignore womens emotional feelings? Our society has come forwards, why go back to that. Why decadence? Is that a way forward for economically successful society?

Disfunction of modern society already stems from the breakdown of the family unit. Would you have all women as single parents and all men as roaming phalluses? How is that economically viable? The services you enjoy are supported by the present economic model which is geared up for average people to cohabitate and share financial burden.

Again, I am confident that a massive majority of people find prostitution distasteful, that's why it reamins illegal, though I reiterate again: Behind closed doors in a legal setting (without advertisement) could be more acceptable than the present situation of traditional pimp and whore.

Or maybe we should forget about all the productive social evolution that has gone on over the past couple of hundred years and push women back to being the objects too many men want them to be?
 
Last edited:

Originally Posted by John99
I think anything you would ask someone else to do you should be willing to do yourself. So if he is willing to give the ok then he should be willing to give it up too.

"damn good point john. damn good. because you know those prostitutes are beneath them (literally and figuratively). that mentality is what makes it so easy to use and abuse someone. bravo and good call.

also in this same vein, i was thinking about masturbation, and i would have to say that if i had a choice to either stay home and objectify myself, or go out and objectify someone else, i would stay home, and be pathetic."


Oh yeah, I like this. Maybe men who want to use prostitutes should be pushed into situations where they feel they have to sell their bodies too? Maybe they could serve the prison community and be paid discounted rates by the government. That could stimulate economic growth (sarcastic).
 
in a right world...in a good world...there would be no money, and nothing and no persons would be bought, sold, or rented. people would not own anything. they would share resources freely, and no one would be greedy or lazy, or take more than they need. everyone would make the greater good...the common good...the highest priority. people would create things, or work, because they want to, and for the purpose of intrinsic or inherent value, whether that be utilitarian or artistic in nature. everyone would love each other and help each other, and everyone would appreciate each other as entire human beings, mind, body, and soul, and of equal value to themselves in all ways.
You're talking about the Paleolithic Era, when we lived in small extended-family units. Everyone had known, trusted and cared for everyone else since birth. We are a pack-social species and our pack-social instinct served us very well in those days.

Of course hunter-gatherers never have a food surplus so they're always one bad year away from a famine. So the down side of our instinctive Paleolithic morality was that we regarded other clans as competitors for scarce resources. If they intruded on our precious territory violence was likely.

The Agricultural Revolution allowed us to grow our own food, requiring us to build permanent settlements. Economies of scale and division of labor made it attractive to invite other clans to live with us, but this required overriding our instincts and learning to live in harmony and cooperation with people we hadn't known intimately from birth.

Civilization took this one step further. Building cities with trading networks resulted in a bounty of food as well as man-made artifacts like furniture, pottery, clothing, musical instruments and works of art. But it required us to live in harmony and cooperation with strangers. This goes completely against our instincts. To help us deal with this unnatural way of life, we developed many new institutions such as laws and a social hierarchy, which evolved into government, and many new technologies such as money and recordkeeping, which evolved into written language. This imposed order on us, making us, artificially, herd-social instead of pack social: treating anonymous strangers with a minimal level of respect

But all of this happened in a mere twelve thousand years, and this is not enough time for a species with a 15-25 year breeding cycle to evolve new instincts to adapt to it. We're not bacteria, who go through several generations in a day and whose evolution can keep pace with their environment. Deep down inside, we're all still cavemen, regarding strangers with suspicion rather than love and harmony. The proof of this is that every so often one of us reverts; his stifled inner caveman rebels and strikes out, committing an act that would have been natural and survival-oriented in the Paleolithic Era, but today is regarded as anti-social, or downright criminal. Occasionally, encouraged by the Stone Age religions that are still among us with their "we're better than everybody else" mandate directly from their gods, entire communities of humans rise up in violent confrontation with their neighbors, overwhelming these institutions of imposed harmony. If you're concerned about prostitution, how do you feel about war?

You're going to have to give our species another ten thousand years or more, before our instincts evolve to keep up with our new social organization. In the meantime we absolutely need all of these artificial buttresses that keep civilization running, such as money and laws.

Of course civilization, this artificial super-organism we have created, of which we are the cells, evolves at a much faster rate than biological organisms. By the time we've outgrown our inner cavemen, our social structure will be way ahead of us and we'll still need artificial constraints to live within it.
 
I'm glad you framed it that way. That means you are correlating sex to killing. Do you really think sexual activity is that bad? On what basis to you make such a claim?

Ouch! My bad, poor choice of analogy. About keeping it behind locked doors, it is not cause it is shameful, it is just good manners. Now you don't shower or relieve yourself without locking the bathroom door especially a public one, do you?
 
i've answered that question already...twice. :bugeye:
You equated both with slavery...and then went on a rant about how we are not living in heaven.

Thats not much of a conclusion...considering the vast difference between slavery and consensual manual labour.

If you hate it so much why not simply refuse to benefit from the manual labour of others in your society, as a form of protest. Of course, this would include giving up many things...like food.
 
Back
Top