why argue?

jesstacia
Posts: 6
Joined: 2011-07-11
User is offlineOffline
why argue?

Why do athiests and thiests have to argue? You can believe what you want, whether there is a god or no god. but you dont have to try change another's beliefs.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jesstacia wrote:Why do

jesstacia wrote:

Why do athiests and thiests have to argue? You can believe what you want, whether there is a god or no god. but you dont have to try change another's beliefs.

Why is this question almost always asked by someone who is really asking the question "Why don't you agree that my God is right?"

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
the prostitution delusion

Vastet wrote:
Not everyone can cure cancer. As yet, despite throwing billions of dollars at it and millions of people, it's still there. Not everyone can get a well paying job at the drop of a hat, and whether people like it or not, prostitution contributes to society. It helps many single mothers pay the bills. And as long as it's done in a safe environment there's little more risk than working at a fast food restaurant. I thought this was a free and capitalist society.

But prostitution is not advancing the society. Or better: yes, the "single mother pays the bills", but it is not "contribution", it is continuing a rotten loop. It doesn't matter "safe environment" and all that, the problem is the attitude: a prostitute is degrading herself in selling her body. Reread my previous post. What do I mean for degrading? Certainly technically there are not problems, penises enter, penises exits, money are given. But we are decidedly more than that, expecially a prostitute that just has to be in intimacy with men she doesn't like. So I tell you this: find for me an interview of a happy prostitute with a decent worldview, and I will consider changing my idea toward prostitution. Find for me something that justifies prostitution as a correct act from the point of view of the client, and I probably will raise my opinion of prostitution. Until then, it's wrong and deprecable -- what do I mean for correct act? I mean it's correct resolution to the libido impulses.

An ulterior thought: prostitution without money (and power and so on). Would there still be it? If I remeber well, humbydammit associated sex and young-beautiful-girls to power, essentially, so if the answer is 'NO', or something which tends to that, then you have other evidence you could think on.

"I thought this was a free and capitalist society."
I don't see how this should be something positive.
Also: free?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Many kinds of paid work do

Many kinds of paid work do not 'advance society', and many take it backwards. That is not a useful criterion for condemning prostitution in any special sense.

Women can and do used sexual 'favours' to gain benefits or manipulate men for their own purposes. Not all, by any means. But that is morally similar.

Also many people work purely for the pay, they often dislike what they do.

It is only normally called prostitution when money is involved.

It is only ancient hangups about sex which put prostitution in this special category.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:But prostitution

luca wrote:

But prostitution is not advancing the society. Or better: yes, the "single mother pays the bills", but it is not "contribution", it is continuing a rotten loop. It doesn't matter "safe environment" and all that, the problem is the attitude: a prostitute is degrading herself in selling her body. Reread my previous post. What do I mean for degrading? Certainly technically there are not problems, penises enter, penises exits, money are given. But we are decidedly more than that, expecially a prostitute that just has to be in intimacy with men she doesn't like. So I tell you this: find for me an interview of a happy prostitute with a decent worldview, and I will consider changing my idea toward prostitution. Find for me something that justifies prostitution as a correct act from the point of view of the client, and I probably will raise my opinion of prostitution. Until then, it's wrong and deprecable -- what do I mean for correct act? I mean it's correct resolution to the libido impulses. An ulterior thought: prostitution without money (and power and so on). Would there still be it? If I remeber well, humbydammit associated sex and young-beautiful-girls to power, essentially, so if the answer is 'NO', or something which tends to that, then you have other evidence you could think on. "I thought this was a free and capitalist society." I don't see how this should be something positive. Also: free?

 

Sure prostitutes contribute to society in much the same way any other entertainer does. I think entertainment is a worthwhile contribution to society, and apparently so do many people judging by the sheer amount of money willingly spent on it. I would't want to live in a society where everyone has to do a job that provides only vital needs and no luxuries. 

 

And if you want to meet a happy prostitute, go visit the bunny ranch. Or, if your not worried about being legal, you can usually find them around high class hotels. Streetwalkers tend to have many personal problems, but they are a creation of the ban on prostitution. Strippers are hit and miss, some have serious problems, others don't and many of them will prostitute for the right money. Many porn stars seem quite happy with their job, and what is porn other than legalized, videotaped prostitution? 

 

Obviously, you have not slept with many prostitutes, so I find it strange that you would presume to know what prostitutes think/want and whether or not they are happy with their job. You should take a trip to a brothel and get to know some of the women. 

 

From the point of view of the client? You have sex with a woman (or man) who is well above average in their sexual skills and you don't have to worry about or mess with the more domestic aspects of a relationship. Despite popular opinion, people aren't naturally skilled at sex. Great sex takes practice and technique, something experienced prostitutes have a lot of. Even if you have a regular partner, having sex with a prostitute can be a way to lean a few new tricks and spice up your relationship. For other clients, it might be a way to satisfy fetishes or fantasies that are not shared by their partner. In what way is that not "correct"?

 

And not everyone wants to have a full relationship at every point their life. Maintaining relationships take a lot of work and when ignored, can cause a lot of emotional pain to both parties. A member of the military who is doing a lot of transfers might choose to frequent prostitutes in favor of a more traditional relationship because it is extremely difficult to maintain a relationship while routinely being sent overseas. A soldier might decide they don't want to put someone through that kind of stress, especially if they are special ops or similar position where deployments are frequent and death a real possibility. 

 

A young person who does traveling work for a company might frequent prostitutes. There are jobs that put you on the road more often than not (trucking, sales, training, airline workers etc). Again, this makes maintaining a traditional relationship exceptionally difficult. 

 

A divorced person might frequent prostitutes if they have kids and don't want to risk the kids getting attached to a person that will not be staying around forever. Until and unless they decide to get married again, they might decide to avoid any kind of serious relationship to protect the kids.

 

Or, someone might call a prostitute because on some nights when your horny the chicks in your speed dial are all busy.

 

The point is, there are many reasons someone might turn to a prostitute. And there are just as many reasons someone my choose to be a prostitute. As long as both parties are consenting adults, I don't see a problem with it. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
i like it when it's hot

Quote:
Many kinds of paid work do not 'advance society', and many take it backwards. That is not a useful criterion for condemning prostitution in any special sense.

Quote:
Sure prostitutes contribute to society in much the same way any other entertainer does. I think entertainment is a worthwhile contribution to society, and apparently so do many people judging by the sheer amount of money willingly spent on it. I would't want to live in a society where everyone has to do a job that provides only vital needs and no luxuries.

I don't think only of the material things, but "spiritually" too: in that sense, sport, to use the precedent example, is right in the sense that watching it is distractful, relieving. Instead, the sum of the actions done in the act of prostitution make prostitution wrong.
Prostitution is not simply entertainment.

Quote:
Women can and do used sexual 'favours' to gain benefits or manipulate men for their own purposes. Not all, by any means. But that is morally similar.

You forgot to tell that it's wrong.

Quote:
Also many people work purely for the pay, they often dislike what they do.

You can't be serious about that. Try to prostitute yourself, tell me if it's like being paid to stay in front of a pc pushing keys; c'mon, these are two different arguments.

Quote:
It is only normally called prostitution when money is involved.

It is only ancient hangups about sex which put prostitution in this special category.


No, it's much deeper. WHY you need money/power? If prostitution is all about that, then it's wrong even from the premises!

Quote:
And if you want to meet a happy prostitute, go visit the bunny ranch. Or, if your not worried about being legal, you can usually find them around high class hotels.

Quote:
Obviously, you have not slept with many prostitutes, so I find it strange that you would presume to know what prostitutes think/want and whether or not they are happy with their job. You should take a trip to a brothel and get to know some of the women.

Sorry, but I specified I'm being anal on this: I'd like a report, a serious psychological analysis and stuff of this prostitute. If I pretend this it's because the very thought of prostitutes themselves I've read are not positive. I've not contacted prostitutes in person, just read about them, still it makes sense what I've read.

Quote:
Many porn stars seem quite happy with their job, and what is porn other than legalized, videotaped prostitution?

Absolutelyelyelyely not. Porn is watching, prostitution is doing. It's different like watching an homicide and being killed, c'mon.

Quote:
From the point of view of the client? You have sex with a woman (or man) who is well above average in their sexual skills and you don't have to worry about or mess with the more domestic aspects of a relationship.
...
In what way is that not "correct"?

You don't do 'sex' with a prostitute. Please, now that I've said this don't laugh at me and don't escape from this thread. What does mean that statement? Sex is when the partner cooperates to the act. A prostitute without doubt may follow your desires, follow your orders, but it's not what is being perceived as a normal relation. Most importantly, a prostitute does not have an orgasm. IT'S JUST WORK for her, she is NOT INVOLVED EMOTIONALLY, and I'm not talking about a relationship, I'm talking about even the act.
The "not correct" is something that for now is my opinion: as I've said it's not a correct resolution to the libido impulses (I'm talking on a big perspective here, so if you want to talk about this point I need to elaborate a little).

Quote:
...A soldier might decide they don't want to put someone through that kind of stress, especially if they are special ops or similar position where deployments are frequent and death a real possibility.

A young person who does traveling work for a company might frequent prostitutes. There are jobs that put you on the road more often than not (trucking, sales, training, airline workers etc). Again, this makes maintaining a traditional relationship exceptionally difficult.

A divorced person might frequent prostitutes if they have kids and don't want to risk the kids getting attached to a person that will not be staying around forever.
...


Okay, take this word for what they are: what are you talking about, are problems. You are using prostitution as a solution to a problem. This is also something about the argument "not correct".
These problems you are speaking of should not present in a hypotetical society -- I know our world is not perfect, that's not what I'm saying. Simply the problem is the "ideal", or in other words you are using a wrong (not a priori, but because it's a substitute) resolution to solve your problems.
-I'm a soldier and can't have a relationship -> prostitution :: wrong, you want a relationship.
-I travel a lot, I can't have a relationship -> prostitution :: wrong, you still want a relationship.
eccetera
So we come to the ideal: if there was not these problem, you would have a relationship. Prostitution would not exists. Therefore it's wrong. The only way is trying to solve the problems you have, not use a wrong resolution. If you can't, you keep your problem without causing others.

Quote:
As long as both parties are consenting adults, I don't see a problem with it.

No, it is a problem! That peculiar person that in that context is a prostitute, may not want to have you penis stuck in her! Still, she must because you pay her! Or because without money she would not eat! Please, try to consider the psychological implication, we're not descartesian.

---

holy *** guys, really, why the 'edit comment' page is so sick? when i edit a comment it all comes out as crap, no spaces, no new-lines, nothing. if you don't keep the original message somewhere you lose the indentation, it all becomes a wall of text. why this thing could not retrieve the text in the correct way?!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:--- holy ***

luca wrote:
---

holy *** guys, really, why the 'edit comment' page is so sick? when i edit a comment it all comes out as crap, no spaces, no new-lines, nothing. if you don't keep the original message somewhere you lose the indentation, it all becomes a wall of text. why this thing could not retrieve the text in the correct way?!

It does not do this when I edit my comments.

You probably pasted some of your text from another location, which created some issue with the html.

luca wrote:
No, it's much deeper. WHY you need money/power? If prostitution is all about that, then it's wrong even from the premises!

Money or power being involved immediately makes it wrong? One person agrees to perform a service for x amount of money from the other person. What is wrong with that?

luca wrote:
Okay, take this word for what they are: what are you talking about, are problems. You are using prostitution as a solution to a problem. This is also something about the argument "not correct".
These problems you are speaking of should not present in a hypotetical society -- I know our world is not perfect, that's not what I'm saying. Simply the problem is the "ideal", or in other words you are using a wrong (not a priori, but because it's a substitute) resolution to solve your problems.
-I'm a soldier and can't have a relationship -> prostitution :: wrong, you want a relationship.
-I travel a lot, I can't have a relationship -> prostitution :: wrong, you still want a relationship.
eccetera
So we come to the ideal: if there was not these problem, you would have a relationship. Prostitution would not exists. Therefore it's wrong. The only way is trying to solve the problems you have, not use a wrong resolution. If you can't, you keep your problem without causing others.

It's not the ideal solution to the problem; therefore, it's immoral?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 luca wrote: I don't think

 

luca wrote:
 I don't think only of the material things, but "spiritually" too: in that sense, sport, to use the precedent example, is right in the sense that watching it is distractful, relieving. Instead, the sum of the actions done in the act of prostitution make prostitution wrong.
Prostitution is not simply entertainment.

Why is it wrong?

 

luca wrote:

Absolutelyelyelyely not. Porn is watching, prostitution is doing. It's different like watching an homicide and being killed, c'mon.

The porn star is not watching... he/she is having very real sex with a person or several people they may or may not know for money. The fact that the end consumer is paying to watch rather than participate has no relation to the fact that the porn star is having sex for money. 

 

luca wrote:
 You don't do 'sex' with a prostitute. Please, now that I've said this don't laugh at me and don't escape from this thread. What does mean that statement? Sex is when the partner cooperates to the act. A prostitute without doubt may follow your desires, follow your orders, but it's not what is being perceived as a normal relation. Most importantly, a prostitute does not have an orgasm. IT'S JUST WORK for her, she is NOT INVOLVED EMOTIONALLY, and I'm not talking about a relationship, I'm talking about even the act.

The "not correct" is something that for now is my opinion: as I've said it's not a correct resolution to the libido impulses (I'm talking on a big perspective here, so if you want to talk about this point I need to elaborate a little).

Too late, already laughing but I'll still stick around.

A prostitute may or may not follow your orders, may or may not have an orgasm and may or may not get involved emotionally. Depends on the prostitute. What difference does it make? You don't go to a prostitute looking for someone to date steady. Either way, the prostitute provides pleasure and gets paid. Both parties get what they were looking for. 

 

luca wrote:

Okay, take this word for what they are: what are you talking about, are problems. You are using prostitution as a solution to a problem. This is also something about the argument "not correct".
These problems you are speaking of should not present in a hypotetical society -- I know our world is not perfect, that's not what I'm saying. Simply the problem is the "ideal", or in other words you are using a wrong (not a priori, but because it's a substitute) resolution to solve your problems.
-I'm a soldier and can't have a relationship -> prostitution :: wrong, you want a relationship.
-I travel a lot, I can't have a relationship -> prostitution :: wrong, you still want a relationship.
eccetera
So we come to the ideal: if there was not these problem, you would have a relationship. Prostitution would not exists. Therefore it's wrong. The only way is trying to solve the problems you have, not use a wrong resolution. If you can't, you keep your problem without causing others.

What makes you so sure I want a relationship? Just because that is your ideal, does not mean it is ideal for everyone. I think it is quite arrogant of you to presume that you know what other people want. Simply put, anyone who has been in a serious relationship knows how much time and effort it takes to maintain it. While it may be pleasurable and rewarding, it is perfectly plausible that a person might choose not to be in a close relationship at a given period of their lives.

 

Personally, I have no interest in a close relationship right now. Maybe in the future, but at the moment I am enjoying the freedom that comes from living alone and having few obligations so I keep my relationships casual. Where I am at right now is ideal for me, it might not be ideal for you. I wouldn't presume to tell you that you should live like me to be correct. Why do you presume that others should all live like you (or your ideal)?

 

luca wrote:

No, it is a problem! That peculiar person that in that context is a prostitute, may not want to have you penis stuck in her! Still, she must because you pay her! Or because without money she would not eat! Please, try to consider the psychological implication, we're not descartesian.

If she is not fond of having a penis stuck in her she probably ought to consider a different career. You seem to think it is impossible that a woman might actually enjoy having sex and getting paid for it. Your assumption is wrong. Some women really enjoy sex and for some, having sex for a living is a dream job. Prostitutes can (and do) say no. The only time you really have a problem with consent is when you have a woman who is being coerced by a pimp which is a result of prostitution being illegal. In areas where it is legal, the women can so no for any reason whatsoever and are protected by the law and their employer. Legal brothels have security that will throw your ass out if you are disrespectful.

 

If you are arguing that pimps using drugs and threats is wrong, I agree 100%. The best way to solve that problem is to make it legal and institute the same legal protections every other type of employee enjoys to not be abused by their employers. Right now if a prostitute runs to the police for help the police will arrest the prostitute. Johns and pimps know that and some scumbags use that knowledge to abuse the prostitute. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
white lion

butterbattle wrote:

luca wrote:
---

holy *** guys, really, why the 'edit comment' page is so sick? when i edit a comment it all comes out as crap, no spaces, no new-lines, nothing. if you don't keep the original message somewhere you lose the indentation, it all becomes a wall of text. why this thing could not retrieve the text in the correct way?!

It does not do this when I edit my comments.

You probably pasted some of your text from another location, which created some issue with the html.

The proper answer will just have to wait a little.

What would change to have the text pasted from another source?! I usually type on notepad and then paste in "plain text editor". If then I edit that message all the formatting is lost, plain text or not. A test, doing it from rich text editor:

XXX XXX

 XXX

X

---- everything seems in order...

XXX XXX XXX X

---- edit: oh, what happened?

What I see is that the <p> forced formatting creates this mess. Writing in the rich text editor effectively keeps everything fine, but using the plain text editor messes everything up.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
It is a problem...I don't

It is a problem...

I don't know any way around it other than to edit your post in plain text whenever you paste text from another location if the post does something funky. The plain text uses html to describe whatever you pasted into the rich text, and very rarely will it be nice enough to only have your <p>paragraphs</p>. I've seen one time when Hamby posted some weird html, and it literally pulled the bottom half of the thread to the top of the page, so that there were posts above 'The Rational Response Squad' title. Pasting only two words from MS Word will give me an entire wall of crap in plain text. So, sometimes, like when I'm posting an article, I simply paste the text into the plain text editor, and put <p></p> everywhere; then, it comes out perfect. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
pomodoro

butterbattle wrote:

It is a problem...

I don't know any way around it other than to edit your post in plain text whenever you paste text from another location if the post does something funky. The plain text uses html to describe whatever you pasted into the rich text, and very rarely will it be nice enough to only have your <p>paragraphs</p>. I've seen one time when Hamby posted some weird html, and it literally pulled the bottom half of the thread to the top of the page, so that there were posts above 'The Rational Response Squad' title. Pasting only two words from MS Word will give me an entire wall of crap in plain text. So, sometimes, like when I'm posting an article, I simply paste the text into the plain text editor, and put <p></p> everywhere; then, it comes out perfect. 

Well I usually write with a fixed width character, it's a habit, and so I choose plain text over rich text editor. Other than that, rich text sometime has some weird fetish about line spacing, listings, or indentation. I don't need them I don't want to worry about them, and so I prefer the plain text editor. And I paste in it plain notepad text, absolutely no html tags and no code. I will try with <p>. Everyone knows that html does not preserve spaces and indentation.

EDIT

One lifetime ago I was discussing of some other technical issues with RRS, they are on the 89 questions ANSWER THESE thread, last posts.


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
(ab)use you

------------ butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:
luca wrote:
No, it's much deeper. WHY you need money/power? If prostitution is all about that, then it's wrong even from the premises!

Money or power being involved immediately makes it wrong? One person agrees to perform a service for x amount of money from the other person. What is wrong with that?

Rationally yes, money and power make it wrong if it's the cause.
It's not a service for x amount of money. It's the abuse of living being. It's not a victimless crime, it's a self-injurious lifestyle.

butterbattle wrote:
luca wrote:
Okay, take this word for what they are: what are you talking about, are problems. You are using prostitution as a solution to a problem. This is also something about the argument "not correct".
These problems you are speaking of should not present in a hypotetical society -- I know our world is not perfect, that's not what I'm saying. Simply the problem is the "ideal", or in other words you are using a wrong (not a priori, but because it's a substitute) resolution to solve your problems.
-I'm a soldier and can't have a relationship -> prostitution :: wrong, you want a relationship.
-I travel a lot, I can't have a relationship -> prostitution :: wrong, you still want a relationship.
eccetera
So we come to the ideal: if there was not these problem, you would have a relationship. Prostitution would not exists. Therefore it's wrong. The only way is trying to solve the problems you have, not use a wrong resolution. If you can't, you keep your problem without causing others.

It's not the ideal solution to the problem; therefore, it's immoral?

Therefore, it's wrong! Morality was not being discussed in this limited scope.

--------------- beyond saving

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
I don't think only of the material things, but "spiritually" too: in that sense, sport, to use the precedent example, is right in the sense that watching it is distractful, relieving. Instead, the sum of the actions done in the act of prostitution make prostitution wrong.
Prostitution is not simply entertainment.

Why is it wrong?

Well, it is being discussed here...
In the sum goes factors like what the prostitute feels, how the people linked to the prostitute is affected, what the client feels, and in the end how the people linked to the client is affected. Please, bear with me for a moment, there are more facets that it seems. Also, I'm assuming the most classical case like in all examples: male client, female prostitute.
Now obviously we're not counting forces around forced prostitution or international crimes, just "simple prostitution for simple money", an indipendent prostitute, ok? The other sums should be pretty negative, agree?
Now, as I said, I never found a prostitute happy, and this goes in the negative; people linked to the prostitute could be her friends, parents, sons. It's difficult to do a sum for them, but still her friends prostitutes goes in the negative (maybe slightly, but still), sons are *probably* negative because they need time with their mother, parents value could be 0 if they ignore the daughter's work.
The client is negative, as he is not solving his impulses correctly; people linked to the client could be his friends (not prostitutes, this time Eye-wink and family. So his friends may not know, 0, while the family maybe doesn't know but is affected from detached behavior.
So the sum is negative. KEEP IN MIND I created this example 'as is', with my assumptions and all; you could play around, create even paradoxical situations, modify the parameters (maybe the client doesn't have a family). But you have to consider all the time scale, in the end we're summing everything, but judging the benefit of the outcome is not easy. Even if you did found a positive sum, it could be so unique that it's practically irrelevant, dunno. The most important thing is that there are sufficient details to avoid generalizations.

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
Absolutelyelyelyely not. Porn is watching, prostitution is doing. It's different like watching an homicide and being killed, c'mon.

The porn star is not watching... he/she is having very real sex with a person or several people they may or may not know for money. The fact that the end consumer is paying to watch rather than participate has no relation to the fact that the porn star is having sex for money.

Oh, sorry, I didn't understood the example. It's curious, I never thought it like that, that the subject is the porn star. Anyway well if the client is partecipating or not is *extremely* important! I assume he is not, as per 'classical' porn. Well in this case things changes very much.
Lemme think a moment... Mmmhh, well I think it's different from prostitution. I mean, for me it's difficult tho change the subject to the porn star, because it's useless, what this has to do with anything? The context is entirely different. As you said money could not even be part of it, so it's not even a gray area in between (which maybe could be lap dancing). The aim of prostitution is very different from porn: with this last you want to have on tape a good sex scene that sells, we may even say 'artistic' because the actors have not only effectively to provoke the emotions in the spectator, but it may go in different artistic context depending on the market.
Now maybe from a managerial point of view porn and prostitution may not differ so much in criminal environments, apart for the dimension of the thing -- prostitution is very large.
I notice just now that you seem to have put accent on "the porn star is having sex for money", but it's a generalization. As I said, the objective is completely different, and so is the realization. A prostitute wants the client to do as soon as possible, so that she may have another client (and also it become painful after some clients, the prostitute's genital organ is sore, and that's another reason); porn is (or should be...) dedicated to quality, so if you do it in a hurry you don't get paid, haha... Also not everbody can do it, expecially for males, it requires some practical properties, you know, not everybody has, and I'm not talking only about dimensions. Then yes there's porn forn everyone, from barely-legal to elderly, but the whole genre is really a different thing from prostitution. I don't think it qualifies, not even if you hire a prostitute to do porn.
And think that the greek origin of the word pornography contains prostitute. But etimology means jack. Like the distinction between soft-core, hard-core or feminist porn. In the end it's all porn.
In the end that poor bastard, the client, doesn't even enter in the explanation. Well, simply the gratification for watching has very little to do with the gratification from doing.

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
You don't do 'sex' with a prostitute. Please, now that I've said this don't laugh at me and don't escape from this thread. What does mean that statement? Sex is when the partner cooperates to the act. A prostitute without doubt may follow your desires, follow your orders, but it's not what is being perceived as a normal relation. Most importantly, a prostitute does not have an orgasm. IT'S JUST WORK for her, she is NOT INVOLVED EMOTIONALLY, and I'm not talking about a relationship, I'm talking about even the act.
The "not correct" is something that for now is my opinion: as I've said it's not a correct resolution to the libido impulses (I'm talking on a big perspective here, so if you want to talk about this point I need to elaborate a little).

Too late, already laughing but I'll still stick around.
A prostitute may or may not follow your orders, may or may not have an orgasm and may or may not get involved emotionally. Depends on the prostitute. What difference does it make? You don't go to a prostitute looking for someone to date steady. Either way, the prostitute provides pleasure and gets paid. Both parties get what they were looking for.

Laugh as you desire, suit youself, I'm not restraining you.
But, I repeat, a prostitute doesn't get involved nor she reaches orgasm. It's not optional, it's part of her being a prostitute. In fact a prostitute doen not even kiss, it's not considered dignitous. If this requirements are not observed, then it's not prostitution, it's another phenomenon.

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
Okay, take this word for what the...

What makes you so sure I want a relationship? Just because that is your ideal, does not mean it is ideal for everyone. I think it is quite arrogant of you to presume that you know what other people want. Simply put, anyone who has been in a serious relationship knows how much time and effort it takes to maintain it. While it may be pleasurable and rewarding, it is perfectly plausible that a person might choose not to be in a close relationship at a given period of their lives.
Personally, I have no interest in a close relationship right now. Maybe in the future, but at the moment I am enjoying the freedom that comes from living alone and having few obligations so I keep my relationships casual. Where I am at right now is ideal for me, it might not be ideal for you. I wouldn't presume to tell you that you should live like me to be correct. Why do you presume that others should all live like you (or your ideal)?

Sorry, but I was talking about YOUR ideal, I never said what I want, I never said anything about me. You made examples with problematic relationships, I addressed your examples.
Also the argument I made is this: is there a situation in which going for prostitutes is not an answer to a problem? Obviously what constitutes a problem is not of easy definition (for example: a married man that pays a prostitute for one 'trip' is a problem a priori? could you distinguish this situation from the cultural situation it pertains? ).

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
No, it is a problem! That pe...

If she is not fond of having a penis stuck in her she probably ought to consider a different career. You seem to think it is impossible that a woman might actually enjoy having sex and getting paid for it. Your assumption is wrong. Some women really enjoy sex and for some, having sex for a living is a dream job. Prostitutes can (and do) say no. The only time you really have a problem with consent is when you have a woman who is being coerced by a pimp which is a result of prostitution being illegal. In areas where it is legal, the women can so no for any reason whatsoever and are protected by the law and their employer. Legal brothels have security that will throw your ass out if you are disrespectful.

-If she is not fond of having a penis stuck in her she probably ought to consider a different career.
I recall being said "hey, prostitution pays, why not do it if I need money" and so take it pretty lightly. Now you say "hey, maybe she would not like to do it". Probably you should discuss this with other members of the forum who support prostitution, not me.
The argument here was "prostitution is just work", and to that I will stick. If the prostitute doesn't like, well that's not our fault, she has to do it.
-You seem to think it is impossible that a woman might actually enjoy having sex and getting paid for it.
If my assumption is wrong then bring evidence, but remember it's prostitution, not just sex.
-Prostitutes can (and do) say no.
Oh yeah, suppose you're a factory worker, you have to screw a nut: "oh, this nut is ugly, I won't do it"... well, you need the money, so you swallow and screw it. Sorry for puns, those was the first words to come in my mind, maybe it's the argoment, I don't know.

In conclusion to this post I just want to say that I know absolutely I'm limited in that I have no actual experience with a prostitute, so I have to rely on experience of others, but on the other hand people here seems to take prostitution with a too much broad view and frivolously. It's a bit like for the word rape. Everyone throws that word around to mean every kind of sexual violence. Instead it has a precise definition. Sorry for rant, just have to tell someone.
I just thought that the risks of the prostitution could be another interesting argument, but I don't want to put too much meat on the fire (do you say it like that?).


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Sure

Beyond Saving wrote:
Sure prostitutes contribute to society in much the same way any other entertainer does. I think entertainment is a worthwhile contribution to society, and apparently so do many people judging by the sheer amount of money willingly spent on it. I would't want to live in a society where everyone has to do a job that provides only vital needs and no luxuries.


Entertainers can diminish their net contributions to society when they forget their primary calling...

"Of course their's life on Mars. It has water, carbon, and oxygen... all the things required for life!" (words to that effect, anyways)

With the former VP forgetting that he was little more than entertainment for the masses, he confirmed the long-held stereotype that politicians know as much about science as any typical 3rd grader.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 luca wrote: Well, it is

 

luca wrote:
 Well, it is being discussed here...
In the sum goes factors like what the prostitute feels, how the people linked to the prostitute is affected, what the client feels, and in the end how the people linked to the client is affected. Please, bear with me for a moment, there are more facets that it seems. Also, I'm assuming the most classical case like in all examples: male client, female prostitute.
Now obviously we're not counting forces around forced prostitution or international crimes, just "simple prostitution for simple money", an indipendent prostitute, ok? The other sums should be pretty negative, agree?
Now, as I said, I never found a prostitute happy, and this goes in the negative; people linked to the prostitute could be her friends, parents, sons. It's difficult to do a sum for them, but still her friends prostitutes goes in the negative (maybe slightly, but still), sons are *probably* negative because they need time with their mother, parents value could be 0 if they ignore the daughter's work.
The client is negative, as he is not solving his impulses correctly; people linked to the client could be his friends (not prostitutes, this time Eye-wink and family. So his friends may not know, 0, while the family maybe doesn't know but is affected from detached behavior.
So the sum is negative. KEEP IN MIND I created this example 'as is', with my assumptions and all; you could play around, create even paradoxical situations, modify the parameters (maybe the client doesn't have a family). But you have to consider all the time scale, in the end we're summing everything, but judging the benefit of the outcome is not easy. Even if you did found a positive sum, it could be so unique that it's practically irrelevant, dunno. The most important thing is that there are sufficient details to avoid generalizations.

Ok, I think I see where you are going. We are generally defining immoral as an action that causes more harm than good. I would argue against that definition, but for the sake of this debate we will use it. Working under the assumption of male client, female prostitute no 3rd party coercion works great since that is what I have personal experience with. Now, I also dispute your assumptions as to what is negative and positive. 

 

You have never met a happy prostitute... ok, how many have you met? I have met several happy prostitutes. A few I have even gotten to know on a more personal level and their happiness varies. Some are much happier being a prostitute than they would be working at Walmart, others clearly have issues but you can walk into any place of employment and find that mix. For at least some prostitutes, happiness is a positive and I would argue that the more legal and more upscale the brothel the more likely it is the prostitute is happy.

 

Friends? I fail to see why that goes negative. Or really even positive, I don't think your friends are really affected by your career choice since your career choice is probably going to influence which people become friends.

 

Family- this is an interesting one. I would say that in most cases, parents are hurt or would be if they knew their daughter is a prostitute. So I'll let you have a negative there. Kids? I have to disagree with you. One of the main reasons women become prostitutes is because they can make a lot of money in a short period of time. The going rate around here is $200-$300/hour plus tips, $1000-$1500 if you want the whole night. There simply are not very many jobs that pay that kind of money. A prostitute can work two or three nights a week and make more money than the average married couple. Since most of the work is done at night while the kids sleep, a prostitute can easily spend far more time with her children than most mothers that have to work. So chalk that up as a positive.

 

Client- Well I maintain it is a positive. There is a reason why a client shells out hundreds or thousands of dollars so obviously the client believes he is getting a positive. Friends of the client can get positives too as someone who is willing to pay a prostitute for himself might also do so for his friends. Family? Again, most conservative parents might see it as a negative but they probably don't know. It is a negative for a spouse if she does not know, but I see no problem if the client tells his spouse. The negative there is lying in your marriage. So I see how it can lead to a negative, but it does not necessarily lead to a negative. 

 

luca wrote:

But, I repeat, a prostitute doesn't get involved nor she reaches orgasm. It's not optional, it's part of her being a prostitute. In fact a prostitute doen not even kiss, it's not considered dignitous. If this requirements are not observed, then it's not prostitution, it's another phenomenon.

Interesting. Why do you assume that a prostitute does not reach orgasm? Some do, some don't. And yes, most prostitutes do kiss, at least they do here in the states.

 

luca wrote:

Sorry, but I was talking about YOUR ideal, I never said what I want, I never said anything about me. You made examples with problematic relationships, I addressed your examples.

That is my point. You are making assumptions of what my ideal is. Just like you are making assumptions about the happiness of a prostitute. You are making assumptions about the happiness of the client and whether or not the client is meeting his needs. I pointed out situations where a client might choose a prostitute over a relationship and you asserted that what that client really wanted was a relationship. On what basis? Who is better suited to determine whether a relationship is the preferred solution? The person in question, or you? My disagreement with you here is that you seem to assume that you know better than the client. You don't. 

 

luca wrote:

I recall being said "hey, prostitution pays, why not do it if I need money" and so take it pretty lightly. Now you say "hey, maybe she would not like to do it". Probably you should discuss this with other members of the forum who support prostitution, not me.
The argument here was "prostitution is just work", and to that I will stick. If the prostitute doesn't like, well that's not our fault, she has to do it.

She doesn't have to. She has a wide variety of careers to choose from. If the prostitute was working at a fast food restaurant and didn't like it, I would suggest she find employment elsewhere. She is making an active choice to be a prostitute instead of doing a different job. I leave the decision of her job to her.

 

luca wrote:

-You seem to think it is impossible that a woman might actually enjoy having sex and getting paid for it.
If my assumption is wrong then bring evidence, but remember it's prostitution, not just sex.

The only evidence I can provide is for you to go meet some prostitutes. I can speak from personal experience with several prostitutes but I am simply a random anonymous person on a forum. 

 

luca wrote:

-Prostitutes can (and do) say no.
Oh yeah, suppose you're a factory worker, you have to screw a nut: "oh, this nut is ugly, I won't do it"... well, you need the money, so you swallow and screw it.

Being a prostitute is far closer to being a sole proprietor. Even in brothels, the prostitute is paid directly by the client and pays a fee to the brothel, she is considered an independent contractor, not an employee. The prostitute has complete discretion in who she accepts as a client and refusing a client only risks losing that one client. She is not fired and jobless in the sense of a factory worker.

 

Now a prostitute might be tempted by large amounts of money to do things she wouldn't normally do, but ultimately the choice is hers. Some prostitutes go for quantity, charging little others might only have a handful of clients and charge much higher rates. Some have very strict rules others don't. But it is the prostitute herself that is making all those business decisions. She is the boss.

 

luca wrote:

I just thought that the risks of the prostitution could be another interesting argument, but I don't want to put too much meat on the fire (do you say it like that?).

The risks of prostitution are certainly worth discussing. But with the slightest bit of research you will find that legalizing prostitution is the best way to manage those risks. In areas where prostitution is legal you will find much lower instances of STD's and violence. Simply having the ability to go to the police and press charges does wonders to protect prostitutes. And legal brothels like those in Pahrump Nevada have regular STD screenings, on site medical team and security. Far safer for both the client and the prostitute than meeting up through backpage or craigslist. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Jessica?

Excellent question. In terms of logic via the system of stupidity (atheism), their arguing is inconsistent to consistent atheism. I've said this hundreds of times and will keep saying it until somebody answers. The Universities of the world via atheism are saying there are no absolutes. All is in the realm of the subjective and the objective doesn't exist. Along with the metaphysics (being, reality) does' exist either

Then the atheists on here being hypocrites say oh no. Um, we argue according to Christian rules of logic but let's keep that hush hush. lol. So the fact that ahteists do argue makes them hypocrities and contradictive.

However, the Chrisitan has a logical means to argue. To give a defense towards what they believe in (I Peter 3:15). To Contend for the Faith (Jude 3). To refute false teaching (Titus 1:9). And basically to bring them to their own foolishness.

Excellent point maam. Atheists are like a fish that is confused whether or not it lives in the water or on the boat. But the reality is, athem intellectually speaking, has always been and always will be, a fish out of water.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
today i'm 26

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
Well, it is being discussed here...

Ok, I think I see where you are going. We are generally defining immoral as an action that causes more harm than good. I would argue against that definition, but for the sake of this debate we will use it. Working under the assumption of male client, female prostitute no 3rd party coercion works great since that is what I have personal experience with. Now, I also dispute your assumptions as to what is negative and positive.

You have never met a happy prostitute... ok, how many have you met? I have met several happy prostitutes. A few I have even gotten to know on a more personal level and their happiness varies. Some are much happier being a prostitute than they would be working at Walmart, others clearly have issues but you can walk into any place of employment and find that mix. For at least some prostitutes, happiness is a positive and I would argue that the more legal and more upscale the brothel the more likely it is the prostitute is happy.

Friends? I fail to see why that goes negative. Or really even positive, I don't think your friends are really affected by your career choice since your career choice is probably going to influence which people become friends.

Family- this is an interesting one. I would say that in most cases, parents are hurt or would be if they knew their daughter is a prostitute. So I'll let you have a negative there. Kids? I have to disagree with you. One of the main reasons women become prostitutes is because they can make a lot of money in a short period of time. The going rate around here is $200-$300/hour plus tips, $1000-$1500 if you want the whole night. There simply are not very many jobs that pay that kind of money. A prostitute can work two or three nights a week and make more money than the average married couple. Since most of the work is done at night while the kids sleep, a prostitute can easily spend far more time with her children than most mothers that have to work. So chalk that up as a positive.

Client- Well I maintain it is a positive. There is a reason why a client shells out hundreds or thousands of dollars so obviously the client believes he is getting a positive. Friends of the client can get positives too as someone who is willing to pay a prostitute for himself might also do so for his friends. Family? Again, most conservative parents might see it as a negative but they probably don't know. It is a negative for a spouse if she does not know, but I see no problem if the client tells his spouse. The negative there is lying in your marriage. So I see how it can lead to a negative, but it does not necessarily lead to a negative.


I'll tell you what I've told to butterbattle: I'm NOT talking about morality, I don't even recall being used that word. I'm talking on what is good for humans as a whole.
I said also I never met prostitutes, at most I saw 'em on the border of the road. I had explicited my limits in my previous posts (that I have to rely on experiences of others).
How can you judge if a prostitute is happy? It's not a rhetorical question, I mean really, what the prostitute in her acting suggested that she is being happy?
Anyway I'm not interested in "local" happiness, I want to know a sufficient number of aspects of her life to understand if globally she is satisfied. I hope you don't believe I'm raising the bar, I asked for a decent psychological report from the beginning.

Friends: yes, certainly the work is going to influence what friends you will have. In fact I precedently said "her friends prostitutes". In a common prostitution environment there is a battle between prostitutes for catching preys. Probably in a brothel things differ a bit, still a person's behavior will affect her friends behavior -- and I would not place competition in a positive and collaborative environment.

Prostitutes can make much money -- true, but not always. It depends on what circuit of clients she has (usually a prostitute has several faithful clients), and obviously it's gonna depend on how beautiful/seductive the prostitute is. Whether we are talking about brothels or streets the bitch has to pay the fee or the pimp. If she can make money ok, if she can't she has to work more, and she has less time to educate her children (and btw this is the situation (single mother with child) in which children are abused more of the times). From where I write you, brothels are not legal. And then there could be another thread dedicated to how women become prostitutes.
In the end what is the volume of traffic in the brothels, percentually? I know maybe one person that could afford occasionally that kind of money, so I don't know how much this is relevant.

When you say "might also do so for his friends" you mean that the friends of the client could go with prostitutes being influenced from his behavior, not that the client pays prostitues for his friends, right? Anyway I'm keeping that negative. More prostitution is properly what I would try to provoke.
The fact that the client perceive it as positive is irrelevant. Lying in the marriage is negative, right, but keep in mind I don't care about marriage, so from that point of view it does not lead necessarily to a negative, but that's not what I was talking about. I wrote 'detached behaviour', which means that the members in the couple hae different sexualities and the addition of a prostitute is bad because it's a result of disagreement between them. This does not cover every possible case.

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
But, I repeat, a prostitute doesn't get involved nor she reaches orgasm. It's not optional, it's part of her being a prostitute. In fact a prostitute doen not even kiss, it's not considered dignitous. If this requirements are not observed, then it's not prostitution, it's another phenomenon.

Interesting. Why do you assume that a prostitute does not reach orgasm? Some do, some don't. And yes, most prostitutes do kiss, at least they do here in the states.

It's not an assumption. If she wanted to have sex with you, why do you pay her? You would be stupid, also because both would have the same benefit (pleasure).
Understand now that I don't include in prostitution a woman that involves herself emotionally, that would make no sense.

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
Sorry, but I was talking about YOUR ideal, I never said what I want, I never said anything about me. You made examples with problematic relationships, I addressed your examples.

That is my point. You are making assumptions of what my ideal is. Just like you are making assumptions about the happiness of a prostitute. You are making assumptions about the happiness of the client and whether or not the client is meeting his needs. I pointed out situations where a client might choose a prostitute over a relationship and you asserted that what that client really wanted was a relationship. On what basis? Who is better suited to determine whether a relationship is the preferred solution? The person in question, or you? My disagreement with you here is that you seem to assume that you know better than the client. You don't.

That's a prejudice. I could know what's best for someone (a prostitute client, in this case) better than he does. People ask for advice every now and then.
Again I was not making assumption about your ideal. You submitted to me examples where a poor bastard would had problems if he had a relationship because of time, space, or whatever, and he solved with some prostitution-sex. Make another example and you will get another answer, what do I have to tell you?
For now the only assumption that I'm making is that you simplify a lot the matter of prostitution. I can direct you to some books I read, from the DSM-IV-TR to "human sexuality - an encyclopedia", from "civiltà incivile, gabriella capone" to some freud's papers. What I read obviously are theories based on assumption, which is the definition of prostitution, but also what sexuality a person construed for herself changes the way she interpret experiences. Prostitutes often come in contact with men that lie, that are not faithful in the marriage, and that search only sex. As a result these women don't think lie is a crime and consider all men pigs. Maybe in a luxury brothel things go in another way, still I'd like to know their opinion about men, right and wrong and that matters.
What I can tell is that the prostitution you are defending is practically inexistant here, so, if we remove the wrong prostitution we agree about, here there would be no prostitutes...

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
I recall being said "hey, prostitution pays, why not do it if I need money" and so take it pretty lightly. Now you say "hey, maybe she would not like to do it". Probably you should discuss this with other members of the forum who support prostitution, not me.
The argument here was "prostitution is just work", and to that I will stick. If the prostitute doesn't like, well that's not our fault, she has to do it."

She doesn't have to. She has a wide variety of careers to choose from. If the prostitute was working at a fast food restaurant and didn't like it, I would suggest she find employment elsewhere. She is making an active choice to be a prostitute instead of doing a different job. I leave the decision of her job to her.

Well I don't know what jobs there could be in this hypotetical situation. Maybe everyone of them was worse than prostitution, maybe the woman wanted to try easy money. If everyone had the dream-job we would not be here discussing. But what I care is that the people here on the thread took prostitution lightly while instead, with the current culture, it's not so (as I understand it). It touches intimate things, and has very different objectives from the common job (pleasure).

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
-You seem to think it is impossible that a woman might actually enjoy having sex and getting paid for it.
If my assumption is wrong then bring evidence, but remember it's prostitution, not just sex.

The only evidence I can provide is for you to go meet some prostitutes. I can speak from personal experience with several prostitutes but I am simply a random anonymous person on a forum.

I appreciate your input, and I consider it. Still I must have a neutral view, and I need data to understand your bias and the one of the prostitutes you knew -- bias is a bad word, maybe, I don't want to offend; simply I ask myself if you or the prostitutes interpreted something that was said with your knowledge.

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
-Prostitutes can (and do) say no.
Oh yeah, suppose you're a factory worker, you have to screw a nut: "oh, this nut is ugly, I won't do it"... well, you need the money, so you swallow and screw it.

Being a prostitute is far closer to being a sole proprietor. Even in brothels, the prostitute is paid directly by the client and pays a fee to the brothel, she is considered an independent contractor, not an employee. The prostitute has complete discretion in who she accepts as a client and refusing a client only risks losing that one client. She is not fired and jobless in the sense of a factory worker.

Now a prostitute might be tempted by large amounts of money to do things she wouldn't normally do, but ultimately the choice is hers. Some prostitutes go for quantity, charging little others might only have a handful of clients and charge much higher rates. Some have very strict rules others don't. But it is the prostitute herself that is making all those business decisions. She is the boss.


Yes, we were talking about indipendent prostitutes; what relevance has talking about a brothel?
I think you're pressing the "choice" too much. In capitalism there's not much to choose without money.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 luca wrote:I'll tell you

 

luca wrote:
I'll tell you what I've told to butterbattle: I'm NOT talking about morality, I don't even recall being used that word. I'm talking on what is good for humans as a whole.

Just reviewed the thread. Correction accepted. Although you have used the terms "not correct" and "wrong" which are generally meant in a moral context. Something lost in translation perhaps? What is your definition of "good for humans as a whole"? The idea that a client and prostitute having sex has any effect on humans as a whole is pretty absurd. Generally the transaction is done in private and the only people affected are the participants and perhaps their extremely close friends/family. 

 

luca wrote:
How can you judge if a prostitute is happy? It's not a rhetorical question, I mean really, what the prostitute in her acting suggested that she is being happy?

Anyway I'm not interested in "local" happiness, I want to know a sufficient number of aspects of her life to understand if globally she is satisfied. 

I generally leave the determination of whether or not a person is happy to them. If a person is satisfied with their life and enjoying it they are happy. If they are dissatisfied and want to get out of their life then obviously, they are not. I have met prostitutes who have had many other options and have gotten to know some on a personal level outside of their occupation.  

 

luca wrote:

Friends: yes, certainly the work is going to influence what friends you will have. In fact I precedently said "her friends prostitutes". In a common prostitution environment there is a battle between prostitutes for catching preys. Probably in a brothel things differ a bit, still a person's behavior will affect her friends behavior -- and I would not place competition in a positive and collaborative environment.

What is negative about competition? Humans compete with their friends for entertainment all the time (virtually every "game" humans have come up with has a competitive aspect). I don't think there is anything inherently negative about competition at all. 

 

luca wrote:

It's not an assumption. If she wanted to have sex with you, why do you pay her? You would be stupid, also because both would have the same benefit (pleasure).
Understand now that I don't include in prostitution a woman that involves herself emotionally, that would make no sense.

I am stupid and so are a bunch of other males. Of course, I would argue it is pretty stupid to have sex without getting paid when the person you are having sex with is willing to pay you. Emotional involvement with a person is not a requirement to enjoying the sex. You can have sex and have an orgasm even if you don't particularly care about the other person.

 

luca wrote:

In the end what is the volume of traffic in the brothels, percentually? I know maybe one person that could afford occasionally that kind of money, so I don't know how much this is relevant.

I don't know about where you live. Here in the US there is more than enough demand for prostitution to make significant money.

 

luca wrote:

When you say "might also do so for his friends" you mean that the friends of the client could go with prostitutes being influenced from his behavior, not that the client pays prostitues for his friends, right? Anyway I'm keeping that negative. More prostitution is properly what I would try to provoke.

No, I meant paying for his friends thereby providing them with a pleasurable hour. Good friends get their friends laid. 

 

luca wrote:

The fact that the client perceive it as positive is irrelevant.

Why? I think that it is extremely relevant. What makes you qualified to decide for the client what is positive and what is negative for him? Humans are not all the same and what is positive/negative for one is not necessarily positive/negative for another. I believe it is best to let an individual choose for themselves and determine what is positive/negative for themselves. Perhaps this is our largest macro disagreement. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
My two cents...

 For what it's worth I agree with Beyond Saving.  I personally would not want to be a prostitute or a stripper or anything where you have to physically touch other people, but I've often considered doing something like paid phone sex or cyber sex.  Honestly, the only reason I haven't pursued those is because I have a tendency to ALWAYS be in a relationship and I don't want to have to keep justifying my line of work to my boyfriend and my immediate family.  So instead I find myself stuck in customer service, doomed to forever be a punching bag, a door mat, and also remarkably NOT well-off.  I've been abused by my employers and coworkers and customers and went home to abuse myself for not making enough money to excuse the fact that I smoked cigarettes even though it was really the only thing keeping me sane at the time.  If I didn't have boundary issues (and a boyfriend) I'd totally sell my body if it AT LEAST meant I could afford a comfortable life outside of work.  Then maybe I could put myself back in school and find a career that didn't make me feel as worthless as the jobs I've had made me feel.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Vastet

redneF wrote:

Vastet wrote:
People who think irrational theists can't become rational haven't had much experience debating religion with theists. Or they just suck at it.

This is true. I've never had problems getting any reasonable people to notice the non sequiturs in theistic dogmas and teachings.

Here's a survey taken before and after a Hitchens debate on the feelings of whether the RC church is a 'good' force in the world. The difference is dramatic.

 

 

Christopher Hitchens is my main man !

Awesome video rednef. Thanks for posting. I never get tired of watching Hitchens dismantle his opponents. I would walk a hundred miles to see him do it live.

I wish him well in his cancer fight.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
meatbag

beyond saving wrote:
Just reviewed the thread. Correction accepted. Although you have used the terms "not correct" and "wrong" which are generally meant in a moral context. Something lost in translation perhaps? What is your definition of "good for humans as a whole"? The idea that a client and prostitute having sex has any effect on humans as a whole is pretty absurd. Generally the transaction is done in private and the only people affected are the participants and perhaps their extremely close friends/family.

Lost in translation? If only it was just that... I have to write on a notebook with a broken keyboard, I have to pound the keys 5 times before this crap gets something...
Anyway I understand your problem. Sure a lone sex adventure doesn't affect the whole world, but in effect prostitution became pretty global... It's the survival of our species that is being discussed here, something between "what would happen if everyone would do it" and "there's more harm or more benefits".

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
How can you judge if a prostitute is happy? It's not a rhetorical question, I mean really, what the prostitute in her acting suggested that she is being happy?
Anyway I'm not interested in "local" happiness, I want to know a sufficient number of aspects of her life to understand if globally she is satisfied.

I generally leave the determination of whether or not a person is happy to them. If a person is satisfied with their life and enjoying it they are happy. If they are dissatisfied and want to get out of their life then obviously, they are not. I have met prostitutes who have had many other options and have gotten to know some on a personal level outside of their occupation.

Well that doesn't mean I don't have to investigate, expecially in the case of prostitution which is common but only recently gained a sort of liberalization (not in the sense that was never legal before, but in the sense that never before it had a impact like this). So we could say that prostitution is more free (hope to used the right word). If there are changes, I reserve the right to believe that people (prostitutes, in this case) may be in a special case because they are doing something not common, so they could be not happy as they think they are (or in another words they are not able to judge themselves, expecially because you have to do it in relation to the society -- in which they don't fully live). This happens for everything not common, from actors to astronauts.

beyond saving wrote:
What is negative about competition? Humans compete with their friends for entertainment all the time (virtually every "game" humans have come up with has a competitive aspect). I don't think there is anything inherently negative about competition at all.

Competition of IDEAS is not negative, competition of people is bad because someone (eventually everyone) will suffer. Mind you, I'm not now saying every suffering is wrong, don't take it to the extreme. One still need some balance.

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
It's not an assumption. If she wanted to have sex with you, why do you pay her? You would be stupid, also because both would have the same benefit (pleasure).
Understand now that I don't include in prostitution a woman that involves herself emotionally, that would make no sense.

I am stupid and so are a bunch of other males. Of course, I would argue it is pretty stupid to have sex without getting paid when the person you are having sex with is willing to pay you. Emotional involvement with a person is not a requirement to enjoying the sex. You can have sex and have an orgasm even if you don't particularly care about the other person.

You can say it for yourself, not for others. The sexuality changes the way you perceive the intercourse. A classical example: in prison, men are coerced to be together. There, you can bet the sexual impulses don't stop just because there aren't women... So men do each other, but it's not intented as homosexual. You can instead bet there are a lot of homophobes. Citing the tv series Oz is a must at this point.
It's not so different for prostitution. But the right attitude is not everything: I hope I'm not repeating myself, but what does happen if a prostitute happens to have intercourses only with clean, gorgeous, and gentle men? What does happen if a prostitute can have only dirty, women-hating scumbags? I can understand that locally a situation may be great, but the global statistics I possess (in major part of the '90s) are not so good.
Last but not least the definition of prostitution: exchange of sexual favors for money. No doubt that prostitution is difficult to describe, I would make some clarifications: prostitute does sexual favor, client pays money. If the client satisfies the prostitute, so if he does a sexual favor to her, it's out of this scope. Not prostitution for me, or at least not entirely.

beyond saving wrote:
I don't know about where you live. Here in the US there is more than enough demand for prostitution to make significant money.

I precedently said that brothels (bordelli), where I live, are illegal. There is another case, "case chiuse", I don't know how to translate it in english, literally it's "closed houses". It's when women prostitutes themselves in their homes. It's illegal that too (here).

beyond saving wrote:
luca wrote:
The fact that the client perceive it as positive is irrelevant.

Why? I think that it is extremely relevant. What makes you qualified to decide for the client what is positive and what is negative for him? Humans are not all the same and what is positive/negative for one is not necessarily positive/negative for another. I believe it is best to let an individual choose for themselves and determine what is positive/negative for themselves. Perhaps this is our largest macro disagreement.

It's not relevant because I'm observing the big picture. It seems you think I'm a sort of tyrant!
Now maybe the way I expressed could have let you intuit that I would force a behavior, is it that?
If you take morality you maybe have not the possibility to judge what is best for someone, but morality is stupid. With sufficient information enough you can give advice to people. And pragmatically I think I can say, for example, arsenic is bad for you, so if you take it you will have a negative outcome.

Hope I didn't forget something.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"But prostitution is not

"But prostitution is not advancing the society."

On the contrary. Protecting children is the single greatest contribution that any person can make to society. Children are the sole future of society. I respect prostitutes infinitely more than lawyers and politicians. You would remove the only source of income that millions of women and their children depend on, and I'll never agree such is a good thing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"But

Vastet wrote:
"But prostitution is not advancing the society." On the contrary. Protecting children is the single greatest contribution that any person can make to society. Children are the sole future of society. I respect prostitutes infinitely more than lawyers and politicians. You would remove the only source of income that millions of women and their children depend on, and I'll never agree such is a good thing.

I so agree. I have far greater respect and admiration for any adult entertainer or any prostitute.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"But

Vastet wrote:
"But prostitution is not advancing the society." On the contrary. Protecting children is the single greatest contribution that any person can make to society. Children are the sole future of society. I respect prostitutes infinitely more than lawyers and politicians. You would remove the only source of income that millions of women and their children depend on, and I'll never agree such is a good thing.

I am not sure I understand you link "prostitution and society" -> "protecting children", could you clarify?

Also prostitutes and lawyers/politicians are pretty different...


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If the only way for a mother

If the only way for a mother of two to make enough money to feed and shelter her children is through prostitution, than the woman contributes to society and the economy by doing so. I'm not trying to say all woman should be whores or anything, but it's a fact that a prostitute can make more in an hour than a waitress makes in a week. Who's really getting fucked over? Get rid of the pimps and make it legal for women or men to provide whatever sexual services they wish to provide in a safe environment and there's nothing objectionable about prostitution.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
SoD

Vastet wrote:
If the only way for a mother of two to make enough money to feed and shelter her children is through prostitution, than the woman contributes to society and the economy by doing so. I'm not trying to say all woman should be whores or anything, but it's a fact that a prostitute can make more in an hour than a waitress makes in a week. Who's really getting fucked over? Get rid of the pimps and make it legal for women or men to provide whatever sexual services they wish to provide in a safe environment and there's nothing objectionable about prostitution.

Yea, ok, but you're sort of... ignoring my previous posts. A prostitute could make a lot of money, but this doesn't happen to everyone. If prostitution becomes legal then the phenomeon, in being enlarged, would be different from what it is now. If there are a lot more prostitutes, obviously they will make less money.

Safe environment is a bit hypotetical... let's say a reasonably safe environment (and still, have you ever saw (and I *mean* saw, not read) a report about STDs? It's pretty scary). I think it would require a little 'training' from both parts, but I have nothing to add.

About contribution: I think it depends. For just a bit of 'handshacking', first, read around here and be sure about the definition of prostitution I'm using; second, it was being discussed that prostitution is perceived as a normal job. Continuing: what sort of people the prostitute would meet? I said the data I possess does not speak in positive terms. It could have been changed, though, I said it's relative to a decade ago. Maybe now prostitutes have to do for the major part with good and gentle people, but don't expect me to believe that. If you are assuming that the clients are not understood from prostitutes as lying bastards, I think we're arguing about a small percentual of traffic. So the prostitute does a safe job, makes sex only to adonis, and gets money to fill her mattress now. Her children grow, in the end they just need food and then they do everything by themselves, and what? They see how joyful is to work in the prostitution business and become prostitutes? You seem to have money, time, everything. It's a serious question, I'm not joking, tell me, they would become prostitutes?

EDIT: I realize I miss the part "If *the only way*..."

I can tell this is a dangerous terrain. Heh, if she's atheist she could just kill her child (jean would say)! Ok, besides jokes, if that's the only way then per definition she has to do it (still probably "the only way" means she could not find other possibilities, not that there aren't any). Would this contribute to the society? Probably not. IF, and if, the mother is well disposed to the job and IF she's able to cop with the difficulties then also IF she this and that... then the child(s) could grow well, but really, in this situation it's not like I see 100% success...


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I haven't ignored anything.

I haven't ignored anything. You do seem s bit oblivious to the situation though. Didn't you know that people can be tested for std's and get proof they are clean? Were you unaware that many prostitution houses have multiple methods of approving clientele before any risk is taken?
And no, making it legal would have no effect on the income, other than taxes. There are a few reasons why. Legality doesn't equal ethics for one. Clearly you have no interest in being a prostitute. Does that mean you'd change your mind if it were legal? I rather doubt you would.
And numbers have little to do with it either. The more prostitutes there are, the less free sex is available, and therefore the more customers there are.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
As far as kids go, I'll

As far as kids go, I'll admit I haven't known many prostitutes in my day, and I've never purchased services from any of them, but I have still known and associated with a few while I was working security in downtown Toronto. All of them made as much effort as possible to get their kids into something better. To make sure their kids were going to school, and to hide their profession from them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: And no, making

Vastet wrote:
And no, making it legal would have no effect on the income, other than taxes.

And why don't the dynamics of supply and demand hold true in this one industry?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
...

Vastet wrote:
I haven't ignored anything. You do seem s bit oblivious to the situation though. Didn't you know that people can be tested for std's and get proof they are clean? Were you unaware that many prostitution houses have multiple methods of approving clientele before any risk is taken?
And no, making it legal would have no effect on the income, other than taxes. There are a few reasons why. Legality doesn't equal ethics for one. Clearly you have no interest in being a prostitute. Does that mean you'd change your mind if it were legal? I rather doubt you would.
And numbers have little to do with it either. The more prostitutes there are, the less free sex is available, and therefore the more customers there are.

I don't think I'm oblivious, still I don't live in America and don't know much about brothels. I know people can be tested for stds, I supposed also there are controls for approving the clientele, it's not that I didn't think of it; in a hypotetical case that every intercourse happened like that then ok, prostitution would be in a better situation, but it's not.

"Does that mean you'd change your mind if it were legal? I rather doubt you would.": Ok so the point is: prostitution is *not* like a common job.

Vastet wrote:
As far as kids go, I'll admit I haven't known many prostitutes in my day, and I've never purchased services from any of them, but I have still known and associated with a few while I was working security in downtown Toronto. All of them made as much effort as possible to get their kids into something better. To make sure their kids were going to school, and to hide their profession from them.

Ok then why hide their profession if there's nothing bad? (not assuming that prostitution is bad, simply deducting from their hiding)


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@Kap, I don't understand

@Kap, I don't understand what you're trying to say. I already pointed out that it IS supply & demand based, which is WHY there'd be little difference.

"It's not that I didn't think of it; in a hypotetical case that every intercourse happened like that then ok, prostitution would be in a better situation, but it's not."

BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL. Hence there is no way to use safe practices without being thrown in jail. Hence people hire random strangers off street corners to avoid jail, and those random strangers don't all gather in one place to get arrested in one sting. Hence your argument is invalid to the discussion.

"Ok so the point is: prostitution is *not* like a common job."

Yes, it is. Customer service is more immoral than prostitution. All lies and marketing tricks.

"Ok then why hide their profession if there's nothing bad? (not assuming that prostitution is bad, simply deducting from their hiding)"

We're discussing legality, not social structure of society and its ethics.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
barenaked ladies

Quote:
BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL. Hence there is no way to use safe practices without being thrown in jail.

Well, it's not illegal everywhere. I don't understand what "safe practices" has to do with jail. For safe practices you mean std tests, condoms, and all that, right?

Quote:
Yes, it is. Customer service is more immoral than prostitution. All lies and marketing tricks.

Haha, yeah, ok, abusing customers psychology is immoral, but that is not really a positive argument for neither of them. In capitalism this is functioning because you have to stimulate desire, but anyway prostitution goes very deep, much more than magazines with naked people or a perfume with a barenaked chick ad, or retouched food imagery. Also really sex and other urges (eating) have different 'paths' in our psychology.

Quote:
We're discussing legality, not social structure of society and its ethics.

Ok... no wait, I'm not sure how this is in relation to the mother hiding her prostitutioning from her child, it's not an argument about legality, is it?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Well, it's not illegal

"Well, it's not illegal everywhere."

No, and the places were it isn't illegal are SAFER. Because things like tests and condoms are REQUIRED. Because they are enforced by police and government regulations. Because you don't go to jail when you deal with the industry, there is no hiding or eluding the law necessary to maintain your freedom.

"Also really sex and other urges (eating) have different 'paths' in our psychology."

By that argument the entire food industry is immoral and contributes nothing to society. Cosmetics, sports, entertainment, etc. are in the same boat.

You have yet to give a valid argument for keeping prostitution illegal, which is the subject at hand.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
happy now?

vastet wrote:
"Well, it's not illegal everywhere."
No, and the places were it isn't illegal are SAFER. Because things like tests and condoms are REQUIRED. Because they are enforced by police and government regulations. Because you don't go to jail when you deal with the industry, there is no hiding or eluding the law necessary to maintain your freedom.

That's a bit hasty, don't you think? Legality doesn't make it safe, education does. Some places, like vietnam or africa or south america where everything is legal, are infested with aids or some other plague.
Apart from that, I'm not really interested in legality but in "ok with our species".

vastet wrote:
"Also really sex and other urges (eating) have different 'paths' in our psychology."
By that argument the entire food industry is immoral and contributes nothing to society. Cosmetics, sports, entertainment, etc. are in the same boat.

Maybe my phrase was ill formed. I said sex has a different path (in our psychology...) respect other urges like hunger (although in sex being practically an aggression and hunger being the desire to destroy food they are in a way similar).
Food industry immoral? Well, this could be an enormous topic. I think part of it is pretty immoral: killing animals is not good, and I'm quite sure they don't want to be killed. Then yeah, there are "painless" methods of killing, but again capitalism, and the search for profit, rendered a big part of the food industry an immoral empire.
I'd say it contributes to society in the sense that we need food, but more globally do they do more harm or more good? I would think of it pretty well, because it's not so immediate.
In relation to 'the argument', no, the comparing to prostitution is not admitted. You can exchange sex without the need to 'elaborate' it or 'produce' it like you have to do for the food.

vastet wrote:
You have yet to give a valid argument for keeping prostitution illegal, which is the subject at hand.

To me it seems it's not like that. Have you ever offered anything more than analogies or pragmatic reality without analysing the consequences? I don't recall.
By removing pimps or 'middle men' we are not counting the majority of prostitution. But the argument is not even "I want to maintain prostitution illegal", the original argument was "I never heard, read, or saw of a 'happy' prostitute, one that feels satisfied with her life". I asked a report on her and her life, nothing more, because I said that everything I read about does not convey a positive outcome of prostitution. About the development of the prostitute's personality and sexuality, you might go look the 'normality' argument in my previous posts, eventually.
Keep in mind I'm against the prostitution as defined by me in this thread, which is I think the most common definition (in fact it's not mine). The prostitute, in this case, does not involves herself in the intercourse (because it's "just work''). This is the prostitution I'm against. If you pay a woman that wants to have sex with you and that partecipates in making love, then you're maybe stupid in paying but anyway that's not prostitution, it's not an exchange of sexual favors for money. This is relative to the client too: he doesn't get a satisfactory intercourse. I'm not saying the woman is like an inflatable doll, but then she's not accomodating like a consenting parter either. This is a reason for which prostitution is not useful for society. Think of it: remove money, what happens to prostitution? Expecially in a society where work is needed only casually because everything is done by machines or whatever -- I know it's hypotetic, but a extreme/ideal situation helps to test ideas.
Concluding, prostitution a job only syntactically. I can't obviously speak for every bitch in town, but really I don't care that there are maybe 0.01% of prostitutes that have their dream-life.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"That's a bit hasty, don't

"That's a bit hasty, don't you think?"

Not at all, you're simply having a hard time understanding my argument.

" Legality doesn't make it safe, education does"

Legality makes it SAFER, not necessarily 100% safe. Or do you think people like going to jail? Do you believe noone would resist incarceration?

"I said sex has a different path (in our psychology...)"

That doesn't make sense. Please elaborate.

"I think part of it is pretty immoral: killing animals is not good, and I'm quite sure they don't want to be killed."

#1 rule of existence: Kill or die.

"But the argument is not even "I want to maintain prostitution illegal", the original argument was "I never heard, read, or saw of a 'happy' prostitute, one that feels satisfied with her life"

Not true. This is what started the argument:

"So what about who chooses to do prostitution? If it is a well paying job, then it's right to go for it? Well sorry I disagree. I don't think it's a great thing to do. A job is useful for the comunity. Build something,"

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I proved you wrong and

I proved you wrong and demonstrated how prostitution was a benefit to society, at which point you suggested it was insulting to people to sell sexual favours (note that you have no right to expect everyone to share your ethical code), and you keep going back to danger which I also refuted multiple times, showing it is more dangerous as an illegal profession than it is as a legal one.

Also, fact of the matter is that some prostitutes love their job. Some don't. Sounds like most jobs to me. Until you've actually gotten the opinions of some prostitutes you're simply trying to project your personal ethics onto everyone else. It doesn't work that way.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:@Kap, I don't

Vastet wrote:
@Kap, I don't understand what you're trying to say. I already pointed out that it IS supply & demand based, which is WHY there'd be little difference. "It's not that I didn't think of it; in a hypotetical case that every intercourse happened like that then ok, prostitution would be in a better situation, but it's not." BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL. Hence there is no way to use safe practices without being thrown in jail. Hence people hire random strangers off street corners to avoid jail, and those random strangers don't all gather in one place to get arrested in one sting. Hence your argument is invalid to the discussion. "Ok so the point is: prostitution is *not* like a common job." Yes, it is. Customer service is more immoral than prostitution. All lies and marketing tricks. "Ok then why hide their profession if there's nothing bad? (not assuming that prostitution is bad, simply deducting from their hiding)" We're discussing legality, not social structure of society and its ethics.

I think there's going to be a noticeable effect on supply if there is no longer any legal consequences and no  more legal grey area doublespeak required for the business as a whole, call houses can send out "now hiring!" ads, demonstrate the ease and casualness of becoming a hooker, and even offer "employee training" -not unlike Classical Greece.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That only goes so far. Much

That only goes so far. Much like any job, not everyone is suited for prostitution.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That only goes

Vastet wrote:
That only goes so far. Much like any job, not everyone is suited for prostitution.

Tell me, how much have you read up on Europe during the Renaissance, Late Modern, Early Industrial Revolution, and Victorian Era? Well, however much, my guess is "not anywhere near enough".

Because if you had, you'd understand that everyone's a potential prostitute when it's the only means of getting food and shelter. In fact, I'd wager there are far fewer women compatible with the stay-at-home wife lifestyle of the early 60s than there is women compatible with whoring. Of course, women nowadays have a great many more potential career paths and income sources than either being a prostitute, a courtesan, or a domestically-apt baby factory, unlike the time periods specified.

Plus, there is the old saying that "Everyone has a price".

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It isn't the 1800's, come

It isn't the 1500's or the 1800's, come back to today. You seriously going to tell me that without massive economic and political collapse that everyone will jump into prostitution? I'll laugh at you now.
Also laughing at you for suggesting everyone in the past was a prostitute. I'm sure the royal families were all slinging it in the street corners for an extra buck.
Clearly you're the one who needs to bone up on history. Pun intended.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It isn't the

Vastet wrote:
It isn't the 1500's or the 1800's, come back to today. You seriously going to tell me that without massive economic and political collapse that everyone will jump into prostitution? I'll laugh at you now. Also laughing at you for suggesting everyone in the past was a prostitute. I'm sure the royal families were all slinging it in the street corners for an extra buck. Clearly you're the one who needs to bone up on history. Pun intended.

You're putting words in my mouth again. Why?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not putting words in

I'm not putting words in your mouth, and you're arguing against points I'm not making, so I'm just rolling with it. I never once said that people are incapable of incredible things when their lives are on the line, in fact I've said the opposite multiple times in this thread. It was the very base of my defence of prostitution. Your subsequent attack on my knowledge of history was simultaneously ridiculous, misdirected, false, and irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm not putting

Vastet wrote:
I'm not putting words in your mouth, and you're arguing against points I'm not making, so I'm just rolling with it. I never once said that people are incapable of incredible things when their lives are on the line, in fact I've said the opposite multiple times in this thread. It was the very base of my defence of prostitution. Your subsequent attack on my knowledge of history was simultaneously ridiculous, misdirected, false, and irrelevant.

Fair enough, though it probably helps that I don't have the resolve to glance over this entire thread and push the issue further.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
balls to that

vastet wrote:
"That's a bit hasty, don't you think?"
Not at all, you're simply having a hard time understanding my argument.

No, it's not like that. But to me seems that you are a bit superficial on your arguments. Maybe you've been forged through 1000 battles with theists, I don't know, but it doesn't seem to me that you have the right spirit (metaphorically speaking).

vastet wrote:
" Legality doesn't make it safe, education does"
Legality makes it SAFER, not necessarily 100% safe. Or do you think people like going to jail? Do you believe noone would resist incarceration?

I can present to you at least one person that likes going to jail. Do you know the Sarah Scazzi case? The fake assassin is currently lying because he likes to stay in prison.
I have no problem admitting mine was a provocation, still legality and jail have less to do with "making it safe" than education. Jail, executions, and fines never did much to stop criminal acts on large scale.
Anyway yes, legality is supposed to make it safer, and I have no problems with that.

vastet wrote:
"I said sex has a different path (in our psychology...)"
That doesn't make sense. Please elaborate.

Rudely assuming you never interested in psychology it's still easy to see that: sexuality depends on where you grow, and so it manifests in different habits. Eating is instead very basic and the habits are tied only to what you are used to eat (or better, to not eat, like bugs usually). (and then I mean, how much did it take to understand that sex makes babies? a crapload of time -- even today if one doesn't inform about sex then he/she wouldn't know what to do with his/her genitals).
You need to eat every certain period, usually at least two times a day. It's a very biological need. With sex you have desire, culture, eventually problems like paraphilia... Then as I said the two acts of making sex and eating contain, superficially, some analogies, but it practically stops there.
If you want me to quote something I think I can work on that, but probably it would be better to directly link an essay or exchange books. Just to prevent complications: I'm not a psychologist, ok? I'm a computer programmer.

vastet wrote:
"I think part of it is pretty immoral: killing animals is not good, and I'm quite sure they don't want to be killed."
#1 rule of existence: Kill or die.

That is a weak argument. Do you want to keep it like that? Do you like to kill things? Personally I sort of like meat, and practically it's better for me if I don't stop eating it. Still we have the possibility to "make" eat instead of killing animals by "growing" it in labs.
Really, this is one of the worst things you could have come by, and I mean extrapolating ethics from biology which is what normally a theist does to show that evolution is wrong. I think you need to reflect on it.

vastet wrote:
"But the argument is not even "I want to maintain prostitution illegal", the original argument was "I never heard, read, or saw of a 'happy' prostitute, one that feels satisfied with her life"
Not true. This is what started the argument:
"So what about who chooses to do prostitution? If it is a well paying job, then it's right to go for it? Well sorry I disagree. I don't think it's a great thing to do. A job is useful for the comunity. Build something,"

Again your ingenuousness is devastating. It doesn't matter if a prostitute tells you she's happy. She could be lying, maybe she doesn't know if she is really happy, but even then it doesn't matter entirely because she couldn't know her place in the society and how she acts in it... I don't want to ignore her needs, but *if* her profession is "damaging our species" (and probably she's damaging herself too) we have to try to explain it to the people.

vastet wrote:
I proved you wrong and demonstrated how prostitution was a benefit to society, at which point you suggested it was insulting to people to sell sexual favours (note that you have no right to expect everyone to share your ethical code), and you keep going back to danger which I also refuted multiple times, showing it is more dangerous as an illegal profession than it is as a legal one.
Also, fact of the matter is that some prostitutes love their job. Some don't. Sounds like most jobs to me. Until you've actually gotten the opinions of some prostitutes you're simply trying to project your personal ethics onto everyone else. It doesn't work that way.

Your attempt to show that prostitution is a benefit to society will not be considered (and therefore will be fallacious) until you'll tell me what prostitution would be in a society without money. Economics and power rules prostitution. Remove them (auspicable because their are malign) and at least the majority prostitution would vanish.
It's impossible that I said it's insulting to sell your body. I don't remember being used the word 'insult' ever, but above that I wouldn't care of insults. Most certainly what I said was something else.
My personal ethics probably has never been subject of any argument here, so nothing valid on those objections.
In the end if your definition of a job doesn't go against something like "hey, they're paying me for kill people, so it's a job" I think I can't have anything to say. Like I don't have anything to say to you if you don't actually answer to the things I write, so if there's not a dialogue.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: You're too focused on

1: You're too focused on your own opinions and fail to realise not everyone is like you.

2: Presenting one person is not evidence that people in general want to go to jail. Countered.
The fact that most people are NOT in jail is evidence that people in general DON'T want to go to jail. It's easy as pie to go. Refuted.

3: Clearly you have no idea what we know about sex. It is as base a desire as the desire for food, shelter, and safety. It is the driving force of all life.

4: Your opinion is irrelevant. All life exists by consuming other life. Period. Regardless of your feelings.

5: Maybe she's lying when she says she's unhappy. Every one of your arguments is subjective to you and riddled with emotion, while lacking entirely in logic. As such you've already lost, and I'm tired of wasting my time on you.

Note to the uneducated: before mone,y goods were traded based on their perceived value.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


fortitude
Science Freak
fortitude's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Because some of us still have evangelizing relatives

And we have to limit arguing with them to keep the peace.  I tried to talk my twin sister out of using facebook to constantly testify to her relationship with god to our mutual friends and family.  Didn't work.  I come from an evangelical background and I think that's why it matters to me what people believe.  Some people find the topic totally uninteresting.  I have a family history of people who found religion extremely important.  I just happen to disagree with that heritage fundamentally.  I like to provide a little salt and light among the christian overabundance of opinions.  I'm trying to find ways of doing that which respect my world view and don't degrade it.  There's a fine line between pithy and obnoxious, and I'm trying to find it.  For me, it's about one beer Smiling.  I'm a booze lightweight.

I'm tired of feeling like I'm 'in the closet'. When I actually say what I think about a particular subject (ex. role of women, abortion, politics, parenting, etc), I am dismissed as having an invalid world view.

"There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right." Martin Luther King


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
va a travaja'

Vastet wrote:
1: You're too focused on your own opinions and fail to realise not everyone is like you.

2: Presenting one person is not evidence that people in general want to go to jail. Countered. The fact that most people are NOT in jail is evidence that people in general DON'T want to go to jail. It's easy as pie to go. Refuted.

3: Clearly you have no idea what we know about sex. It is as base a desire as the desire for food, shelter, and safety. It is the driving force of all life.

4: Your opinion is irrelevant. All life exists by consuming other life. Period. Regardless of your feelings.

5: Maybe she's lying when she says she's unhappy. Every one of your arguments is subjective to you and riddled with emotion, while lacking entirely in logic. As such you've already lost, and I'm tired of wasting my time on you.

Note to the uneducated: before mone,y goods were traded based on their perceived value.

1. Why don't you argue against my post but against me? Tell me where I wrote "hopinions", you have built no argument. I realise "not everyone is like me", you know? Maybe I don't know a lot of people, but sure they are different in almost every aspects, between themselves and between they and me.

2. Sure, most people don't want to go in jail. Where I ever said it's the other way? I just said someone likes it. Most of the people who are incarcerated for a lot of time, though, are scared to return in the reality "outside".

3. This argument is not relevant as never entered the discussion. I never said sex counts nothing. You just built something and argued against it.

4. Again state where did I wrote about my 'feelings'?! Do you want to be killed and eaten?! That life exists consuming other life is irrelevant!

5. Please, leave the word "logic" out of the way, thanks. Most of the time it's used without effect, a bit like the expression "non sequitur". You just surrender at the first difficulty, like, I'm not proud to say, Kapkao (sorry but you have been a disappointment). If you want to continue, there's no problem. But you have to do your job. Like this point, what the prostitute says to you: why should you be assuming her honesty? I want facts, not "she said that..."; want an analogy? What if a priest tells you he's happy and goes around converting people to christianity? Or he's a pedophile? What about a kamikaze that says he's happy in doing a suicide mission? Do you trust them?

Goods were traded before money, but that's another story. Money are global, you cannot compare a shephard exchanging chickens for sheeps and a virtual title which value is based on gold reserves and the financial and economic system of a nation.

I think you should give a look at your posts to understand if you really wanted to talk with me and what is your level of effort. If I may, what I dislike of you is that you take everything as absolute, and you don't maintain a pacific behavior. You could ask, if something doesn't seem to be written in accord with your interpretation of reality, you know?

In the end what you seems to lack is patience (and objectives...). With perseverance, if you want to obtain something, with time you'll walk the road and eventually arrive at the end.


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
xXx

Well anyway if someone wants to says something, I'm here. Maybe a feminine outlook could be healthy.

 

I would put these categories:

A) the prostitute does not want to have sex with you

   A.1) she has to comply, you pay

   A.2) she can tell you to search for someone else

B) the prostitute is ok with having sex with you

and then

I) the prostitute is involved in the act

II) the prostitute is not involved

Where it's prostitution int these situations?

There is to remember that there are gray situations (maybe she is convinced but not much: she accepts but then she wants to stop: what now?), that there are other factors (the client, the prostitute's life), and that I don't think of prostitution as a job (a job could require my hands, my feets, my mind, whatever, but not my genitals; a job in the middle at this point would be porn, but that is particular).

Suggestions and studies are accepted (everyone is invited to search for prostitution on google scholar or your preferred place).

I'm open to discussing on other things I said too, for example that maybe prostitution could end.