- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,248
- Reaction score
- 2,439
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I think everything you said should be legal
Even for the mentally handicapped or crack addicts?
I think everything you said should be legal
Even for the mentally handicapped or crack addicts?
I don't understand why you and a few other men are getting so emotional. God forbid someone should take away your hookers, right?
A real man can have a rational debate without getting emotional.
There is a difference between prostitution and escorts. hence the reason that the two are seperated by two completely different words. Prostitution usually happens in the streets or a brothel. Escorts happen in neither.
Why would people want to sleep with someone who's drunk anyway, whether the person is a prostitute or not? Are people really that hard up? I try to avoid drunk people personally. I find them obnoxious and annoying, of if they're really drunk, just plain disgusting.
This is in direct response to the "should prostitution be legal" thread, and is intended to make you think. It surprises me how many of you answered "yes" to the question, this in spite of all the data which shows prostitutes suffer from a variety of diseases and psychological disorders - including heightened suicide rates - as a direct result of their profession.
Therefore, you are saying it's OK to pay someone to harm themselves as long as both parties are consenting. Fine, but how far are you willing to take this logic?
Here is a hypothetical question, answer it "yes" or "no."
Suppose a sadistic billionaire went around offering poor people a million dollars each to have their eyes removed. The procedure would be carried out by a licensed plastic surgeon, under sedation, in a certified medical facility. Should that be legal? Both parties are consenting.
What if the sadistic billionaire offered one of your parents, or your adult children, and they accepted? Should that be legal?
What if the sadistic billionaire offered someone high on drugs, or a heavily addicted drug addict? What if they offered the elderly, or mentally impaired?
Is it simply a case of two consenting adults involved in a financial transaction, or is there more to it? Is the sadistic billionaire taking advantage of the poor person's problems?
Well, for some it's because it's easier to get someone to sleep with you when they're drunk, what with the lowering of inhibitions and all. And for others it's because they want to sleep with the person anyway, and don't care that they're drunk.
I sleep with my wife pretty much every time she's drunk, since drinking makes her horny and I'm not going to say no.
Here's the difference I see in the scenario. If someone were to just cut out their eyes for free, they would be considered mentally ill. Even if they asked a doctor to do it (and no doctor who was licensed and wanted to keep their license would do it, not to mention the ethical problems with this). Even if they were asked to do it by someone else just for that person's amusement.
However, in the case of prostitution, the act itself that is being sold is not considered something that would be seen as a mentally ill or really is considered a natural part of life. Almost every person on the planet participates in this act, some even with some monetary/asset/financial gain of some kind when it wasn't part of a contract/agreement. The only part of the act that makes it illegal or even seen as wrong is when money is offered for it.
The two things are not comparable. The act itself, when it comes to cutting out your healthy eyes, even without being paid is seen as a sign of mental illness and for good reason. It destroys a perfectly functioning part of your body for no medical reason but in a way that limits (severely) the operation of your body. Just having sex does not destroy a part of a person's body, particularly not in a way that would severely limit the operation of your body.
That is where the biggest difference lies, the comparison of the acts in relation to whether money is offered or not. They are on opposite sides of the spectrum. One is considered more acceptable (by some) when money is offered while the other is considered more acceptable (in general) when it is done for free.
After sifting through the last 5 pages of absolute garbage replies that don't merit so much as a response, I have to say your answer is refreshingly lucid and thought-inspiring.
You are right, sex in itself is not harmful, whereas removing one's eyes is quite harmful. Indeed, sex can be quite beautiful. On the other hand, it can be quite horrible (rape, incest, for example). Therefore, since sex can be either a good thing or a bad thing, consider whether these women are having sex that is enjoyable to them or horrible to them.
Consider in your own mind, not abstractly but as a woman... I'm sure you would never think of having sex with a series of random, nasty old men for $500. You would most likely feel ashamed of yourself afterwards, feel dirty, and you would question what kind of person you are and your own self-worth.
The damage done by prostitution is to the self-esteem of these women, which, while not being as graphic as gouging one's eyes out, is still quite real damage.
After sifting through the last 5 pages of absolute garbage replies that don't merit so much as a response, I have to say...Consider in your own mind, not abstractly but as a woman... I'm sure you would never think of having sex with a series of random, nasty old men for $500. You would most likely feel ashamed of yourself afterwards, feel dirty, and you would question what kind of person you are and your own self-worth.
The damage done by prostitution is to the self-esteem of these women, which, while not being as graphic as gouging one's eyes out, is still quite real damage.
It is hardly surprising that you found most of the responses "absolute garbage," since as the author of this poll who clearly stated from the beginning that you find the mere practice of prostitution harmful, you were hoping more people would share your belief.
Again, you are arguing from a position of pure emotion rather than fact. True, where prostitution is illegal many horrors abound. That's because the participants have no legal recourse or protections. Yet you overlook the fact that in virtually every western nation (I do not include third world nations because they do not typically have systems of law and justice that attempt to support either Law or Justice), including our own (Reno, NV) prostitutes are ALL volunteers, protected by law and required to maintain standards of health and safety.
You also overlook the fact that making it illegal does more harm than your perceived “good.” Let’s start with the fact that regardless of legality there is a “demand” for these services which has existed in practically all eras of civilized human development. That whenever there is a “demand” for something, there will always be “entrepreneurs” willing and able to meet such demands, illegal or not.
It is where it is illegal that trouble starts, because victims of human trafficking can be compelled either by fear or self-delusion to serve the needs of strangers for the profit of their owners. There you find runaway kids seduced by pimps and convinced by “love” they need to have sex for profit with strangers. There you find women and men from foreign lands who are seeking a better life ensnared into sex slavery by false offers of transport to jobs and new homes. There you find children kidnapped and kept in warehouses, whorehouses, even tents and forced to perform acts with pedophiles.
Make it legal and all that is alleviated, giving legal outlets to “johns” and willing participants in the trade, while allowing police agencies to focus on human traffickers and pedophile sex rings.
Next, as for your blanket statement that no woman “would (ever) think of having sex with a series of random, nasty old men for $500,” you’d apparently be surprised at how wrong you are. Just look at public examples (like the Xaviera Hollander (Happy Hooker), Kristen DiAngelo (American Courtesans), or Anna Gristina (The Manhattan Madam)). Women can and do choose to voluntarily participate knowing the job requires dealing with customers who probably have trouble finding sexual partners the normal way.
In any case, you set up a poll and failed to achieve your desired results. Now you want to sit back and pontificate on “morality,” when all you are actually doing is trying to foist your own brand of morality on everyone else.
Regardless, your poll “issue” is a false dilemma, because your basic premises are false. Sorry if you consider this reply more “garbage” because it disagrees with your moral assumptions, but so be it.
Trying to bring rape/incest into this is like trying to bring up having a person take your eye. You aren't voluntarily doing that action. And it isn't the action itself that is doing the harm, but rather the way the action is being done. And incest can be consensual. Incest is wrong when there is undue influence in the relationship.
I can't say what I would or wouldn't do had circumstances in my life been different. I can easily see that many women would have no issue becoming a prostitute, selling their bodies to old men because they liked the money and had no issue having sex for it. Why else would beautiful young women marry really old rich guys? (Yes, I realize this is a stereotype, but it is one for a reason.) This doesn't really affect their self-esteem because they see no issue with having sex. It is just sex, just a job to them.
You cannot prove that every prostitute, of every kind, has their self-esteem damaged because of their job. I can prove that every single person who cuts out their perfectly healthy eye will have their vision/body permanently damaged by that act. Personally, I'm willing to bet that "paid escorts" have no issues with self-esteem or what they are doing. They probably look at it as a job that pays a lot of money.
Incest is wrong, period.
This is exactly why I dismissed so many of the previous posts, and why I'm dismissing yours now. I'm not wasting one second of my life debating with someone who would for one minute apologize for incest.
Some of you really worry me.
Okay, that is your opinion. Incest however does not cause harm as you seem to believe in every case. In fact, what is considered incest can't even be agreed upon. Some places include only immediate family, others include relations as far out as 4th or further cousins, and still others did or do include inlaws.
But you still have the issue that you cannot prove that every single instance of incest causes harm, while I can still prove that every single instance of a person cutting out a perfectly healthy eye or both will cause permanent, physical harm and even impairment.
It's not my opinion, it's society's. Disgust for incest is a social norm. Knowing this is part of being properly socialized.
I stopped reading after the first sentence. Check the poll results. .
I wonder how many who voted "No" did so because they don't believe in what you propose but have zero issues with prostitution. Just looking at the names compared to the comments in this and other threads I know a good part of them voted "No" for that reason - not because they're saying "No" to prostitution as you would like to assume.I stopped reading after the first sentence. Check the poll results. .
I stopped reading after the first sentence. Check the poll results. .
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of a drunk prostitute or a drunk stranger in a bar or something on that level. I can understand that you wouldn't find your own wife to be disgusting even if she was drinking because you love her.
I wouldn't find a drunk woman disgusting, unless she was sloppy, stumbling around and throwing up drunk. I'd avoid sex with any stranger who was noticeably intoxicated just for the fear that she might press charges the next day. If I was the type to hire a hooker, I wouldn't care if she was drunk (unless she was sloppy drunk), since it's currently illegal and she'd be unlikely to press charges. If it was legal, I'd avoid a drunk hooker like I would any other drunk woman.
You can't call this poll a win for anti-prostitution, as it isn't even remotely similar.
Here's a poll where the question was directly phrased: Should prostitution be legal?
85% said yes.
The biggest difference between these two scenarios is in the billionaire scenario, the person paid is being directly harmed, and is guaranteed 100% to be harmed. Prostitution is opening yourself up to the CHANCE of being harmed. I open myself up to the chance of being harmed every day when I leave my house. I've weighed the pros and cons and have decided it's worth it. That's for everyone to decide themselves.
As I said before though, I think such a situation would be extremely rare, but if it did happen, someone should investigate to make sure that person is of sound mind and isn't being coerced. If he's doing it of his own free will, that's his decision, not yours.
It's not my opinion, it's society's. Disgust for incest is a social norm. Knowing this is part of being properly socialized.
Well, not necessarily throwing up, but the other two kind of describe a "drunk" person. No?