• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

Should the sadistic billionaire's offer be legal?

  • Total voters
    30
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.
 
MadLib said:
Even for the mentally handicapped or crack addicts?
Click to expand...

This is why the oversight exists. If it seems as though the person is medically not of his right mind, he can't legally make such an aggressive contract. Kind of like you're not supposed to go down to the courthouse to get married if you're currently high.

I think such extreme situations as presented in the OP would be extremely rare. In those rare cases, some kind of official should investigate to make sure that person is of sound mind to make the decision and isn't being coerced. If that's good, there's no reason not to let them.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...

You tried to make the whole thread based on emotions by basing it on someone losing their sight or someone killing puppies.
 
I find most people can't separate those terms at all.

Come to Las Vegas, where in the 70s we had thousands of mini-skirted girls crowding the sidewalks. They are all gone now, they get detained the moment the first patrol car comes by. Brothels, yes, apparently we still have some. Metro's Vice Unit Bust Brothel - 8 News NOW but they are rare enough (I never heard of one) that this made the headlines. The internet has completely changed the way sex is sold and 90% of the available girls could fall under the "escort" category. If you tried to recruit a group to be against stree-walkers, everybody would join. Street girls are sick, drugged, dangerous and often pimp-controlled. Nobody wants that to be legal.

But the entire industry is deemed "immoral" because of a tiny minority. This is the same mentality that says that because of a few criminal gun owners, we must illegalize guns. How little sense that makes. So, I wantd to ckarify what you meant by "prostitution" is immoral. Slavery is immoral, not prostitution, and I use that word because 87% of the population doesn't realize that other terms mean other things.



Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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?
Click to expand...

I did not vote on this issue because it is an illogical argument.

You start off by making a personal statement of belief: "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."

Then you offer a false premise: "Therefore, you are saying it's OK to pay someone to harm themselves as long as both parties are consenting," which creates a false dilemma.

Finally, you provide a straw man argument (billionaire sadist) to try to support your "false continuum" i.e. if one supports legalization of prostitution it means postitutes suffer abuse legally, and so we would also allows sadistic abuse simply because the victim s being paid for it.

The problem is that your basic assumption is false...legalizing prostitution will not encourage abuses; instead it will alleviate the conditions that lead to such abuses. That because it allows for regulation, inspection, medical controls, zoning, business licensing, and free criminal justice resources to pursue the real criminals, i.e. human traffickers, pimps, abusive johns (like your billionaire sadist), etc.

Finally, making it legal and inspectable will also serve to insure that participants are all voluntary, and have recourse to social support resources if problems arise.

That's why I voted YES. You should read my reply in that poll.
 
molten_dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after the first sentence. Check the poll results. .
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not my opinion, it's society's. Disgust for incest is a social norm. Knowing this is part of being properly socialized.
 
Peter Grimm said:
It's not my opinion, it's society's. Disgust for incest is a social norm. Knowing this is part of being properly socialized.
Click to expand...

In what era?

Today we object because we know it ****s up the gene pool.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I stopped reading after the first sentence. Check the poll results. .
Click to expand...

I was writing based upon the original numbers when I posted my first reply. I stand corrected by the current poll numbers only to the extent that ALL parties, both yea and nay, who participated fell for the false dilemma you created with this poll.

Your original premise is essentially "all prostitution is harmful." You follow that up with a second premise "therefore legal prostitution is harmful." Finally you create your final assumption "if prostitution causes some form of harm then I can compare it to actual physical harm" in order to show how bad supporting legalized prostitution is.

Thus you equate the short-term loan of the use of ones body to permanent physical damages thereby creating a false dilemma with your poll example of the "sadistic billionaire paying to remove an eye."

Of course one should not sell parts of ones body to sate the sadistic pleasure of anyone; it is a physically destructive act. But to equate that with loaning ones body for someone else's temporary pleasure while maintaining control over it's ultimate use? No comparison at all.

Now since the remainder of my prior post proved how wrong your basic premise is, I can understand how you would be bored by it. You've made up your mind and that is perfectly okay.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I stopped reading after the first sentence. Check the poll results. .
Click to expand...
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.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I stopped reading after the first sentence. Check the poll results. .
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChrisL said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
molten_dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, not necessarily throwing up, but the other two kind of describe a "drunk" person. No?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't call it that. :roll:

I wish I could delete this thread I started. You guys are absolutely insufferable.
 
Peter Grimm said:
It's not my opinion, it's society's. Disgust for incest is a social norm. Knowing this is part of being properly socialized.
Click to expand...

It is society's opinion now that certain forms of incest is harmful.

However, not all forms of incest that are illegal are harmful. First cousins having children only raises the chance of a genetic disorder from 2% normally to 4%. This is a small increase, especially compared to other things that can increase the risk for offspring to have genetic problems. There is no chance of genetic disorders from two people of the same sex who are closely related having a relationship or from an incestuous relationship where one is infertile or cannot have children because there is no chance of offspring between them.

Then the subject goes to undue influence. This undue influence would be most likely to happen when the older participant in the relationship was a major influential factor in the child's life or when there was some abuse/neglect happening in the family. This really isn't a factor if the younger of the two is older when they meet, such was the case in a legal battle that granted two siblings the right to marry when they met after they were adults.

There are logical reasons to object to some forms of incest, but that doesn't mean that people haven't gone too far in what is considered incest. Some states/countries do/did have laws that included in-laws as incestuous relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom