posted
I must say that the practice of prostitution has been given a bad name. Yet, I see it everywhere. Men who pay for sex are simply either pre-occupied or too lazy. If they wanted to save some cash, they could simply spend 15 minutes everyday grooming themselves, and then hitting up the clubs every night. Sure, they would spend $20 to $40 on drinks and maybe three or four hours of hitting on a girl, but they would still get sex. And, honestly, what is the difference between simply paying a woman to have sex, and looking nice and buying them drinks to have sex? I can extend this analogy even further. What if someone decides, in fact, to spend several hours every day or week in courtship, for weeks or months, until marriage? In such case, they would have achieved the required social steps for sex. In that case, they are still just giving in a certain amount of time and effort to satisfy their sexual libido. If a man spends hours laboring at his profession, is paid, and then spends this money on a prostitute, how is this different from a man spending hours hitting on a woman and then her finally accepting his sexual proposal? I cannot find one difference in any of these circumstances that would make prostitution immoral or unethical.
Yes, there is the difference that in one of these cases, money is specifically offered for sex. I am not denying this at all. The only thing I question is the exchange of money for sexual matters? Whether sex was paid for or whether it was obtained through that clever game of sexual selection and competition, it is all irrelevant. Just because sex was paid for in one instance, I do not think it should be outlawed or condemned. As humane and rational men, the source of our ethical imperatives comes from one idea. It is the idea that our actions improve, better, and aid the lives of those around us. This can be done in a number of ways. If our actions can be judged as increasing the pleasure of others, and decreasing the misery of others, then it should be said that our actions are ethical, that they have done some good, that they have decreased misery and increased happines. With this ethical ideal understood, there can be no argument against prostitution. The system of buying and selling sex has been, and will continue to be, a means of mutual satisfaction: the cash for the prostitute, and the pleasure for the customer.
I believe the greatest amount of opposition to prostitution that comes today is simply an animosity against the sex act in general. Those same individuals who oppose prostitution probably support the law of statutory rape. They believe that if a consenting 18 year old had sex with a consenting 17 year old, that it was a tragic act, that it permanently scarred the 17 year old and that the heart of the 18 year old was stone cold. The same people who oppose legalizing prostitution also oppose distribution of contraceptive devices, arguing that "if sex is safe, then more sex will be committed." These people would rather that disease infest and destroy the bodies of young people than allow them to take happiness in the comfort of each others' bodies. The puritanical spirit is still among our society, unfortunately, and it is the people who are paying for it. Venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy effects all ages and races. By doing all we can to eliminate these social ills, we are elevating the spirit of humanity, the creed of kinship, the bond that may be called our experience together.
Among the primary arguments of those who oppose prostitution, there is the purity argument. It is not a question of the disease spread by illegal prostitutes, or of the criminal element associated with it, but rather, it is a matter of purity. By allowing people to exchange sex for cash, we are allowing people to engage in impure acts, which are destructive towards themselves. My response to this is simple: irrelevant. It is irrelevant whether an action is judged to be pure. I believe that allowing children to live in poverty, allowing armies of unemployed to starve, and restricting the flow of information is impure. It is impure to build palaces when there are still men and women without homes. If it was impure to feed the homeless, should we make it illegal? If it was pure to murder and rape, should we make them legal? Of course not. The term "pure"is meaningless. If conservatives are simply going to apply it without any purpose, then it is with complete disregard for morality and the goodness of mankind.
The questions I would like to ask these conservative thinkers are these: by what standard can you define anything as pure? What is the scale? And, once this is decided, how is it relevant to anything? If it happens that murder is impure, that holds no relevance over whether it is legal. Murder is illegal because it causes suffering and misery, and so is the same reason why rape or assault is illegal. If it happens that helping the innocent escape an evil fate is pure, it has nothing to do with the law. It is legal to help innocent people because it eliminates misery and suffering. So, when we decide to judge something such as prostitution, and if it weighs out to being impure, why should this even aid in our decision? After all, prostitution, much like the sex act alone, creates happiness and pleasure for many. It is a mutually benefiting relationship. That is why it must be legalized.
There are still some other considerations to think about. For example, what about those prostitutes who are not willingly prostitutes? What of those prostitutes who engage in the practice for the sake of obtaining food and not for the sake of choosing it as a profession? Some will argue that prostitution allows people to sell their bodies, even though the practice scars their minds. I will admit, this is very true. Yet, it cannot be denied that every profession contains people who are scarred by their labor. People lament about the Mexican laborers, whose rights are violated daily as they are forced to work 14 hours a day. Consider the American laborer who lives in a closet and works 10 hours a day so he can have nothing. The decades of their lives spent living in such poverty and misery, inflicted on the lives of hundreds of millions of people. There is no doubt that professions all over the world have allowed for so much misery, pain, and cruelty. They exist solely because of the exploitive, oppressive relationships that are allowed to flourish in society. The problem is not prostitution. The problem is the poverty of a Capitalist economy. If the scarring of prostitution, or any other profession, is to be eliminated, we need Socialism on our law books. It is the only savior of the proletariat.
Before ending, there is one other matter that should to be discussed. It is the matter of the rights of women, of Feminism, of sexism versus sexuality. Feminists will argue that prostitution will only make women seem more like objects and less like individuals with interests and emotions. First, there is a double standard. There are gigolos, or male prostitutes, and one might inquire how this impacts the image women have of men. Some might agree, and believe that both institutions should be abolished. Yet, such an action would be too hasty and reckless. Sex, regardless if it was paid, is usually about satisfying an urge. A Feminist might as well say that men and women shouldn't have sex with each other, to prevent them from having sexual thoughts about each other, or from developing ideas about the other gender. No doubt, everyone will disagree with such a social plan. Eliminating sex will perhaps cause the greatest misery in society. And, the fact that nobody wants to eliminate sex, is fair and good evidence that the spirit of Puritanism is slowly but surely dying. Whether prostitution will put a prejudice in the mind of men is not something that can be battled by prohibiting prostitution, but only by a real and honest education given to all people, so they can appreciate the relationships they have with each other.
If society were to accept prostitution as a valid form of pleasure, entertainment, and employment, then the ills commonly associated with it would become nonexistent. The disease that is spread through unprotected sex would become extremely limited and restricted. With regulatory laws, these sex workers would be required to have protected sex. And, with safe sex, those who purchased the services of these employees would be safe.
There is no doubt prostitution should be legalized. For some time, casual sex without commitment was a matter of law. It was illegal. But today, we are smart enough to understand and believe that what two consenting people do behind closed doors is their business only. It is not a crime to make awkward artwork or read obscure literature, but for a long time it was illegal, punished with death and torture. Yet as time has worn on, we have become more humane, more rational, more passionate about the rights of the people and the liberties of the individual. It is no longer a crime to read banned books, it is no longer a crime to revel in obscure artworks, it is no longer a crime to have consensual sex. Yet... It is still a matter of law when it comes to exchanging sex for cash.
As the spirit of progress is guided by the flame of reason, we must change these laws.
posted
If it was legalized it would have to be strictly monitered with strict disease testing and forms of birth control. Minors as prostitutes and minors going to prostitutes would also have to be watched. I guess it could work but who is going to pay the taxes for the enforcers or lawmen for prostitution. All of us working people....
quote:Originally posted by Cain: If it was legalized it would have to be strictly monitered with strict disease testing and forms of birth control. Minors as prostitutes and minors going to prostitutes would also have to be watched. I guess it could work but who is going to pay the taxes for the enforcers or lawmen for prostitution. All of us working people....
The taxes that the brothels would have to pay on their revenue would probably be a pretty substantial amount actually.
posted
Me being a socially conservative when it comes to stuff like this, I would be against it. I do understand that its a service between two (or more, depending on how you like to party) agreeing parties, its just the morality that bothers me.
There's so many other things you'd throw into the mix, like pimps, madams, drug pushers, STDs, underage participants, etc., a lot comes with the package no matter how much you try to regulate it. But hey, in Virginia, they sell cigarettes and beer at gas stations so go figure. It always seemed ironic to me.
Posts: 190 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prostitution is already legalized - it's called "dating".
Okay, that was the bitter misogynist in me speaking.
Even as a conservative, I don't have any real problem with legalization of it. I recognize the fact that human beings (regardless of fundamentalist opinions) are animals and, like all animals, have a sex drive. Men seem to be especially vulnerable to the urgency of the desire. Moreover, it is in the very nature of the male to seek variety (Nature's way of spreading as many genetic combinations as quickly and as widely as possible). Meanwhile, woman seek stability and security; where once this might have been found under the aegis of an alpha-male, money by itself can provide that now. Prostitution can satisfy both parties in the arrangement.
Legalization would also mean regulation; there are pluses and minuses to this:
On the plus-side, it would make the situation safer for both participants, not just from a health standpoint but by preventing the bulk of ancillary crimes that often accompany prostitution such as muggings or blackmail. Prostitutes have always been very vulnerable to attack (e.g. the Green River Serial Murders).
On the minus-side, it means the government is involved. When have you known the government to be good at anything except waging war and sucking the money out of people's pockets?
The morality of it is (or should be) up to the individual. If they disapprove, then they shouldn't participate.
Though the idea of it strikes me as a little seedy, even in places in the U.S. where it is legal, I also wonder, if the price was right, how great it would be to hold the feet of Sharon Kane, Jeanna Fine, Tyffany Mynx, Sunset Thomas, or Brianna Banks (a very small list) in my own hands and, perhaps, rub my tallywhacker against them.
Here's an afterthought regarding feminists: The outcry is about men exploiting women. A 10 minute visit to any strip bar will reveal the truth about who is actually exploiting whom. Those who railed against it most were the likes of Andrea Dworkin. Please Google an image of her and, by all means, read some of her rants. One look at her will tell you that the only thing for which men would pay her is to leave the room...more likely the county.
quote:Originally posted by Toetapper: [QB] Prostitution is already legalized - it's called "dating".
Okay, that was the bitter misogynist in me speaking.
actually no you're not bitter at all, it's just the truth
they're all basically prostitutes, i don't know how somebody can argue against that
-------------------- quote: ---------------------------------- posted by Andy - Laa: my posts in this thread are not as good as Michael P's Posts: 3024 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
haha this is what you all do when i say this in person
the truth hurts
-------------------- quote: ---------------------------------- posted by Andy - Laa: my posts in this thread are not as good as Michael P's Posts: 3024 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hal: Over here in Germany prostitution is legal since 2002.
-Hal-
Same here in New Zealand since Dec 2003.
-------------------- "When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit" - Dr Emmit L. Brown (Back To The Future) Posts: 7894 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Tongue]](tongue.gif)
i ask this then if it's considered prostitution when a woman is putting out on a "date" what is it called when a man does it?
