Why is prostitution immoral?

[sm625]

In our patriarchal society the standards are set to limit the power and opportunity that women have. By taking away their power to engage in sex for profit they control a method that women can use to obtain freedom.

clap clap, at least one person gets it. They make it illegal so they can seize the wealth and assets anyone acquires through prostitution. It has nothing to do with morality, absolutely nothing. Most people who are against prostitution also happen to support wars that have costed millions of lives in this century alone. They are not moral, they seek only power. And power is what they get; no "DC madam" will ever have any power because their wealth is not shielded by basic laws. It can be confiscated at will because it was "obtained illegally". Illegally, but not immoraly. Again, those who protest prostitution do not seem to have any issue with trillions in opium pouring out of afghanistan and onto the streets (and into the drug companies profits).

 

[blackangst1]

But do their kids deserve our support?

Yes. We should take them from their natural parents and put them into better homes.

/end sarcasm

 

[PingSpike]

One thing is for sure, prostitutes are subjected to more abuse and are less safe because it is illegal to be a prostitute.

You can argue whether it is moral or not but it isn't really an interesting question because the answer wouldn't change anything. The demand is there and it isn't going away. Most of the demand could be met with regulated brothels where the women receive medical care and professional protection. Instead it will be met by desperate women working illegally with no protection or that of some sort of criminal element or through human trafficking.

 

[MotF Bane]

One thing is for sure, prostitutes are subjected to more abuse and are less safe because it is illegal to be a prostitute.

You can argue whether it is moral or not but it isn't really an interesting question because the answer wouldn't change anything. The demand is there and it isn't going away. Most of the demand could be met with regulated brothels where the women receive medical care and professional protection. Instead it will be met by desperate women working illegally with no protection or that of some sort of criminal element or through human trafficking.

Absolutely true.

 

[BoberFett]

Craig presents the left's perspective on the "immorality" of prostitution, as if these were the real reasons why it is illegal. They aren't. We know this for 100% certain because prostitution has been illegal since time immemorial and these feminist style arguments were never made until really the latter half of the 20th century. The interesting point here is how the "feminists" come in 100's of years after the fact, and "coincidentally" come to the same conclusion as religious moralists about prostitution and pornography.

Yet if you examine the left/feminist arguments, you find the same sort of paternalistic chauvinism that you find with traditional religious morality. The idea that women are "coerced or exploited" is based on the assumption that a woman would never freely choose to be sexually open. Only men can do that. In traditional morality, a woman who is sexually free is a sinner and a whore, corrupted by Satan. With feminism, she is a victim of male aggression, from the pornographer, the John, or some other abuser. In neither is it acknowledghed that she may be a fully automous actor, capable of making her own decisions, and, gasp, either enjoys or does not mind having sex with multiple partners. If a woman is overtly sexual, she must have been corrupted, either by Satan or the Evil Male Abuser.

Scratch a feminist, especially a male one, and you'll find a dowdy sexual moralist in disguise. They're products of the same society as the religious moralists. They've just decided that they're not religious and so they cloak their chauvinism in secular terms.

- wolf

Well said. In fact I think you'd be able to make the same argument about many "progressive" positions from self-proclaimed progressives such as Craig. I don't trust a single one of them, their righteous attitudes smack more of religious fervor than anything else. Just see the other thread regarding meth for more evidence of the Holy Progressive Crusade against sin.

 

[BoberFett]

Well when you find the one non-abused, non-coerced prostitute, I will stand with your argument.

Go

Find her

I'm waiting

You think high priced escorts were abused and coerced?

 

[MotF Bane]

You think high priced escorts were abused and coerced?

Of course! A woman cannot choose to have sex for money, she must have been forced!

*tap tap*

 

[jackstar7]

You think high priced escorts were abused and coerced?

Ohhhh... do you ask all yours about it and then you can mark it on the expense report as "polling data"?

 

[piasabird]

yeah prostitutes should have to pay a %25 tax and be forced to have a medical checkup once a month for STD screening, and also be forced to have a list of their clients, that they turn into the government.

 

[MotF Bane]

yeah prostitutes should have to pay a %25 tax and be forced to have a medical checkup once a month for STD screening, and also be forced to have a list of their clients, that they turn into the government.

*tap tap tap*

 

[Ninjahedge]

The theory of morality and prostitution stems from natural law.

The fact that most men want to schtup anything that moves and protect the women from being schtupped by anyone else is a genetic procreation kind of thing.

Society has then translated that into it being more acceptable for a guy to fool around (some allowing it so long as he can support his progeny) than a woman.

Add to that the fact that until recently, most women had no means to support themselves (let alone their kid). So sleeping around was a sure-fire way to have a kid that may not survive (again, natural law).

Most of our laws and morality come from base instinct and nature and have only been screwed up after a few millenia of "intelligence".

 

[woolfe9999]

Well said. In fact I think you'd be able to make the same argument about many "progressive" positions from self-proclaimed progressives such as Craig. I don't trust a single one of them, their righteous attitudes smack more of religious fervor than anything else. Just see the other thread regarding meth for more evidence of the Holy Progressive Crusade against sin.

Yes, there are a number of positions taken by some people on the left that can easily be shredded. The same is true on the right. What makes this point particularly interesting is the union between the two: both left wing feminists and right wing religious moralists come to the same conclusion, and the different reasoning may just be window dressing to cloak the similarity in motive. If you think about it, opposition to prostitution is a conservative idea - the notion of maintaining the traditional family paradigm, and its attendant male>female power structure.

 

[BoberFett]

Yes, there are a number of positions taken by some people on the left that can easily be shredded. The same is true on the right. What makes this point particularly interesting is the union between the two: both left wing feminists and right wing religious moralists come to the same conclusion, and the different reasoning may just be window dressing to cloak the similarity in motive. If you think about it, opposition to prostitution is a conservative idea - the notion of maintaining the traditional family paradigm, and its attendant male>female power structure.

The typical thought of left/right politics as a line is and always has been incorrect. It's a circle. The more to the left you go, the more to the right you are, and vice versa.

Just look at people Dubya. He believes so much in "freedom" that he's going to bring it to the rest of the world whether they want it or not. And Craig would gladly keep women in the kitchen, for their own protection from evil men of course.

 

[Infohawk]

In neither is it acknowledghed that she may be a fully automous actor, capable of making her own decisions, and, gasp, either enjoys or does not mind having sex with multiple partners. at they're not religious and so they cloak their chauvinism in secular terms.

- wolf

Enjoys having sex with multiple partners? Come on. Do you really think they're having sex with the hottest guys at the bar? No, they are having sex with anyone, frequently the worst because the hottest guys usually get sex for free. And they call it work for a reason. People aren't usually paid to do fun things. Also, you're ignoring some basic biology. Women are designed to be more selective than men. They have fewer reproductive opportunities (a set number of eggs.) It's not just a cultural thing.

 

[monovillage]

The theory of morality and prostitution stems from natural law.

The fact that most men want to schtup anything that moves and protect the women from being schtupped by anyone else is a genetic procreation kind of thing.

Society has then translated that into it being more acceptable for a guy to fool around (some allowing it so long as he can support his progeny) than a woman.

Add to that the fact that until recently, most women had no means to support themselves (let alone their kid). So sleeping around was a sure-fire way to have a kid that may not survive (again, natural law).

Most of our laws and morality come from base instinct and nature and have only been screwed up after a few millenia of "intelligence".

You say that "society" finds it more acceptable for a guy to fool around, but try telling that to your wife.

 

[blackangst1]

Enjoys having sex with multiple partners? Come on. Do you really think they're having sex with the hottest guys at the bar? No, they are having sex with anyone, frequently the worst because the hottest guys usually get sex for free. And they call it work for a reason. People aren't usually paid to do fun things. Also, you're ignoring some basic biology. Women are designed to be more selective than men. They have fewer reproductive opportunities (a set number of eggs.) It's not just a cultural thing.

Without drifting too far off topic...just FYI...with exception to all but most streetwalkers, many prostitutes/escorts ARE selective. They dont, as you put it, have sex with anyone. Even a prostitute will turn down a customer.

Also, I think you may be surprised at who uses working girls. Its not always the worst of the worst. You dont think Charlie Sheen cant get girls for free?

I think when people think think of prositution they only think of the meth addicted street walker. Which is the minority.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You say that "society" finds it more acceptable for a guy to fool around, but try telling that to your wife.

I am being serious here.

It is more accepted in WORLD culture, not just our own closed circle, for men to fool around.

Men have had the right to fool around with minimal repercussion, or marry many wives, but you have rarely, if ever, seen the opposite.

 

[woolfe9999]

Enjoys having sex with multiple partners? Come on. Do you really think they're having sex with the hottest guys at the bar? No, they are having sex with anyone, frequently the worst because the hottest guys usually get sex for free. And they call it work for a reason. People aren't usually paid to do fun things. Also, you're ignoring some basic biology. Women are designed to be more selective than men. They have fewer reproductive opportunities (a set number of eggs.) It's not just a cultural thing.

Many if not most women who get into sex trades for a living, and that includes not only prostitution, but pornography and exotic dancing, were sexually open before they got into it, or they wouldn't have gotten into it to begin with. Once it becomes a job, it's more a matter of tolerating it than enjoying it, which is why I said, "either enjoys or does not mind." The fact is, some women do enjoy having sex with multiple partners. For others, it simply does not bother them and they like the money they make. Either way, in the vast majority of cases it is their choice. Criminalizing the conduct is the act of men trying to control those choices.

Biology only indicates a trend. In other words, it may support a generalization, but not a sweeping generalization. I believe that most people are biologically straight, but a smaller number are biologically gay. Similarly, some women may be biologically inclined to enjoy sex more than others. The idea that no women enjoy having sex with multiple partners and that the only reason they do it is because of some sinister force acting upon them is a demeaning, paternalistic notion that is meant to preserve the male's sexual possession of his wife or girlfriend. Men want to screw everything that moves but we want our women to be our exclusive property.

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

Many if not most women who get into sex trades for a living, and that includes not only prostitution, but pornography and exotic dancing, were sexually open before they got into it, or they wouldn't have gotten into it to begin with. Once it becomes a job, it's more a matter of tolerating it than enjoying it, which is why I said, "either enjoys or does not mind." The fact is, some women do enjoy having sex with multiple partners. For others, it simply does not bother them and they like the money they make. Either way, in the vast majority of cases it is their choice. Criminalizing the conduct is the act of men trying to control those choices.

Biology only indicates a trend. In other words, it may support a generalization, but not a sweeping generalization. I believe that most people are biologically straight, but a smaller number are biologically gay. Similarly, some women may be biologically inclined to enjoy sex more than others. The idea that no women enjoy having sex with multiple partners and that the only reason they do it is because of some sinister force acting upon them is a demeaning, paternalistic notion that is meant to preserve the male's sexual possession of his wife or girlfriend. Men want to screw everything that moves but we want our women to be our exclusive property.

- wolf

It's not just the number of partners so much as the types of partners. This is not promiscuity, this is having sex with people they likely find to be repulsive. And if you're argument is that they're simply tolerating it (which I agree with) that really takes away from what you seemed to be saying about women enjoying it.

I'm curious, do you think people should be allowed to sell their kidneys on the open market? It's a choice right? And it's risky but not necessarily deadly. Many people don't like the idea that certain things can be bought and sold. Body parts, freedom, children, and sex are pretty big ones.

In your experience, are promiscuous women, strippers, prostitutes just healthy women who are making rational choices? I can't pretend I have a lot of experiences with prostitutes and strippers but my impression is that the more sexual risky behavior women engage in, the more issues they have.

Or are you going off of data that says they are psychologically healthy and that the talk about porn actresses more likely to have been molested as kids is bogus? Like I said earlier in this thread, if someone shows me solid data indicating they are no more troubled than the rest of the population, I would change my mind on this topic. But from what I've seen, they are troubled people who should be helped rather than treated as rational free agents. If that is paternalistic, so is helping drug addicts and homeless people. Sure, you can argue they're making choices but that is the conservative viewpoint I don't associate with you all that much.

And don't think I'm necessarily saying criminalization is the right answer. I'm taking issue with your critique of the feminist view.

 

[Atreus21]

Morality is whatever we decide it to be, it doesn't need a basis in any fact. Generally our culture has some hangups about sex and I think they come through in these anti-prostitution stances.

While there is of course a huge difference between legality and morality, many of the reasons people use for why prostitution should be illegal are made worse by the fact it is illegal.

If you were to visit a culture in which murder and rape were permissible, you would just shrug and conclude, "Well, that's the way they decided it to be"?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Straw man.

 

[Murloc]

prostitution is not immoral and is perfectly legal in any country with a sufficiently progressed mentality.

It may make men look less of a man because they have to pay for sex, but that's not morality, just esteem problems.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Craig presents the left's perspective on the "immorality" of prostitution, as if these were the real reasons why it is illegal. They aren't. We know this for 100% certain because prostitution has been illegal since time immemorial and these feminist style arguments were never made until really the latter half of the 20th century. The interesting point here is how the "feminists" come in 100's of years after the fact, and "coincidentally" come to the same conclusion as religious moralists about prostitution and pornography.

Yet if you examine the left/feminist arguments, you find the same sort of paternalistic chauvinism that you find with traditional religious morality. The idea that women are "coerced or exploited" is based on the assumption that a woman would never freely choose to be sexually open. Only men can do that. In traditional morality, a woman who is sexually free is a sinner and a whore, corrupted by Satan. With feminism, she is a victim of male aggression, from the pornographer, the John, or some other abuser. In neither is it acknowledghed that she may be a fully automous actor, capable of making her own decisions, and, gasp, either enjoys or does not mind having sex with multiple partners. If a woman is overtly sexual, she must have been corrupted, either by Satan or the Evil Male Abuser.

Scratch a feminist, especially a male one, and you'll find a dowdy sexual moralist in disguise. They're products of the same society as the religious moralists. They've just decided that they're not religious and so they cloak their chauvinism in secular terms.

- wolf

In my experience, this is simply not true. Yes, you will find self-proclaimed feminists who argue that prostitution is exploitation, and yes, Craig's view is narrow-minded and based on a bizarre interpretation of morality. But to say that feminism is opposed to "sex trades" is incorrect. Most modern feminists are opposed to the exploitation that occurs within these trades, not the trades themselves. And the exploitation tends to occur because conservative morality (not politically conservative, more like "traditional values" conservative) makes these trades either seem seedy (stripping or pornography) or illegal (prostitution). There is a strong push from feminists to rebrand these trades to let women know that it is OK to exert one's sexuality and not have it be "immoral."

When I was in school, I was heavily involved in the gender studies department, including their annual symposium. We had more than one panel every year related to the sex trades (stripping, pornography, prostitution and the like), and not once did you hear people claiming that women shouldn't do these things. People were interested in reforming the industries, not to try to prevent women from expressing their sexuality for money, but in order to make the professions safer for those involved. Almost uniformly, women were actually encouraged to participate in activities like stripping as a way to combat body dysmorphia and other self-perception issues. So, no, feminists aren't merely sexual moralists of another cloth trying to prevent women from expressing or using their sexuality; they're doing just the opposite.

Personally, I think prostitution should be legalized. It would make it a lot safer. Look at Nevada; they have legal prostitution in the form of brothels and the women who work in them are protected and seem pretty content with what they do. HBO does all those documentaries/reality shows in the brothels and the women seem to wield most of the power (with the exception of that weird "daddy" dynamic towards the owner, but whatever gets you off I guess). Legal prostitution actually empowers women because it takes away the abusive brutality of the pimp. But good luck finding law-makers who are willing to argue to legalize prostitution; most people visualize prostitution as being the pimps and streetwalkers, not the Bunny Ranch variety. And that's a shame.

 

[Infohawk]

When I was in school, I was heavily involved in the gender studies department, including their annual symposium.

Sounds like you got one side of the story. To be fair, Woolfe only represented one side as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_prostitution

My guess is that all feminists agree that prostitutes shouldn't be penalized. They should be either helped or supported. Remember this topic is about morality / ethics and not about illegality.

 

[woolfe9999]

It's not just the number of partners so much as the types of partners. This is not promiscuity, this is having sex with people they likely find to be repulsive. And if you're argument is that they're simply tolerating it (which I agree with) that really takes away from what you seemed to be saying about women enjoying it.

I'm not arguing any one generalization. Some women enjoy having sex with multiple partners in their private lives. How do I know this? Because some of them SAY that they do, and that is quite an admission in a society that condemns such desires in women. I think the population of prostitutes, strippers and pornstars is disproportionately drawn from that group based on a number of interviews I've read or seen (dozens, actually). In the practice of their trade, the sex becomes rote, and of course there is no choice of partners, so in that context it's just a job for them.

I'm curious, do you think people should be allowed to sell their kidneys on the open market? It's a choice right? And it's risky but not necessarily deadly. Many people don't like the idea that certain things can be bought and sold. Body parts, freedom, children, and sex are pretty big ones.

Sex IS a commodity, whether we like it or not. Personally, I have no problem with it, especially if it is above board like with prostitution or porn, unlike various other ways in which sex is sold in a deceptive and dishonest manner.

Other things being sold? Depends what they are. I think people should be allowed to sell their organs, with some regulation to ensure safety, yes. That is a matter of bodily privacy, much like the following other issues: abortion, drug use, what foods you eat, who you have sex with and how, whether you can have someone assist you in ending your life, whether you can marry or not. I'm a civil libertarian on issues of personal, bodily and intimate privacy. Where I differ with typical libertarians is that I do not agree that this means the state plays no role in the economy. Regulating business activity isn't the same thing as dictating people's sexual choices.

Remember, I'm not religious, so neither body parts nor sex are sacred. And frankly, I don't understand how anyone else not religious would act as if they are, other than the fact that social liberals are products of the same religiously conservative society as everyone else, and in some cases they may be consciously unaware of their true motives.

In your experience, are promiscuous women, strippers, prostitutes just healthy women who are making rational choices? I can't pretend I have a lot of experiences with prostitutes and strippers but my impression is that the more sexual risky behavior women engage in, the more issues they have.

Or are you going off of data that says they are psychologically healthy and that the talk about porn actresses more likely to have been molested as kids is bogus? Like I said earlier in this thread, if someone shows me solid data indicating they are no more troubled than the rest of the population, I would change my mind on this topic. But from what I've seen, they are troubled people who should be helped rather than treated as rational free agents. If that is paternalistic, so is helping drug addicts and homeless people. Sure, you can argue they're making choices but that is the conservative viewpoint I don't associate with you all that much.

I don't know the answer to these questions, as I am not acquainted with a large number of people in those professions. What I do know is that you're trying to shift the burden of proof here. For a long time now, anti-porn feminists have been trying to say that female porn actors were either abused as children and/or coerced into performing. The second of these is easily dismissible - the case is based off of 2 anecdotes back in the 1970's (Linda Lovelace being the best known). Against that, scads of women in the industry have said that it has been 100% free choice on their part.

Remember also that anti-porn feminists have repeatedly claimed that porn causes rape and have tried to introduce laws to allow rape victims to sue pornographers. Yet we know that worldwide, the more porn distribution has increased, the fewer and fewer rapes occur. So anti-porn feminists have very little credibility.

As to childhood sex abuse, I don't know but then again, neither do you. You seem to suspect it, again, because you can't deal with the idea that any female would enter such a profession unless she is damaged goods. I don't think you've established that as anything but an a priori assumption on your part. The fact is, individuals within a given gender, or any group, vary a lot in their attitudes, beliefs, desires and perceptions. That some women are promiscuous in their personal lives because they enjoy sex and they decide to make money off of it shouldn't be controversial. But many men simply cannot accept it.

On the question of proof, let's be logical here. In the absence of proof to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that a typical porn actress is any more likely to have been abused than a random woman from the general population. A burden of proof must be met to establish otherwise. Anecdotes, intuition, and theory don't count.

- wolf