Just curious about how people think of it. I know how 'society' views it. But I would love to hear your views, the people who actually participate in the sport ! Please keep them short so the link is easy to follow. I'm not talking about all the side effects of it either, like drugs, pimps, street walking, etc., I'm talking about the actual service of it. I just want to hear where you are coming from. As in, your belief systems. Please no rants ! Thanks !
Is Prostitution "bad", from a moral point of view?
- Thread starter Ms. Sexy Sexy
- Start date
I never considered prostitution "Bad"...
As a matter of fact I find it a lot more open and honest than what takes place out in the real world.
The stress of dating, asking someone out, wondering if and when to make "the Move", getting set up with people that make you wonder what your friends actually think of you, telling somebody that you don't want to see them again, being told the same thing... sorry, I'm ranting!!!
The Mookster
As a matter of fact I find it a lot more open and honest than what takes place out in the real world.
The stress of dating, asking someone out, wondering if and when to make "the Move", getting set up with people that make you wonder what your friends actually think of you, telling somebody that you don't want to see them again, being told the same thing... sorry, I'm ranting!!!
The Mookster
Unless you take the approach that any sex without being married is 'bad' then there's nothing bad about it.
The thing is, 'morals' are very different from 'ethics'.
In morals, you have 'right and wrong' as defined by a set of rules where things that are within the rules are 'morally right' and things outside the rules are 'morally wrong'. The set of rules depends on the person, they could be religious rules they could be rules imposed by some governing body etc...
Ethics on the other hand, are defined as absolute 'good and bad' things and there is often a whole lot of grey area and case specific valuations.
Ethically, there is nothing 'bad' about prostitution itself, although it often has 'bad' things attached or associated with it. Cheating on your spouse with a prostitute would be 'bad' for example but the fact that it is with a prostitute isn't what makes it bad, it would be just as bad if it was with a non-pro.
Morally, often sex outside of marriage is considered 'wrong' in which case prostitution would be wrong.
The thing is, 'morals' are very different from 'ethics'.
In morals, you have 'right and wrong' as defined by a set of rules where things that are within the rules are 'morally right' and things outside the rules are 'morally wrong'. The set of rules depends on the person, they could be religious rules they could be rules imposed by some governing body etc...
Ethics on the other hand, are defined as absolute 'good and bad' things and there is often a whole lot of grey area and case specific valuations.
Ethically, there is nothing 'bad' about prostitution itself, although it often has 'bad' things attached or associated with it. Cheating on your spouse with a prostitute would be 'bad' for example but the fact that it is with a prostitute isn't what makes it bad, it would be just as bad if it was with a non-pro.
Morally, often sex outside of marriage is considered 'wrong' in which case prostitution would be wrong.
I'm for totally legalizing it, and I don't view it as morally or
ethically wrong, unless, like any other situation, it involves
force, coersion or exploitation of someone who cannot say no,
and should obviously never involve children or anyone of
diminished capacity.
In my opinion, prostitution is one of the most honest forms
of communication between men and women in existence:
anyone who has ever spent a night in a bar or club or
even gone on a date knows the huge bullshit that accompanies
most social intercourse between the sexes.
Give me a dollar figure and a time frame and I am blissful!
ethically wrong, unless, like any other situation, it involves
force, coersion or exploitation of someone who cannot say no,
and should obviously never involve children or anyone of
diminished capacity.
In my opinion, prostitution is one of the most honest forms
of communication between men and women in existence:
anyone who has ever spent a night in a bar or club or
even gone on a date knows the huge bullshit that accompanies
most social intercourse between the sexes.
Give me a dollar figure and a time frame and I am blissful!
Take a civilian out on a date. After gas, parking, dinner (not to mention the time you have to spend...) you've already paid what an SP would cost. Then there is the uncertain outcome and the mandatory follow up phone call if you "get lucky".LonelyGhost said:
Prostitution is the honest trade. Myabe that's why it's been around so long. That, and the obvious!
“We display outrageously and obsessively that which we do not fully possess or have deeply at our disposal”
If we had MORE sex, better sex, more intimacy, then I think most prostitution would go unnoticed. A book by Thomas Moore “The Soul of Sex” explores this theory. The side crap that seems to cling to it (using minors, human trafficking, drugs, pimps) might then be addressed for the problems they really are, instead of being lumped into the “prostitution” world. I mean, is a murderer less guilty if the victim had sex with strangers?
Once I cross the threshold into a woman’s lair, my heart & soul are open to a brief encounter with a beautiful woman. My mind keeps intruding with questions like “Am I safe here?” “Will she be what she said she would be?”
My experience has been that “paid sex” is cheaper than “free sex”.
And most times, better. No head games, no favours attached.
If we had MORE sex, better sex, more intimacy, then I think most prostitution would go unnoticed. A book by Thomas Moore “The Soul of Sex” explores this theory. The side crap that seems to cling to it (using minors, human trafficking, drugs, pimps) might then be addressed for the problems they really are, instead of being lumped into the “prostitution” world. I mean, is a murderer less guilty if the victim had sex with strangers?
Once I cross the threshold into a woman’s lair, my heart & soul are open to a brief encounter with a beautiful woman. My mind keeps intruding with questions like “Am I safe here?” “Will she be what she said she would be?”
My experience has been that “paid sex” is cheaper than “free sex”.
And most times, better. No head games, no favours attached.
PeterLongwood said:
not in this lifetime! I don't need the crap, the games, the drama,
the bullshit, the 'ex's' the cost, the uncertaintly and definitely
not what passes for 'sex' among civilians!
I started this hobby exactly because I was in a bar, talking
to two 'women' and went through hours of BS this and BS that
and I finally couldn't stand it anymore and left the two heifers
to their ruminating on all that is wrong with men ...
walk out the door and this gorgeous young sexy woman
offers me sex for less cash than I had dropped in the bar ...
yeah, even I could figure out which was the better deal.
never looked back.
In my opinion, it is a much needed service in our society. There are many that for various reasons, are not able to have a SO, there are those who are married and for various reasons are sexually unsatisfied.
In my opinion legalized and safe prostitution could possibly reduce rape and save many marriages.
In my opinion legalized and safe prostitution could possibly reduce rape and save many marriages.
Ah yes, those "weak leftie governments" again. Pretty much anything bad can be attributed to them, right? You know for damn sure that Mussolini or Peron would never have listened to "all the shouting".jjinvan said:
To answer the original question posed by ms sexy sexy, no, prostitution isn't bad. As others have pointed out, it fills a very basic societal need and the fact it's been around forever would indicate that the need hasn't diminished over time.
????jjinvan said:
And strong rightie governments are controlled by???
- true believers that know what's right and are not swayed by evidence?
- people with the money for their campaigns?
What the hell does this comment mean?
Why not. We can all say how great we all are as we enter the weekend.mustangjoe said:
This is a feel-good thread. You got a problem with that?
It means that left wing governments have always given more attention to minority special interest groups than to the general population. In Canada in particular the liberals and NDP have always been 'cause of the week' types who decide policy based on the last 2-3 days of newspaper headlines.HankQuinlan said:
Funny how Dion didn't think that Kyoto was so important when he was environment minister...
(sorry about the long post but I think my points needed a bit more justification ... )
One subtle problem I've noticed over the last year is that when you replace intrinsic motivation (ie just enjoying sexual companionship for its own sake) with oftentimes very heavy extrinsic motivation ($$$$$ ka-ching!) it can be a major cause of confusion.
Psychological research has clearly shown that replacing instrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation pretty much wipes out the intrinsic motivation. Its very hard to backtrack.
I also question why money is pretty much the only initial selector used by SPs. I know its a bit easier than administering personality and IQ tests but it seems to be too much of an easy out. Example: if an SP and had the choice of working with a disabled person on a fixed income who had no other outlet but couldn't afford to pay the advertised rate vs a married man who could who would they pick realistically? Who gets picked typically?
Even without invoking ethics one could argue that, even if the disabled individual is not able to afford as much per session, they are much more likely to book multiple sessions and the SP in that case might actually make more money as a result. However, I've seen people all too often doing the opposite: going for the quick reward and losing out on more substantial long-term gain.
I know that argument above won't be popular and I am familiar with the "market" argument regarding the fairness of pricing. Personally, I don't think markets are entirely fair in the same way they are not entirely efficient. By efficient I mean the extent to which sellers and buyers have needed information to make good decisions. Even in a perfectly efficient market it is possible for monopolies to develop for various reasons. Oddly enough, in a monopoly situation, where the seller has a large degree of freedom to make pricing decisions many people do not make these decisions based on their perception of the common good. Unfortunately the common good does matter. In our case we tend to use regulation as a replacement for ethical thinking. However, the same principle applies: why you are making a decision does matter.
BTW similar arguments can be made for the other side of the condom. We can also be too greedy and thoughtless about what we expect. In New Zealand where prostitution was legalized it is now mandatory that guys use condoms. You can wind up paying a very hefty fine if you refuse - if not jail time. Another example of regulation replacing ethical thought.
BTW I'm not saying we ought to get rid of regulation. To get rid of regulation we'd need to understand under what circumstances people tend to make ethical decisions - an example of one necessary factor might be universal education. Democracies and open markets are really only as good as their participants.
To sum up what I am getting at: It is possible even in a situation where coercion is not present for people to behave in ways that are not fair. However, on the other hand, I've seen many people do alot of good in the sex work world be ashamed of "only" being a sex worker. So this, for me, is an ambiguous area. The work is very much needed on many levels but the actual implementation even under the best of circumstances is too often problematic.
Actually, I have mixed feelings about it at this point. I think whether its ethically good or not depends a great deal on why each person is participating in it.mustangjoe said:
One subtle problem I've noticed over the last year is that when you replace intrinsic motivation (ie just enjoying sexual companionship for its own sake) with oftentimes very heavy extrinsic motivation ($$$$$ ka-ching!) it can be a major cause of confusion.
Psychological research has clearly shown that replacing instrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation pretty much wipes out the intrinsic motivation. Its very hard to backtrack.
I also question why money is pretty much the only initial selector used by SPs. I know its a bit easier than administering personality and IQ tests but it seems to be too much of an easy out. Example: if an SP and had the choice of working with a disabled person on a fixed income who had no other outlet but couldn't afford to pay the advertised rate vs a married man who could who would they pick realistically? Who gets picked typically?
Even without invoking ethics one could argue that, even if the disabled individual is not able to afford as much per session, they are much more likely to book multiple sessions and the SP in that case might actually make more money as a result. However, I've seen people all too often doing the opposite: going for the quick reward and losing out on more substantial long-term gain.
I know that argument above won't be popular and I am familiar with the "market" argument regarding the fairness of pricing. Personally, I don't think markets are entirely fair in the same way they are not entirely efficient. By efficient I mean the extent to which sellers and buyers have needed information to make good decisions. Even in a perfectly efficient market it is possible for monopolies to develop for various reasons. Oddly enough, in a monopoly situation, where the seller has a large degree of freedom to make pricing decisions many people do not make these decisions based on their perception of the common good. Unfortunately the common good does matter. In our case we tend to use regulation as a replacement for ethical thinking. However, the same principle applies: why you are making a decision does matter.
BTW similar arguments can be made for the other side of the condom. We can also be too greedy and thoughtless about what we expect. In New Zealand where prostitution was legalized it is now mandatory that guys use condoms. You can wind up paying a very hefty fine if you refuse - if not jail time. Another example of regulation replacing ethical thought.
BTW I'm not saying we ought to get rid of regulation. To get rid of regulation we'd need to understand under what circumstances people tend to make ethical decisions - an example of one necessary factor might be universal education. Democracies and open markets are really only as good as their participants.
To sum up what I am getting at: It is possible even in a situation where coercion is not present for people to behave in ways that are not fair. However, on the other hand, I've seen many people do alot of good in the sex work world be ashamed of "only" being a sex worker. So this, for me, is an ambiguous area. The work is very much needed on many levels but the actual implementation even under the best of circumstances is too often problematic.
BAD.......Hell no. Anything that can make me sooooo happy couldn't be that bad. I mean some of the connections that I've made doing this are so enjoyable that I wish I would have really started into this lifestyle years ago.
