The Oldest Profession In The World: Yea Or Nay

[Polymath257]

I thought about this too. I have told my daughter since before she could talk that all I want for her is to be happy, healthy, and safe. If being a prostitute makes her happy, assuming she takes steps to be stay healthy and safe, I like to think I would support her. Would I like it? Probably not. But there's plenty of things I don't like people doing. There's a bunch of things I wouldn't like my daughter doing especially, many of which @PureX would probably be appalled by my dislike of. I'm grown up enough to realise that my personal distaste for someone else's choices is a really bad basis for legislation or proscription.

I would dislike my daughter becoming a preacher much more than I would dislike her becoming a prostitute.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, but it's a reality. Because our emotions are a very real part of us.

It's when people wish to use their personal emotions to legislate against other people's freedoms that I have an issue.

Why do you perceive any difference at all, if, as you assert, there is no difference? I agree that people accept money for other humiliating kinds of services. But instead of using that fact to excuse it, I would say that those other situations ought to be treated like prostitution, and be banned.

Let me see if I have this absolutely right before I engage with your point. Are you saying that ANY service that humiliates the practitioner should be banned? Do I understand you correctly?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I would dislike my daughter becoming a preacher much more than I would dislike her becoming a prostitute.

Trying to be as honest as possible, I can't immediately think of any profession that I would like for my daughter less than prostitute... but I will also say that I would rather she were a happy prostitute than a miserable, say, corporate banker. But then, that's the real crux of the issue, isn't it? I can guide, educate, encourage and critique my daughter's life choices, but ultimately, they are her life choices, so my opinion of them shouldn't matter as much as her's.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If STDs were the actual concern in the argument, it would be about criminalising numbers of sexual partners or unprotected sex, rather than prostitution. It isn't. It's safe to say STDs is pure ad hoc justification of pre-existing stance.

To me its a prime concern. STD's have gotten worse. It used to be that you could tell if somebody had one, but now you cannot. Its also likely there will be new ones. Sex workers are positioned to carry and spread STD's more than people in other occupations. Eventually these things could become airborne or spread through other means than fluid exchange like maybe through bed bugs. Nobody seems to think that will happen, but its more likely the longer the diseases continue to mutate; so the longer people continue to spread STD's the more likely that is to occur.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

To me its a prime concern. STD's have gotten worse. It used to be that you could tell if somebody had one, but now you cannot. Its also likely there will be new ones. Sex workers are positioned to carry and spread STD's more than people in other occupations. Eventually these things could become airborne or spread through other means than fluid exchange like maybe through bed bugs. Nobody seems to think that will happen, but its more likely the longer the diseases continue to mutate; so the longer people continue to spread STD's the more likely that is to occur.

I don't think legislating based on hypotheticals is a good idea. Anyway, if such diseases were to arise, why would prostitutes be any more likely to be vectors for them than anyone else? The things you are describing wouldn't be STDs at all, so I'm not seeing the connection?

 

[Polymath257]

It seems there are two questions here.

One. Is is OK for someone to be a prostitute as their primary profession? In other words, prostitution is their primary source of income.

Two. Is it OK for someone to have sex for money? It could be a one-time thing or a supplement to income, but not the primary source of income.

From what I can see, the OP is asking more about the second than the first, although both are relevant.

So, let's ask about a very specific case: suppose that A and B are friends and A offers to pay B to have sex. This is a one-time thing. Is it wrong for B to agree? Is it wrong for A to ask? Given that they could have sex without the money exchange, the safety issues are irrelevant here. It is purely a question about sex for money. Is that wrong?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't think legislating based on hypotheticals is a good idea. Anyway, if such diseases were to arise, why would prostitutes be any more likely to be vectors for them than anyone else? The things you are describing wouldn't be STDs at all, so I'm not seeing the connection?

Just because right now they are STD's is no guarantee we will always be able to control them by regulation of sex. The longer they exist the more likely they are to find new vectors of infection, and then yes they won't be STD's. People talk about STD's like they will always be just a sexual disease, but that isn't how diseases work. They don't stay in their boxes. We should destroy them now while they can be controlled.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It seems there are two questions here.

One. Is is OK for someone to be a prostitute as their primary profession? In other words, prostitution is their primary source of income.

Two. Is it OK for someone to have sex for money? It could be a one-time thing or a supplement to income, but not the primary source of income.

From what I can see, the OP is asking more about the second than the first, although both are relevant.

So, let's ask about a very specific case: suppose that A and B are friends and A offers to pay B to have sex. This is a one-time thing. Is it wrong for B to agree? Is it wrong for A to ask? Given that they could have sex without the money exchange, the safety issues are irrelevant here. It is purely a question about sex for money. Is that wrong?

If person A did some painting and decorating for their friend B, and charged them for it would it be wrong.
Sex like decorating is something you can do separately or together, and for money or not.
What might it be about sex that makes this different?
It is just one of many human activities that people enjoy.
Most things we enjoy we have to pay for.
If both enjoy it, who should pay whom? and why?

 

[PureX]

I expect laws to be written to allow appropriate liberties without undo government intervention. Whether money changes hands for sex doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

So if I can convince a mentally ill man to let me beat on him for money, that's a liberty that shouldn't be interfered with? How about if I want to remove his legs?

The point here is that there are all kinds of limits and protections needed that transcend mutual consent. And I think this is what most people here are completely ignoring.

For most people, the issue is having sex with someone else. People like to possess the sexuality of their spouses.

People use sex for a lot of different purposes, some of which are degrading and humiliating. And it's exactly those kinds degrading and humiliating purposes that would require payment to gain consent, because no self-respecting human would consent to them, otherwise. And those are exactly the purposes that I think society should discourage.

 

[PureX]

How much of your sentiment has to do with just STD's ? Suppose there were no STD's so that sex actually did not pose a health risk beyond pregnancy. Would you still feel as strongly?

Yes.

That is an interesting point. True its not a necessary service. It should not be something that people have to do to pay the rent, but if you legalize it then some people will have to or will feel it is one of their last options. A judge could potentially order someone in debt to work as a sex worker. That's kind of scary.

What's far more scary to me is the idea that it's OK to buy someone else's body for our own pleasure so long as they are foolish enough, sick enough, poor enough, or confused enough to agree to it.

 

[dianaiad]

Interesting!!! So it is OK to get paid with jewerlry but not cash? I think the women are all selling sex. Just for different forms of payment. Still wrong.

That is not what I wrote.

I WROTE that while the men in all three situations think they are buying sex, the women in situations one and two (the good dinner and the jewelry) aren't necessarily selling. They can say no. I would say no.

It is only with the straight up cash transaction, where both parties are quite aware of the situation, where the woman has no choice, because she IS selling.

 

[dianaiad]

Over-use of spinach has effects much like steroids.
Instead of "roid rage", he has "spinach spleen".

I know we're not supposed to dis posters in 3rd person,
but I figure it's OK since @Skwim would agree with me.

Well, I'm sorry I wrote anything about it. Please forgive me...it was neither kind nor wise of me to say anything.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What's far more scary to me is the idea that it's OK to buy someone else's body for our own pleasure so long as they are foolish enough, sick enough, poor enough, or confused enough to agree to it.

The opposite extreme is viewing sex as an evil thing, and sometimes society leans toward that. I think that, too, causes problems for people who are foolish enough, sick enough, poor enough or confused. The shame is sometimes worse than the act. Because of this more than one friend has said to me "Sex is no big deal." I think they are two extremes. I think sex is a big deal, but I think its not an evil.

 

[PureX]

Billions of humans go through life without all sorts of things, like, say, insulin. That doesn't mean it's not a necessity for some. Further, there's billions of people who go through life receiving services they DON'T need, like, say, house cleaning, or instagram management, but that's not an argument against those services, either.You still haven't provided any reason to think such a law is either necessary or justified.

I appreciate that you feel strongly about this, but try for a moment to appreciate that that is what you are doing, feeling, not rationally analyzing. You and I both condemn others for making the mistake you are making now. I hope that I have the self awareness to be aware of it when it's pointed out to me when I do it, and I hope you can be aware of it when I respectfully and with nothing but good will point it out to you when you are doing it.

What you think is rational is your own business. We humans can rationalize pretty much anything. So your assertion that my referencing emotion (read as being irrational, in your mind) is somehow disqualified from the debate, is just wrong.

I feel quite sure you would not allow your own spouse to sell the use of his/her body to strangers, because not only would it be humiliating to your spouse, it would be humiliating to you as well. Yet you seem to be so enamored with the specter of "reason" that you've decided that it's perfectly OK for someone else's spouse, or offspring, or sibling, to be similarly humiliated. And that's a form of "reasoning" that I find both incoherent, and disheartening.

 

[PureX]

The opposite extreme is viewing sex as an evil thing, and sometimes society leans toward that. I think that, too, causes problems for people who are foolish enough, sick enough, poor enough or confused. The shame is sometimes worse than the act. Because of this more than one friend has said to me "Sex is no big deal." I think they are two extremes. I think sex is a big deal, but I think its not an evil.

This thread, though, is not about that later extreme. This one is about buying (renting) other people's bodies for our own pleasure: pleasure that is often being derived specifically from humiliation and abuse.

 

[Polymath257]

So if I can convince a mentally ill man to let me beat on him for money, that's a liberty that shouldn't be interfered with? How about if I want to remove his legs?

The point here is that there are all kinds of limits and protections needed that transcend mutual consent. And I think this is what most people here are completely ignoring.

I actually think that very few limits are needed that transcend mutual consent. In your example, the mentally ill person was not capable of making an informed decision. That is the only reason the state has a right to step in as far as I can see. But that is NOT the case where sex is exchanged for money.

People use sex for a lot of different purposes, some of which are degrading and humiliating. And it's exactly those kinds degrading and humiliating purposes that would require payment to gain consent, because no self-respecting human would consent to them, otherwise. And those are exactly the purposes that I think society should discourage.

I disagree. Some people would have sex with strangers even without being paid. But being paid helps them financially, so why not? Or, someone might well be willing to have sex with someone they know, but having some money thrown in would help them out.

Most jobs require payment to get people to consent to do them. That is why we pay people, after all.

 

[Polymath257]

What you think is rational is your own business. We humans can rationalize pretty much anything. So your assertion that my referencing emotion (read as being irrational, in your mind) is somehow disqualified from the debate, is just wrong.

I feel quite sure you would not allow your own spouse to sell the use of his/her body to strangers, because not only would it be humiliating to your spouse, it would be humiliating to you as well.

Why would it be 'humiliating'? I might see it as *dangerous*, but I don't see sex as humiliating (well, not unless that is part of the bargain).

Yet you seem to be so enamored with the specter of "reason" that you've decided that it's perfectly OK for someone else's spouse, or offspring, or sibling, to be similarly humiliated. And that's a form of "reasoning" that I find both incoherent, and disheartening.

I really don't see sex as humiliating. There are safety concerns, of course, and those are certainly increased when strangers are involved.

But would it be humiliating for your spouse to have sex with someone she knows? Is that the issue as opposed to being paid for that sex? So it isn't prostitution so much that bothers you as sex?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

That is not what I wrote.

I WROTE that while the men in all three situations think they are buying sex, the women in situations one and two (the good dinner and the jewelry) aren't necessarily selling. They can say no. I would say no.

It is only with the straight up cash transaction, where both parties are quite aware of the situation, where the woman has no choice, because she IS selling.

I would say she has a choice not to sell.

 

[Polymath257]

That is not what I wrote.

I WROTE that while the men in all three situations think they are buying sex, the women in situations one and two (the good dinner and the jewelry) aren't necessarily selling. They can say no. I would say no.

It is only with the straight up cash transaction, where both parties are quite aware of the situation, where the woman has no choice, because she IS selling.

Why would she not have a choice? She could refuse the transaction completely. At least all of the intentions are out in the open and clear to all concerned.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What you think is rational is your own business. We humans can rationalize pretty much anything. So your assertion that my referencing emotion (read as being irrational, in your mind) is somehow disqualified from the debate, is just wrong.

I feel quite sure you would not allow your own spouse to sell the use of his/her body to strangers, because not only would it be humiliating to your spouse, it would be humiliating to you as well. Yet you seem to be so enamored with the specter of "reason" that you've decided that it's perfectly OK for someone else's spouse, or offspring, or sibling, to be similarly humiliated. And that's a form of "reasoning" that I find both incoherent, and disheartening.

This is getting kind of overwrought. I don't think it's my place to "allow" family members to do anything. I certainly don't think avoiding "humiliation" gives me such cause.

You're still making an appeal to emotion. That's fine to use as peripheral support for an argument, but it's not a good basis. It's considered a logical fallacy.

Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia