• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does This Make Prostitution Moral?

Radio Frequency X

World Leader Pretend
Sunstone said:
Suppose the prostitute herself suffers because of her work, but she makes all her customers happier than they would otherwise be: Does that make what she's doing moral? Why or why not?

Suppose the prostitute and the majority of her customers are happier than they would otherwise be, and only a minority of her customers are either unhappier or the same because of what she does: Does that make what she's doing moral? Why or why not?

Prostitution is an amoral behavior. It is however, "bad" behavior. The psychological effects of prostitution have been shown to be negative. The effects it has on men who become addicted to sleeping with prostitutes have been negative. The increased spread of STDs and other health effects have been negative. But it is not immoral.

The important thing, is looking out for the well-being of others, which means trying to prevent them from selling their sexuality, lowering their own value, and missing out on the joys of more intimate and meaningful relationships. And for the customers, encouraging them to raise their self-worth to a place where they can form meaningful romantic relationships with someone that won't make them pay for the perks. Calling them immoral is mainly a self-righteous judgment and is therefore both unnecessary and unproductive.
 
XAAX said:
Regardless of pleasure. To sells ones body is very negative to ones soul. This goes in turn with those violating another by taking part in such acts. I have been dragged to a couple of strip clubs years back. It deeply saddened me to see women degrade themselves for money. Now, I can say that I have never had to turn to a prostitute, I have always held the idea that before I do, I will quit all together. Its just a boundary that I feel should not be crossed. This is not a religious stand point as much as it is a spiritual perspective.

I agree with this cause it is the most logical to me. But here is my opinion... in my faith i was taught that your body is a temple and when you become that intimate with somone a piece of you goes with them. i believe in the bond of Love it is allright but to give yourself to somone who will not appreciate it as they should is what makes this act immoral to me. i havent felt the same about myself since me and m ex "went to far" and he left me afterwards. i cant imagine how a person would feel doing that to herself on a daily basis. it is wrong reguardless of your intentions to sell your body for another persons pleasure. we are beautiful people and we have beautiful lives we shouldnt give up the beautiful bodies that we were given.
 

Hema

Sweet n Spicy
Pagaal~Mexican18 said:
I agree with this cause it is the most logical to me. But here is my opinion... in my faith i was taught that your body is a temple and when you become that intimate with somone a piece of you goes with them. i believe in the bond of Love it is allright but to give yourself to somone who will not appreciate it as they should is what makes this act immoral to me. i havent felt the same about myself since me and m ex "went to far" and he left me afterwards. i cant imagine how a person would feel doing that to herself on a daily basis. it is wrong reguardless of your intentions to sell your body for another persons pleasure. we are beautiful people and we have beautiful lives we shouldnt give up the beautiful bodies that we were given.

That was beautifully said. I totally agree. I believe that the body is a Temple of God.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
RadioFrequencyX said:

Prostitution is an amoral behavior. It is however, "bad" behavior. The psychological effects of prostitution have been shown to be negative. The effects it has on men who become addicted to sleeping with prostitutes have been negative. The increased spread of STDs and other health effects have been negative. But it is not immoral.

Bunk.

In one breath, you declare a certain behavior as "amoral", and in the next you assign a moral distinction ("bad").

One might very well then rationalize thievery, pimping, deception, extortion, or racism as being "amoral"...but (only maybe) "bad".

Men that solicit women for paid sex are not "victims".
Women that voluntarily solicit sex for monetary compensation are not "victims".

Emotional stress, regrets/remorse, and second-guessing can be attached to virtually any endeavor of willful choice in human behavior. A poor business investment may very well instigate ill-effects in both conscience and body.

The important thing, is looking out for the well-being of others, which means trying to prevent them from selling their sexuality, lowering their own value, and missing out on the joys of more intimate and meaningful relationships.

[Caveat 1: I'm all about any advocacy of "more intimate and meaningful relationships".]

I would submit that "selling" one's own "sexuality" exhibits an enhanced sense of self-worth and value. Ugly people make for generally unsuccessful prostitutes. People routinely "sell" their good looks (when readily apparent) in all aspects of life. Attractive people tend to be more accepted, recognized, hired, promoted, and societally popular than unattractive people. If you believe this isn't so, then you're either unattractive, or not paying particular attention....

And for the customers, encouraging them to raise their self-worth to a place where they can form meaningful romantic relationships with someone that won't make them pay for the perks.

[Caveat #2: I've never monetarily paid for the services of a professional prostitute in my life, but I've most certainly "paid" for sex (by dinner, date, or endurance of insipid dialogue) with another woman in my days. Neither my conscience nor my estimations of self-worth were elevated (nor diminished) in the knowledge that I went to bed for one evening with a horny and inebriated woman.]

Sex is sex. Romance is romance. I know the difference after nearly 17 years of marriage, and can happily distinguish the motivations and merits between the two. Having sex is no more about romance, than romance is about having sex. The two ships may perchance collide in the night, but let no one think that such a collision makes for a better and bigger boat.

Calling them immoral is mainly a self-righteous judgment and is therefore both unnecessary and unproductive.

I agree...so any lent moralistic implications...just because sex is involved...are also "unnecessary and unproductive".

"Things" that are estimably "bad", are never "amoral".
Behaviors deemed as "ill-advised", or "fraught with prospective perils", I'll concede are to be avoided in thoughtful contemplation of potential consequences of choice...but when consent of mind and body are lent to any human endeavor...elements of risk to both mind and body are inherent, and foreseeable to any and all parties involved.

If sexual prostitution is "amoral", then it it is not subject to estimations of "good" or "bad" in exercised behaviors that facilitate it's actions.
 

Radio Frequency X

World Leader Pretend
s2a said:
"Things" that are estimably "bad", are never "amoral".

On this point we disagree. "Bad" simply means, in this case, "having negative, life demoting consequences". Prostitution is not good for anyone. That doesn't make immoral. It makes it an error. However, I am operating from the assumption that physical, sexual, and psychological health are "good". Without this assumption, I'd really have nothing to say about prostitution whatsoever.
 

jmaster78

Member
before deciding if prostitution is moral/imoral, we need to look at exactly what prostitution is, not as in what the law says, but morally/imorally. is a prostitute someone who recieves money for sex? or is it someone who uses their physical appearance for financial gains? in that case, is (purely as an example!) a girl that marries a guy because of the 'security' he can provide by being in a good job; a prostitute because financial stability is one of her priorities when choosing a partner? she may not be standing on a street corner, but she is still giving herself away for financial gain, bearing in mind a regular prostitute doesn't sleep with punters for the money, but because of the financial stability that money will bring, she simply cuts out the commitment!
 
jmaster78 said:
before deciding if prostitution is moral/imoral, we need to look at exactly what prostitution is, not as in what the law says, but morally/imorally. is a prostitute someone who recieves money for sex? or is it someone who uses their physical appearance for financial gains? in that case, is (purely as an example!) a girl that marries a guy because of the 'security' he can provide by being in a good job; a prostitute because financial stability is one of her priorities when choosing a partner? she may not be standing on a street corner, but she is still giving herself away for financial gain, bearing in mind a regular prostitute doesn't sleep with punters for the money, but because of the financial stability that money will bring, she simply cuts out the commitment!

yes yes yes. but you realize that we will all pay for it in one way or the other. this woman in your example will never be truely happy cause there is no love involved as would a prostitute will never be happy cause there is no emotion in just having sex with somone you dont love just feeling that "feeling" just before its over.....then comes the money. what comfort does money give. money wont hold you and tell you your beautiful and listen to you and take care of your problems.....itll buy you somthing but what does that matter in the long run.

id rather be poor and in love than the richest person in the world and be lonley.
 

Hema

Sweet n Spicy
Pagaal~Mexican18 said:
id rather be poor and in love than the richest person in the world and be lonley.

Oh wow. That is just like me. I tell my fiance that I don't care if we have to live in a mud hut, as long as he is with me, I'll always be happy. He is worth more than all the money in the world. As long as he is with me, I'll never be poor.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Radio Frequency X said:
On this point we disagree. "Bad" simply means, in this case, "having negative, life demoting consequences". Prostitution is not good for anyone. That doesn't make immoral. It makes it an error. However, I am operating from the assumption that physical, sexual, and psychological health are "good". Without this assumption, I'd really have nothing to say about prostitution whatsoever.


Hmmm...

I would then ask you to qualify what defines a "negative, life demoting experience". Some examples, if you please...to gain proper context.

"Prostitution is not good for anyone."

Is that a morally-derived conclusion, or a personally pragmatic estimation?

The whore earns a monetary dispenastion for "services rendered", and the "customer" receives "satisfaction" as result of such paid services.
[Is a waitress, bartender, masseuse, personal nurse, or insurance adjuster a "whore", or a person that exacts fair compensation for a personally rendered service?

Who[m] is the arbiter of "...negative, life demoting consequences"?

Our own selves, or someone/something else?]

I might submit that using cocaine may very well present "...negative, life demoting consequences", but I do not confer any moralizing conclusions upon those that freely choose to partake in such indulgences. I would counsel that such choices may result in unwanted or adverse consequences, but I would not equate such acts as being either morally "good" or "bad"...just "ill-advised".

"I am operating from the assumption that physical, sexual, and psychological health are "good"."

How perspicacious of you.

Tell us, 'O doctor of moral health and integrity, which aspects of human physicality, sexuality, or psychology are definitively [or consequentially] "...negative, [or] life demoting..."?

What defined/outlined morailty is ultimately "life-affirming", or "positive"?
If helping another human to feel affirmed in their existence by getting laid [both safely and discreetly], then what is "better"?
 
Hema said:
Oh wow. That is just like me. I tell my fiance that I don't care if we have to live in a mud hut, as long as he is with me, I'll always be happy. He is worth more than all the money in the world. As long as he is with me, I'll never be poor.

Thats so romantic i hope i find a love like that.

all i am saying is that there is more out there than sex on jeese why do people hold that in such a high reguard. love is what gets us through sex withought love is like peanut butter withought jelly. its just to bland and kinda salty and leaves you wanting. that is my point...im hungry now!:eek:
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
s2a said:
Hmmm...

I would then ask you to qualify what defines a "negative, life demoting experience". Some examples, if you please...to gain proper context.



Is that a morally-derived conclusion, or a personally pragmatic estimation?

The whore earns a monetary dispenastion for "services rendered", and the "customer" receives "satisfaction" as result of such paid services.
[Is a waitress, bartender, masseuse, personal nurse, or insurance adjuster a "whore", or a person that exacts fair compensation for a personally rendered service?

Who[m] is the arbiter of "...negative, life demoting consequences"?

Our own selves, or someone/something else?]

I might submit that using cocaine may very well present "...negative, life demoting consequences", but I do not confer any moralizing conclusions upon those that freely choose to partake in such indulgences. I would counsel that such choices may result in unwanted or adverse consequences, but I would not equate such acts as being either morally "good" or "bad"...just "ill-advised".


"Prostitution is not good for anyone" - that can be supported by the fact that Prostitutes do not pay tax on their earnings, the spread of STDs through the community is very harmful to the community at large; the disruption and upsets caused by prostitution to marriages (added to which can be the cost of prostitution which would otherwise go into "The family Pot")..........well, again, I could go on.


How perspicacious of you.

Tell us, 'O doctor of moral health and integrity, which aspects of human physicality, sexuality, or psychology are definitively [or consequentially] "...negative, [or] life demoting..."?

What defined/outlined morailty is ultimately "life-affirming", or "positive"?
If helping another human to feel affirmed in their existence by getting laid [both safely and discreetly], then what is "better"?

Cal, I think you are rather being hard on our friend. I agree with his statement that prostitution is amoral; he then continues with:-
It is however, "bad" behavior. The psychological effects of prostitution have been shown to be negative. The effects it has on men who become addicted to sleeping with prostitutes have been negative. The increased spread of STDs and other health effects have been negative. But it is not immoral.

Which I think might well have been worded differently:- Prostitutoion, though, on the whole is a maladaptive trait in life; *return to his words here*
The effects it has on men who become addicted to sleeping with prostitutes have been negative. The increased spread of STDs and other health effects have been negative. But it is not immoral.


(S2a) said:
I would then ask you to qualify what defines a "negative, life demoting experience". Some examples, if you please...to gain proper context.

The spread of STDs, the risks run by prostitutes because of their need to persue their profession in a "cover" way - thus endangering themselves; the ruination of marriages when the husband (or wife) has been found out by the partner as being one who uses the services of prostitutes...........I could go on.

S2a said:
The whore earns a monetary dispenastion for "services rendered", and the "customer" receives "satisfaction" as result of such paid services.
[Is a waitress, bartender, masseuse, personal nurse, or insurance adjuster a "whore", or a person that exacts fair compensation for a personally rendered service?

As far as your waitress, bartender, personal nurse can practice their profession with much less danger of ill-health, of being attacked, or of being treaterd badly by a pimp; they also would (most of them) bein paid employment with rights covering periods of sickness and the benefits, a pension, etc...

S2a said:
Who[m] is the arbiter of "...negative, life demoting consequences"?

As we live in a democracy, I would suggest the Government, at the behest of the voters.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
michel said:
As far as your waitress, bartender, personal nurse can practice their profession with much less danger of ill-health, of being attacked, or of being treaterd badly by a pimp; they also would (most of them) bein paid employment with rights covering periods of sickness and the benefits, a pension, etc...

Prostitution is only dangerous where it is illegal - all of those things that make it dangerous would disappear if the industry could be regulated like a regular business. So, if it were not dangerous, would that make it more or less moral?
If a government were to outlaw close-up magic, then only outlaws would have sponge-balls, and card tricks would be the domain of the Mafia. Is the danger really what makes it immoral?

Like it or not, prostitution is still a service rendered for money. If you believe sex outside of marriage is immoral that's one thing, but aside from that, what is immoral about selling something that is ok to give for free? It's just sex between consenting adults for money.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
MaddLlama said:
Prostitution is only dangerous where it is illegal - all of those things that make it dangerous would disappear if the industry could be regulated like a regular business. So, if it were not dangerous, would that make it more or less moral?
If a government were to outlaw close-up magic, then only outlaws would have sponge-balls, and card tricks would be the domain of the Mafia. Is the danger really what makes it immoral?

Like it or not, prostitution is still a service rendered for money. If you believe sex outside of marriage is immoral that's one thing, but aside from that, what is immoral about selling something that is ok to give for free? It's just sex between consenting adults for money.

I do believe that sex outside marriage is immoral, but I was trying to treat the subject without my personal feelings being involved...............

what is immoral about selling something that is ok to give for free?

Sex, in a relatioship built on Love is not free - it has been worked towards, by both the participants.

Sex for the sake of sex (with a prostitute or any other third party) is not O.K in my books; as I have said, there must be Love in the equation.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
michel said:
Cal, I think you are rather being hard on our friend. I agree with his statement that prostitution is amoral...Prostitutoion, though, on the whole is a maladaptive trait in life...

Hunh? In what applicable sense does the notion of "adaptation" present any confluence of thinking in qualified moral behavior/acts? In what way is prostitution (or it's indulgence as service) an "adaptive trait"?

At it's core, prostitution is simply "the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money."

What "maladaptive trait" does prostitution supposedly reflect, propagate, or reveal?

Perhaps, it might be...
The spread of STDs, the risks run by prostitutes because of their need to persue their profession in a "cover" way - thus endangering themselves; the ruination of marriages when the husband (or wife) has been found out by the partner as being one who uses the services of prostitutes...........I could go on.

You could....

...but is prostitution (as an entity unto itself) presumedly "risk free (or risk averse)"?
Does prostitution serve as the primary conduit/cause of STD transmissions?
Are most adulterous affairs to be found engaged in the services of a prostitute?
Is prostitution a driving statistical cause of marital divorce? Is prostitution the proximal cause of such outcomes, or merely an adjunct and/or opportunistic "service" catering to otherwise (albeit perceptually) "immoral" choices/behaviors?

C'mon.

Is the concept of offering, or paying for sex with a professional that "sells" such a service...morally "good", "bad", or "indifferent"--in and of itself? Yes, there are personal accountabilities and resultant consequences to bear upon offering or paying for such a service...and such choices/consequences may manifest undesirable/unintended, or untoward results [being estimably considered as "good", "bad", or "inconsequential"]...

Does the concept of societally/culturally, legally-enabled, wagered gambling therefore present a "moral", "immoral', or "amoral" enterprise of personal choice/accountability? For every loss (or "victim"), there is a concomitant gain (or "victor") in the mutually agreed transaction. Is "gambling" a "good thing", a "bad thing", or an indifferent concept beyond moralizing assignations of personalized accounting? To be sure, placing any wagered bet presents the assumptive risk of loss, alongside the prospects of inordinate/opportunistic gain.

Perhaps it may be that presented choices of indeterminate consequence themselves are "amoral", and it's the consequential outcomes borne of those choices that ultimately earn the moralistic labels/attributes one might equate/label regarding catastrophic monetary loss, or the "chance" fortunes of windfall monetary gains.
If you "lose your shirt"...then gambling is "[morally] bad".
If you win enough to buy a new home for your extended homeless family, then perhaps...gambling is "[morally] good".

Put another way...if the assumptive risks (in agreed mutual consent) are both known and understood before an act of prospectively unknown consequence is summarily indulged...of what part or influence should assessments of personal (or subjective) morality play, or intervene?

If whores aren't (inherently immoral, or) "bad people", and if patrons of whores aren't inherently immoral, or) "bad people", then wherein lies any inherent "sin"? What measure of morality--objectively considered--should apply?

As far as your waitress, bartender, personal nurse can practice their profession with much less danger of ill-health, of being attacked, or of being treaterd badly by a pimp; they also would (most of them) bein paid employment with rights covering periods of sickness and the benefits, a pension, etc...

As noted by another contributor beforehand, only societally-imposed prohibition of prostitution (presented as being "morally bad") artificially introduces the added risks of untoward circumstance, or unpleasant outcomes.

As we live in a democracy, I would suggest the Government, at the behest of the voters.

*shudder*

I hope not.

Mob rule, especially when empowered by self-affrming bureaucrats, is the most prejudicial and and mindless form of impressional morality ever embraced and accepted by an unaccountable and and strictly emotional majority of like-minded, group-think, moralizing adherents of proscribed standards of limited "moral values".

I would put to you, straightforward...

If you could prohibit (or criminalize) prostitution, would you? If prostitution (as you would seem to suggest) is veritably/substantively "amoral", then what compelling "amoral" argument would you offer in support of such an enacted legislation?

If a nineteen-year-old, unmarried virgin pays to have sex with another nineteen-year-old prostitute, is that chosen act more, less, or otherwise neutral in moralistic terms?

If a married man of 38 years cheats on his wife by having adulterous sex with his workplace secretary, is that then a greater or lesser act of immorality? Is it perhaps moral? Is it amoral? If that man pays to have sex with a prostitute instead, is there any moral difference (or ambiguity) between the two choices? Is it "better", "worse"; or estimably "ambivalent [ie, "amoral"] within a removed and objective conscience-driven moral perspective? Is that an example of a "maladaptive trait in life"?

Is smoking cigarettes better, worse, or morally equivalent to sexual prostitution in consequential outcomes?

What's the difference?
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
michel said:
Sex, in a relatioship built on Love is not free - it has been worked towards, by both the participants.

Sex for the sake of sex (with a prostitute or any other third party) is not O.K in my books; as I have said, there must be Love in the equation.

So, should we be trying to mandate that nobody can have sex before marriage? Or, even at least that nobody have sex outside of a committed relationship?
Sex is not only a bilogoical act, and the feeling of love is not always attached to it - it has to come from at least one of the people involved. Sex and love don't always go hand in hand. Simply because you couldn't have sex with someone you didn't love doesn't mean that it is immoral to do so. What exactly makes non-commital sex so wrong? Can we base universal morality on that reason?
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
s2a said:
I would put to you, straightforward...

If you could prohibit (or criminalize) prostitution, would you? If prostitution (as you would seem to suggest) is veritably/substantively "amoral", then what compelling "amoral" argument would you offer in support of such an enacted legislation?
I would be in favour of legalized prostitution, where the prostitutes and their clients would have the peace of mind of not having to "skulk" in corners, with all the other "nasties" that go along with the system as it is now.

Even though I would never avail myself of the services of a prostitute (because of my own beliefs and standards), I couldn't - or wouldn't- try to inflict my dictates on others.

If a nineteen-year-old, unmarried virgin pays to have sex with another nineteen-year-old prostitute, is that chosen act more, less, or otherwise neutral in moralistic terms?
Yes, I believe it is.

If a married man of 38 years cheats on his wife by having adulterous sex with his workplace secretary, is that then a greater or lesser act of immorality? Is it perhaps moral? Is it amoral? If that man pays to have sex with a prostitute instead, is there any moral difference (or ambiguity) between the two choices? Is it "better", "worse"; or estimably "ambivalent [ie, "amoral"] within a removed and objective conscience-driven moral perspective? Is that an example of a "maladaptive trait in life"?
There is no better, no worse........the man who cheats on his wife (whether with a prostitute or his secretary) is - IMO following a maladaptive path. He runs the risk (at any time) of his wife finding out that he is cheating, and that he is committing adultery - something that (if they are married) he would have promissed not to do - whether in Church or in a civil ceremony. Whether we like it or not, our standards, as humans, is that we should hbe monogonous; anyone who strays from that dictate is being maladaptive.
Is smoking cigarettes better, worse, or morally equivalent to sexual prostitution in consequential outcomes?

What's the difference?
You are asking me to compare apples with oranges.

However, from a purely cause and effect POV, it would be possible to count the cost (to the community) of the damage done by both of the above (and the cost to society) - in that way, a purely logical argument could be made "the decider" - the cost of medical examination and treatment for the prostitute/ the cost to the community of the damage done by the smoker.

Just because I am a theist doesn't mean that I can't be objective, and view a problem from a secular POV.
 
michel said:
I do believe that sex outside marriage is immoral, but I was trying to treat the subject without my personal feelings being involved...............



Sex, in a relatioship built on Love is not free - it has been worked towards, by both the participants.

Sex for the sake of sex (with a prostitute or any other third party) is not O.K in my books; as I have said, there must be Love in the equation.


:clap YES :clap YES :clap YES:clap Somone gets it thank you thank you thank you. thats what i have been saying this whole time but i could have not put it more beautifully.
 
jmaster78 said:
with regards to sex before marriage being immoral, what happened before the whole marriage idea was conceived?

Good question.....i believe that still there was somone oyu chose or was chosen for you...the formal contract could have been formed later on after that.:sarcastic
 
Top