Is prostitution an honorable occupation?

[Ðanisty]

I voted for the first three. I don't consider the last two to be occupations.

 

[Buttercup]

A question to those who find these occupations honorable.....which jobs would you do to make a living?

 

[Smoke]

A question to those who find these occupations honorable.....which jobs would you do to make a living?

Probably none of them, even if I had the charm and the looks. But I wouldn't be a dentist, either, so you can't go by that.

 

[Buttercup]

Probably none of them, even if I had the charm and the looks. But I wouldn't be a dentist, either, so you can't go by that.

Ah, ok.....was just curious.

You think prostitution is an honorable occupation to have if you're a mother with children at home?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, it is not.

 

[Smoke]

You think prostitution is an honorable occupation to have if you're a mother with children at home?

Only if you're a courtesan, and those jobs are hard to come by. Otherwise, you might be exposing your children to danger.

 

[Buttercup]

Only if you're a courtesan, and those jobs are hard to come by. Otherwise, you might be exposing your children to danger.

It's my thought that none of the above professions are suited for mothers. Teaching your children that it's honorable to sell your body for money and sleeping with countless men is tweaked beyond belief in my mind.

 

[BUDDY]

I don't think the occupation is a deciding factor in whether or not a person is honorable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think the occupation is a deciding factor in whether or not a person is honorable.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but the question is whether or not the occupation is honorable.

 

[lilithu]

Which of these occupations do you think is an honorable way to earn a living? Why?

I do not find any of them to be either honorable nor dishonorable.

 

[Storm]

Perhaps, perhaps not, but the question is whether or not the occupation is honorable.

Then I would say that the question is misapplied.

 

[Scott1]

Just our two cents:

CCC #2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure..... While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

 

[UnTheist]

Just our two cents:

CCC #2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure..... While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

That's a very unsupported assumption.

 

[lilithu]

Just our two cents:

CCC #2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure..... While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

Actually, I pretty much agree with that.

My problem with the usual criticisms of prostitution is that the vast majority of critics place the blame solely on the prostitute without blaming the "customers" and without taking into account the social circumstances that lead a person to prostitution.

Thanks Scott.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I do not find any of them to be either honorable nor dishonorable.

Just our two cents: CCC #2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure..... While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

Actually, I pretty much agree with that.

My problem with the usual criticisms of prostitution is that the vast majority of critics place the blame solely on the prostitute without blaming the "customers" and without taking into account the social circumstances that lead a person to prostitution.

lilithu, how does one substantially agree that "Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure ....." without finding the occupation dishonorable?

 

[lilithu]

Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure.

That's a very unsupported assumption.

It's not an so much an assumption as it is a conclusion. The second part of the sentence provides the reasoning behind it. If you engage in sex for no other purpose than sexual pleasure, then the person with whom you are engaging is no more than an "object" to you, not a "subject." Many religious traditions believe that you cannot treat a person as an object without demeaning his or her inherent dignity. As the great Martin Buber explained, we want to maintain an "I-Thou" relationship, not an "I-it" relationship.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just our two cents:

CCC #2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure..... While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

Excellent. Thank you ...

 

[Scott1]

My problem with the usual criticisms of prostitution is that the vast majority of critics place the blame solely on the prostitute without blaming the "customers" and without taking into account the social circumstances that lead a person to prostitution.

To be clear... I modified the quote... it also includes:

The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.).

.... but I didn't want to muddle up the thread with the sacramental references.

 

[UnTheist]

It's not an so much an assumption as it is a conclusion. The second part of the sentence provides the reasoning behind it. If you engage in sex for no other purpose than sexual pleasure, then the person with whom you are engaging is no more than an "object" to you, not a "subject."

So be it.

Many religious traditions believe that you cannot treat a person as an object without demeaning his or her inherent dignity. As the great Martin Buber explained, we want to maintain an "I-Thou" relationship, not an "I-it" relationship.

I misinterpreted the quote. I thought it said something like "damaging or hurtful to the person engaging it"

 

[lilithu]

lilithu, how does one substantially agree that "Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure ....." without finding the occupation dishonorable?

Because I believe that the question of whether prostitution is an honorable or dishonorable occupation focuses all of the potential "blame" on the prostitute and therefore is inherently unfair.