Why is prostitution immoral?

[ericlp]

Because God said so! Check out the ten commandments.

90% of this national is run off of religious rulings ... So, that's why no alcohol to be sold on sundays. Can't go drinking on gods day. Yawn... it can't be much more obvious as to why.

Like Marijuana I think it should be taxed and made available to anyone that wants it. Could put a lot of folks back to work instead of collecting food stamps and what not.

 

[bfdd]

Well it's the dog eat dog mentality that I'm referring to.

I know it's hard wired in us from a billion years of evolution but out sentience should bring us above this point.

No we shouldn't. We should not absolutely carry the dredges of our society.

 

[shira]

The US has a sexually oppressive society. Sexual intercourse and anything remotely considered sexual is tightly controlled.

Examples of this are:

1. Consider the hoopla made about Janet Jackson showing her breast on TV,

2. The incredible craziness people have about sexually explicit entertainiment

3. In Connecticut it is still against the law for unmarried men and women to be alone in a bedroom.

4. Homophobe bigotry

In the US sexual intercourse is only acceptable between a man and a woman who are married.

I'll take your word for it that this law is still on the Connecticut books, but I 100% guarantee that it's never enforced. After Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, which found that Texas's anti-sodomy laws was unconstitutional, pretty much any law attempting to in some way prevent consensual (non-commercial) sex between adults has been invalidated. If Texas cannot legally prevent two men from having anal sex with each other, how on earth could Connecticut legally prevent a man and woman from being alone together in a bedroom?

 

[cybrsage]

And what would that reason be? Surely you're not going to claim the bible says sex outside of marriage is immoral. Think twice about that claim, as the bible clearly demonstrates that God thinks slavery is moral and that impregnating slave girls is just fine if you wife is barren.

Those items are seperate issues. To say that if one is allowed the other is allowed is both juvenile and stupid.

I suggest you actually read and learn a bit before pretending to actually know what you are talking about.

 

[JSt0rm]

No we shouldn't. We should not absolutely carry the dredges of our society.

so you are a social Darwinist?

 

[woolfe9999]

You probably won't be satisfied with the answer.

It being degrading and objectifying to both people involved is a moral issue.

You're not really asking about morality, probably. You're asking about legality. Watch the libertarians rush in with the 'consenting adults, not the state's business' legal argument.

There are many such 'moral issues'. Why can't you buy cats and dogs for dinner, if you are so inclined, while you can buy pigs who are not clearly different on moral grounds?

There are peripheral issues - such as the exploitation of the prostitute's poverty, or the high rates of drug abuse and other crimes associated with prostitution.

Of course it's not illegal a few places, such as rural Nevada and Amsterdam's district.

Funny, though, even in that red light district, most of the prostitues are foreign women from places like Africa, being exploited, not an idealic 'free people exchanging'.

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

 

[KeithP]

It seems to me you need to ask the people that find prostitution immoral why they feel that way. I am guessing there are probably a wide variety of reasons.

Asking a bunch of shut-ins that would happily employ a prostitute if their parents and finances would allow it, doesn't seem to be a productive way to get an answer to your question.

-KeithP

 

[monovillage]

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

Very well said! I applaud your post and agree 100%.

 

[Kadarin]

Well the people that think prostitution is immoral also think one night stands and casual sex is also immoral.

One problem with prostitution is that while its illegal in the US, its unregulated, its unsafe, and its practically slavery for many women. I think it would be more moral to make prostitution legit.

Wait, what?

Prostitution is legal in licensed brothels in rural counties in Nevada.

 

[piasabird]

It is illegal because the government doesnt make any money off of it. How do you explain to your kids that daddy is not home because he goes to a whore house every night?

 

[Sonikku]

why is prostitution immoral?

Because the government doesn't get it's cut.

 

[MotF Bane]

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

Excellent post.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Question: Is prostitution "immoral"?

Answer: It's not "immoral" if you live in Nevada !

Seriously, imposing the issue of "morality" on whether or not prostitution is "immoral or not" is a fallacy designed to paint any argument into a corner where there can only be one resulting answer from those who wish to impose their own moral views on the subject.

 

[cubby1223]

Most do it for the money.

I simply don't see why prostitution is unethical. Not all prostitutes are abused, not all are coerced into it. The only logical deduction I can see is religious morality.

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

Go

Find her

I'm waiting

 

[cubby1223]

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.

Yea, you just went and destroyed any chance of there of making a point.


A woman wants to trade sex for money, okay.
A woman wants to trade sex for money to pay for her physically and emotionally abusive "boyfriend's" drug addiction, not okay.

We can rationalize out all we want about fairness amongst the sexes, but ask yourself this, why is it that 99.9999999999% of these transactions involve the man paying the woman? If it were closer to 50/50 where women paid men about as much, you might have a point.

You dig into the lives of men who are overly sexual, and guess what you're going to find? Abuse in the younger years.

How often do you see a male prostituting himself to pay a female "girlfriend" or pimp?


Bottom line is, you are jumping to conclusions yourself that people have not stated.

 

[cybrsage]

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

Go

Find her

I'm waiting

Actually, you can find many of them if you watch the series "Jail" on TV. I think it is on TruTV, but not positive.

Many women like the prospect of making $1000 a night via the easy work of letting men have sex with them.

It is still immoral, though.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I don't live nor was born in the US, but it seems amongst most Western countries it is one of the most anti-prostitution (and conservative also, but in some regions more than others).

But is prostitution "immoral" due to religious reasons? It may be empty sex, but so what? Friends with benefits is just empty sex, so are one night stands. I don't believe in moral dictates really, but is there a reason why it's immoral?

The one word answer to your questions is: Christianity

 

[zsdersw]

Because the government doesn't get it's cut.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

The government is the biggest pimp of all.

 

[SagaLore]

Wait, what?

Prostitution is legal in licensed brothels in rural counties in Nevada.

I'm talking about illegal prostitution in the other 99.999% of the United States. For those licensed brothels, would you agree that it is a safer environment for both the workers and clients?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Because the government doesn't get it's cut.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

The government is the biggest pimp of all.

The government has the option of taking a cut.

It has chosen not to 49/50 times here in the USA.

Puritan "morality "brought over by the religious sects in England.

 

[blackangst1]

The US has a sexually oppressive society. Sexual intercourse and anything remotely considered sexual is tightly controlled.

Examples of this are:

1. Consider the hoopla made about Janet Jackson showing her breast on TV,

2. The incredible craziness people have about sexually explicit entertainiment

3. In Connecticut it is still against the law for unmarried men and women to be alone in a bedroom.

4. Homophobe bigotry

In the US sexual intercourse is only acceptable between a man and a woman who are married.

Add to that in Oklahoma, for example, XXX is against the law to buy (but not to own). Cant find it anywhere.

And yet

You can buy shorts for your 6 year old that say hottie and other such things on the ass. Not to mention the underage teen TV shows loaded with sex and sexual innuendo.

Fucked up place for sex, the US is.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Why is it illegal?

Because the people who write the laws believe it is bad. MOST religions say this, as well as many social doctrines not directly connected to one religion or another. So when this happens it makes its way into law.

There are many reasons for this being seen as "bad" socially, although arguments can be made against some of them with modern medicine and regulation.

Why is it immoral?

That's easy.

'cuz God said so!

 

[bfdd]

so you are a social Darwinist?

A grown man or woman capable of working, but choosing not to does not deserve our support. People pumping out kids and refusing to take responsibility for their feeding and care, do not deserve our support. Capable people fucking themselves over and putting that cost on society, do not deserve our support. Those who CANNOT help themselves definitely deserve our care and our support because without it they wouldn't survive.

People make shitty choices all the time, most of us life with them and learn from them. I do not understand why we as a society have to front the cost for so many others failures. That makes no sense to me and it really needs to stop.

 

[jackstar7]

A grown man or woman capable of working, but choosing not to does not deserve our support. People pumping out kids and refusing to take responsibility for their feeding and care, do not deserve our support. Capable people fucking themselves over and putting that cost on society, do not deserve our support. Those who CANNOT help themselves definitely deserve our care and our support because without it they wouldn't survive.

People make shitty choices all the time, most of us life with them and learn from them. I do not understand why we as a society have to front the cost for so many others failures. That makes no sense to me and it really needs to stop.

How do you distinguish from an outside standpoint between those who have just had bad luck and those who have made bad choices?

Or do you let them all fall at equal velocity?

 

[actuarial]

A grown man or woman capable of working, but choosing not to does not deserve our support. People pumping out kids and refusing to take responsibility for their feeding and care, do not deserve our support. Capable people fucking themselves over and putting that cost on society, do not deserve our support. Those who CANNOT help themselves definitely deserve our care and our support because without it they wouldn't survive.

People make shitty choices all the time, most of us life with them and learn from them. I do not understand why we as a society have to front the cost for so many others failures. That makes no sense to me and it really needs to stop.

But do their kids deserve our support?