Prostitution

[LMK]

OK, it's settled then, correct?

So, who will take charge of writing this up and sending it to the floor of the House?

I apologize if that sounds flip, and perhaps it was, and this is a serious discussion.

So let me amend my comment to include that sometimes I think it is better not to legalize or illegalize a thing, but to remove legislation about it entirely. Kind of like not putting a foot path in right away, but watching where people walk and then deciding which is the best, safest most effective path.

~L

[ktm5124]

I am against legalizing prostitution.

I think there is something sacred about human intimacy, between any two people, and that the practice of prostitution violates this thing that is sacred. It violates it because prostitution is a hired intimacy, a unilateral relationship; it is not a sought-after and consensual relationship formed for the sake of intimacy itself. To legalize prostitution would send the message to society that such endeavors are not our ideal, and would leave the persons involved in such a practice without the guilty conscience of having acted counter to a human ideal.

You may ask, who is the legislator to say that one is to accord himself with the human ideals, when to act otherwise injures none other than the person himself? Who is the legislator to impose that condition on one's freedom?

The legislator would answer, who are you to use the microwave, to reheat your leftover chicken parmesan? You did not invent the microwave; you did not formulate the physics or engineer the devices. Your microwave is a gift from civilization; you are indebted to humanity.

Part of this debt is to pursue the few principles that have founded civilization. One of them is the pursuit of intimacy, the bonds that have made us a collective, a culture, a State. And, as I have already said, prostitution runs against this principle.

I think sex is a proof of intimacy. It makes a feeling into a fact. In the same way, law is a proof of morality. It makes an infraction undeniable, and recorded by law. Without it we could wade our way through the grey corners of morality without ever transgressing the lines that shape it. This is why prostitution should not only be immoral, but contrary to our laws.

Of course, there is an idealism to this, but I think we should put the human ideals into play when they are practical. The practical consequence of keeping it illegal is that illegal prostitution is less safe than legal prostitution. It will never go away, and people will always die from STDs contracted from prostitution. But this is a risk people take when they violate human intimacy, and spurn an ideal that has given them civilization and the microwave. Society is not responsible for the consequences of immoral action. If we wipe away the consequences, making it perfectly safe to engage in prostitution, then the perceived immorality of such a practice would fade with time, and we would eventually remove a block from the Jenga of civilization.

[The Atheist]

OK, it's settled then, correct?

So, who will take charge of writing this up and sending it to the floor of the House?

Done and dusted here, mate!

Just move to NZ, the most liberal country on the planet.

I am against legalizing prostitution.

I think there is something sacred about human intimacy, between any two people, and that the practice of prostitution violates this thing that is sacred.

How do you reconcile that sacredness with one-night stands, adultery and drunken debauchery? There's precious little sacred about that kind of sex, or were you looking to ban that behaviour as well?

To legalize prostitution would send the message to society that such endeavors are not our ideal, and would leave the persons involved in such a practice without the guilty conscience of having acted counter to a human ideal.

Why is it "ideal"? Why does sex have anything to do with ideals? It seems to me that you're trying to push your own rather peculiar idea (and ideals) on what sex should be, and it isn't so much ideal as unreal.

The legislator would answer, who are you to use the microwave, to reheat your leftover chicken parmesan? You did not invent the microwave; you did not formulate the physics or engineer the devices. Your microwave is a gift from civilization; you are indebted to humanity.

Part of this debt is to pursue the few principles that have founded civilization. One of them is the pursuit of intimacy, the bonds that have made us a collective, a culture, a State. And, as I have already said, prostitution runs against this principle.

It looks to me as though you're just confused, because I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I think sex is a proof of intimacy. It makes a feeling into a fact. In the same way, law is a proof of morality.

Now you're really confused, because law and morality are not related in any way beyond the morality of the majority being enforced as law. To me, it seems far more immoral to impose restrictions on what one may do with one's body than having paid sex.

It makes an infraction undeniable, and recorded by law. Without it we could wade our way through the grey corners of morality without ever transgressing the lines that shape it. This is why prostitution should not only be immoral, but contrary to our laws.

Unfortunately, neither laws nor morality are universal, so your attempted point falls to bits. Bigamy is illegal in the west, yet sanctioned under Islam, while adultery is not illegal in the west, but punishable by death under some cultures.

Of course, there is an idealism to this, but I think we should put the human ideals into play when they are practical.

You mean your ideals, because they certainly aren't mine.

The practical consequence of keeping it illegal is that illegal prostitution is less safe than legal prostitution. It will never go away, and people will always die from STDs contracted from prostitution. But this is a risk people take when they violate human intimacy, and spurn an ideal that has given them civilization and the microwave.

This is terribly confused. Science gave us the microwave and while I think microwaves are stupid, useless things, I wouldn't seek to ban them. Odd that you're able to see that illegal prostitution is more likely to cause harm than legal prostitution, yet you see banning it as "ideal".

Society is not responsible for the consequences of immoral action. If we wipe away the consequences, making it perfectly safe to engage in prostitution, then the perceived immorality of such a practice would fade with time, and we would eventually remove a block from the Jenga of civilization.

No, this is just fallacy. You're attempting to use legalisation as a slippery slope and it clearly is not.

[ktm5124]

I wasn't using the adjective form of "ideal", I was using the noun form. There's a difference. You twisted my words.

What don't you understand about the fact that we have a give-and-take relationship with our cultural inheritance? You may not care about the microwave (I do), but that computer you're using was inherited; you may have spent $1,000-$2,000 for it, but that is nowhere close to repaying the two or three thousand years of progress in science and engineering that went into its manufacture.

These are the things we "take" from our inheritance. A part of what we give back is love and affection for others, and reverence for the human capacity to love. But prostitution runs against this idea, in that it is a purchased, unilateral pseudo-relationship. People owe it to the world to become a good person.

[The Atheist]

I wasn't using the adjective form of "ideal", I was using the noun form. There's a difference. You twisted my words.

No, I have not. You can use "ideal" as a noun, but it's only an ideal if the result is ideal. You're the one playing semantics with it.

What don't you understand about the fact that we have a give-and-take relationship with our cultural inheritance? You may not care about the microwave (I do), but that computer you're using was inherited; you may have spent $1,000-$2,000 for it, but that is nowhere close to repaying the two or three thousand years of progress in science and engineering that went into its manufacture.

Sorry, but this is meaningless.

The history of science has got nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, nor does the history of morality.

In case you missed it, morality is not universal, so the idea of any "ideal" is simply fantasy.

These are the things we "take" from our inheritance. A part of what we give back is love and affection for others, and reverence for the human capacity to love. But prostitution runs against this idea, in that it is a purchased, unilateral pseudo-relationship. People owe it to the world to become a good person.

They most certainly do not. People don't owe anything - we are brought into the world through no choice of our own and we owe nothing at all to anyone, ever.

Instead of making up your argument as you go along, why don't you look at - and answer - some of the clear points I made. I'll repeat the most important ones:

In what way is a drunken one-night stand as morally desirable as sex during marriage?

Should adulterers be stoned?

If you can get past those couple of easy ones you might like to scroll up and answer some of the others.

[weltanschauung]

people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want regarding their own lives even if its damn stupid. what is it with all these preachers trying to drag a flock of sheep around, screaming "i have seen the light"; take care of your own lantern, people. if everyone took care of their own lives instead of trying to decide what everyone else should be doing, this world would certainly be much more civilized place.
the problem of this world started EXACTLY when one mighty dude grabbed a stick and said "everyone, listen to me, i know better". no one knows anything, and everyone is equally stupid. if you like prostitutes, go ahead and have them. you if you like being a prostitute, good for you. who cares, do whatever you want and be happy with the crap you chose for yourself, but just make sure that you were the one who chose it and not someone else. no one owns the right to judge anything, everyone is just as stupid and imperfect as the next person.
grab your prostitutes and your crack and be happy, whatever you want is fine.
just dont come into my hypercube and tell me what i should be doing.

[The Atheist]

if everyone took care of their own lives instead of trying to decide what everyone else should be doing, this world would certainly be much more civilized place.

Bingo!

You damned libertarian you!

[Nightshade]

Bigamy is illegal in the west, yet sanctioned under Islam, .

Umm Atheist I could be wrong ( but I dont think I am- Im on about the semantics rather than the rules) but youve got it a bit wrong. Bigamy where by the spouses are unaware of each other is not sanctioned in Islam, it falls under the secret marraiges thing where by secret marraiges are null and void becasue the purpose is to let everyone know you are married-its why there is always so much dramatics about it in egyptian ssoap poeras because while legal in the law of the land they are illegal in religion law ( the visa versa also can be done) -. Anyway were was I . Oh yes Bigamy is a nono. Its Polygyny ( one man many wives where everyone knows about everyone else- and actually there is a fixed number. ) That is OK. And actually there is currently this massive debate going on as to whether really that was supposed to be a law applicable only in times of extrodinary circumstances but has been dragged on dilbratly far far too long.

[The Atheist]

Anyway were was I . Oh yes Bigamy is a nono. Its Polygyny ( one man many wives where everyone knows about everyone else- and actually there is a fixed number. ) That is OK.

You're quite right, of course! (although the word is polygamy, I think)

[Nightshade]

You're quite right, of course! (although the word is polygamy, I think)

No Polygyny is right ( athough doubting my spelling is always a good thing to do!) Polygyny being one man many wives as opposed to polygamy.

OED deffintions

polygamy, n--1. a. The practice or custom of having more than one spouse at the same time. Contrasted with monogamy.
Chiefly applied to the practice or custom (more explicitly called polygyny) in which a man has several wives at once, but also including polyandry, in which a woman has several husbands.
Sometimes also used with reference to sexual partners rather than spouses.
.

polygyny, n.--- 1. A form of polygamy in which a man has more than one wife at the same time. Cf. POLYANDRY n. 1a.

[weltanschauung]

nightshade, whats with you and all the defense of misogynistic causes?
im foe-ing you.

[Nightshade]

What you've decided I am a foe?

hey I didn't say I was FOR it, I said that's OK in islamic theory.
Something like 78% of people cheat with in the first year of marriage anyway, so how is making it official any worse than accepting the fact that most people can't stay the course of monogamy? but that is an OT point when this is about prostitution.

Last year my flatmates and I got into a debate about prostitution and the point arose that in some case marriage and prostitution aren't really that far apart. When you get married you are basically officially promising to have sex with someone for the rest of your life m( or until you get divorced) in exhcange for other things. Or less sex realted you are promising to exchange certain thinsg ( security, patership, friendship, love whatever) in exchange for things in return.

[The Atheist]

No Polygyny is right ( athough doubting my spelling is always a good thing to do!) Polygyny being one man many wives as opposed to polygamy.

OED deffintions

Silly me, doubting you!

Last year my flatmates and I got into a debate about prostitution and the point arose that in some case marriage and prostitution aren't really that far apart. When you get married you are basically officially promising to have sex with someone for the rest of your life m( or until you get divorced) in exhcange for other things. Or less sex realted you are promising to exchange certain thinsg ( security, patership, friendship, love whatever) in exchange for things in return.

Marriage is a lot more expensive than hookers.

[ktm5124]

people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want regarding their own lives even if its damn stupid. what is it with all these preachers trying to drag a flock of sheep around, screaming "i have seen the light"; take care of your own lantern, people. if everyone took care of their own lives instead of trying to decide what everyone else should be doing, this world would certainly be much more civilized place.
the problem of this world started EXACTLY when one mighty dude grabbed a stick and said "everyone, listen to me, i know better". no one knows anything, and everyone is equally stupid. if you like prostitutes, go ahead and have them. you if you like being a prostitute, good for you. who cares, do whatever you want and be happy with the crap you chose for yourself, but just make sure that you were the one who chose it and not someone else. no one owns the right to judge anything, everyone is just as stupid and imperfect as the next person.
grab your prostitutes and your crack and be happy, whatever you want is fine.
just dont come into my hypercube and tell me what i should be doing.

OK, I am pulling out my trump cards.

"That which enslaves us all, vulgarity." (Goethe)

Matthew Arnold was fond of this quote. He believed that power could not be located in any one of the classes: he termed the working-class the Populace, the middle-class the Philistines, and the aristocracy the Barbarians. He argued that there are problems in making any one of these classes the ruling class -- the gist of it can be understood from his nomenclature. He argued, instead, that we must invest power in the State, so that it may produce the best self in all of us through the means of Culture. How did he define culture? He proclaimed culture to be the best that has been thought or said; it is the pursuit of perfection.

Now, I am not one to jump on the bandwagon -- a few years ago, I was quite a detestable, ultra-liberal atheist. However, reading Arnold's essay Culture and Anarchy has changed my views, and I have come to largely support his stance on culture and individual freedom. I think that legalizing prostitution will have a pernicious effect on culture, since law and culture are inseparable. This will affect all of us, not only the person involved; it will rob from the coffers of the collective.

Max Weber once argued that Protestantism and particularly Calvinism gave us the work ethic required for capitalism. However, at the end of his immortal essay, in a supreme pathos for humanity, he lamented the erosion of religion and foreboded the autonomy of capitalism.

Richard Sennnett, in his seminal work The Corrosion of Character, took this trend one step further than Weber. He argued that not only has the source of our work ethic, religion, eroded, but the work ethic itself, and the very thing we call "character," are quickly vanishing. He argues that the Fordist work ethic is being replaced by a new regime of flexible accumulation, in which risk-taking, chance, and simply being available to move to a new job are largely what determine success in the job market.

So you see, The Atheist, that the very religion that you renounce gave you your capitalist society. In fact, an extreme form of the religion you renounce -- Calvinism -- perhaps gave you your computer. While religion had its faults, it had some kind of culture to it, in which a work ethos and ethical discipline were thoroughly developed. While a return to religion is not the solution, we still need culture to correct the maladies of our time -- we need to take the good from religion and leave the bad. And people need the humility to accept some of these teachings as law, since, after all, it is the best that has been thought or said. Who are you in comparison?

By legalizing prostitution, we will only contribute to the maladies of modern culture, which Weber and Sennnett identify through their life-long research. We simply need something to teach us ethical discipline, because it is shown by sociology that when left to our own resources we, as a people, are too stupid to be disciplined.

Besides, legalizing incest is not a far cry away from legalizing prostitution. By weltanschauung's logic, incestual sex hurts no one so long as birth control (or sterilization for sure measure) are employed.

OK, The Atheist, now I will quickly do away with your questions.

In what way is a drunken one-night stand as morally desirable as sex during marriage?

Should adulterers be stoned?

1. Of course a drunken one-night stand is not as morally desirable as marital sex. However, let's make recourse to the Goethe quote: "That which enslaves us all, vulgarity". Do you think he meant all kinds of vulgarity in this quote? Of course not, he meant only those kinds that epitomize vulgarity. One-night stands do not; prostitution does; one is bilateral (however hasty), and the other is not.

2. Of course adulterers should not be stoned. The real question, of course, that you do not respect me enough to ask, is whether adultery should be illegal. As I said before, prostitution epitomizes vulgarity; adultery does not. Furthermore, a marriage is a complex relationship and adultery a complex consequence; prostitution, on the other hand, is a simple degradation. Lastly, a law against adultery would be impractical and impossible to enforce.

[Nightshade]

I would like to remind people to respect everyone’s opinions and beliefs. The purpose of this thread is not to criticise individual posters, posts or opinions but to discuss the matter at hand, i.e. Prostitution. Further infringement of forum ruleswill lead to the deletion of posts and/or the closing of this thread without further warning.
Thank you and have a nice day,
Nightshade