← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · JOEBIALEK
Thread ID: 12527 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2004-02-26
2004-02-26 01:50 | User Profile
Referred to as the world's oldest "profession," prostitution is defined as the act or practice of selling oneself for sexual purposes. It is also defined as an unworthy use of a talent, quality, or the like, especially for personal gain. What's interesting is that the former is illegal in all states except Nevada while the latter has been morally and culturally accepted since the beginning of time. This begs the question: is there any difference between a street walker/escort and a person who uses their physical beauty to attain a lifestyle that others labor very hard to attain? Too often in our society we see evidence of the "trophy spouse"; a reward received by those who achieve success in business or entertainment. The marriage consists of a person who sees a beautiful spouse as something to obtain and a person who deliberately shops lifestyle by any sexual means necessary.
Some would argue that prostitution should be made legal so that (just as with drugs) it can be regulated by the state and become a source of revenue enhancement. Furthermore, sex between strangers would be safer since the government (as in Nevada) would require regular medical examinations to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The problem facing this country is that we haven't reconciled these two definitions thus creating the existence of a double standard. We are quick to arrest and condemn the street walker/escort but would never think to shun a sexual opportunist. In many ways, prostitution already is legal in our society. People pay to watch two people have sex with each other but yet cannot pay each other for sex. I recall two people comparing their lifestyles while waiting in line at the airport. One person told the other "the difference between you and me is that you pay for your sex with cash and I pay for it with dinners, clothing and jewelry". The problem with this country today is not that we are a nation of laws but rather a nation that continually contradicts itself when it comes to morality.
2004-02-26 10:41 | User Profile
Good points, JB. I agree that society is very inconsistent on issues such as this.
While I believe prostitution is a loathsome practice that degrades all parties involved in it, I can see little justification for laws against it (except where minors are concerned). Setting aside for a moment the principle that government has no business imposing laws on a population according to any religious model of morality -- at least not without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the model is valid -- there is actually no real moral distinction between an act of prostitution and a simple one-night stand with a person whom one has met in a bar. In the former case a person pays money for the unilateral relief of lust; in the latter, a mutual relief of lust is generally the motive. Why is either of these scenarios any worse than the other? I wonder how many of those who believe prostitutes should be imprisoned have ever had extramarital sex themselves. I'm sure the percentage is fairly high, and all of them are hypocrites.
I also agree with your point, JB, that there is little difference between prostitution and marrying for money. If anything, the latter is the more serious offense against morality, since marriage involves a much greater commitment of money and time and is meant to be a contract based primarily on mutual love.
What is the proper societal response to putative immoral behavior? I would say those who are known to indulge in or cater to such behavior should be shunned and/or boycotted by those who don't approve of it. Government has no business getting involved unless someone's being victimized against his or her will.
2004-03-01 20:30 | User Profile
The difference between a hooker and a model is that a hooker poses a health threat. That is an abundantly proper subject for criminal sanction or other state control.
The difference between prositition and marriage is that only the latter results in legitimate children. Society has an interest in that, and in preventing the abortion, unwanted children, STDs and other joys of sex for sale.
Also, even if the health threats can be controlled, legalized prostitution destabilizes families because horny dads/husbands go for it, leaving less money for junior's college.
On this, our society has it right. Keep the hooking illegal.
2004-03-01 21:34 | User Profile
Anyone who compares paying for sex with money vs. paying for sex with dinners has denied that there is a distinction between private and business relationships. Such a person, if not a hypocrite, would have to insist I have a right to discriminate in who I hire if I should have the right to discriminate in who can be my friend.
Anyway, nothing good comes from money for sex. But, civilization works very well with dinners for sex.
The only argument for the legalization of prostitution is the libertarian argument.
2004-03-01 23:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]The difference between a hooker and a model is that a hooker poses a health threat. That is an abundantly proper subject for criminal sanction or other state control.
The difference between prositition and marriage is that only the latter results in legitimate children. Society has an interest in that, and in preventing the abortion, unwanted children, STDs and other joys of sex for sale.
Also, even if the health threats can be controlled, legalized prostitution destabilizes families because horny dads/husbands go for it, leaving less money for junior's college.
On this, our society has it right. Keep the hooking illegal.[/QUOTE]
Hi, Hugh,
Are you a Christian?
Neo
2004-03-02 02:11 | User Profile
[quote=Hugh Lincoln]The difference between a hooker and a model is that a hooker poses a health threat. That is an abundantly proper subject for criminal sanction or other state control. Promiscuity of any sort is a health threat, regardless of whether money is involved or not. If prostitution is illegal on that basis, then pre- and extra-marital sex should also be illegal. But that would make criminals out of 99% of the population, so lawmakers haven't gone quite that far (yet). In addition, if anything that's a health threat should be made illegal, then that means fast food, doughnuts, lack of exercise, cigarettes, and alcohol should also be illegal. Of course that last one has already been tried, and it didn't work too well.
[quote=Hugh Lincoln]The difference between prositition and marriage is that only the latter results in legitimate children. Society has an interest in that, and in preventing the abortion, unwanted children, STDs and other joys of sex for sale. This is true regarding marriage, but those differences you cite all disappear when comparing prostitution and extra-marital sex. The only difference between prostitution and any other sex outside of marriage is that money is involved in prostitution, rather than mere lust.
[quote=Hugh Lincoln]Also, even if the health threats can be controlled, legalized prostitution destabilizes families because horny dads/husbands go for it, leaving less money for junior's college. Right, but sending people to prison also destabilizes families. And if a man is selfish enough to squander his child's college savings on a hooker, then he's liable to squander it on some other indulgence if hookers are made unavailable.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Such a person, if not a hypocrite, would have to insist I have a right to discriminate in who I hire if I should have the right to discriminate in who can be my friend. [/QUOTE]For the record, I definitely believe that employers should have the right to discriminate on the basis of race or other factors when hiring. If someone owns a business, then it should be his business, and he should have the right to choose his customers and employees as he sees fit.