• France makes paying for sex illegal.
    60 replies, posted
you pay a prostiute for time and companionship. Whatever else happens is between two consenting adults.
Lmao maybe if the wage gap wasn't so jarring France wouldn't have so many female sex workers Really not the correct way to be tackling this issue...
[QUOTE=phygon;50090887]Define why prostitution is "wrong"[/QUOTE] I don't get why this question is supposed to be insightful. All moral statements are based on your personal moral beliefs.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50104191]I don't get why this question is supposed to be insightful. All moral statements are based on your personal moral beliefs.[/QUOTE] That's why it's a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning"]good question[/URL].
[QUOTE=glitchvid;50104205]That's why it's a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning"]good question[/URL].[/QUOTE] The point is that there's no objective (or, more accurately, no provable) answer to give to why something is wrong (or right). This applies to all moral questions. The problem is that he can give almost literally any reason, even something as simple as, "I feel like it," and it would be just as justified as you concluding the opposite, whatever your reasoning is. At most you can prove that it is physically better or worse for the individuals involved, but the jump to 'right' or 'wrong' goes beyond that. [editline]10th April 2016[/editline] Simply put: The question "What makes it wrong" is a useless question when any and all possible answers are unprovable. It would be like seriously asking someone, "What makes blue a good color?" and expecting a meaningful answer back.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50104248]Simply put: The question "What makes it wrong" is a useless question when any and all possible answers are unprovable.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's why it's a good question, it takes the statement (That something is "Wrong", and therefore should be illegal/dissuaded), and shows it to be an untenable position. If they actually try to defend the position no doubt there will be moral debate, subjective or not.
[QUOTE=Captain James;50090877]These things would still occur even if it was legal. It's questionable at best to put a halo over something wrong.[/QUOTE] No, when it's legal all the women (and occasionally men) gather in one big building that actually gets cleaned regularly and doesn't double as the perfect backdrop for your last known photograph. They're usually called brothels, and Nevada has had no problem with having them legal.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNNnxO5QRlE&nohtml5=False[/media] we all pay for sex and butter puts it the best. You have to listen to the moan or they take your money in the end we all pay for sex
prohibition of the most ancient trade wont ever work its better to regulate it and put major rules about it instead
[QUOTE=Seriousshakey;50105748] we all pay for sex and butter puts it the best. You have to listen to the moan or they take your money in the end we all pay for sex[/QUOTE] If you have to indirectly pay for sex in a relationship, you're doing it really wrong. Invest some of that money into yourself so that you don't have to give it away next time.
[QUOTE=Seriousshakey;50105748][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNNnxO5QRlE&nohtml5=False[/media] we all pay for sex and butter puts it the best. You have to listen to the moan or they take your money in the end we all pay for sex[/QUOTE] I hope this isn't how you actually see relationships
No worries, instead of hireing them I'll borrow their services for free and donate accordingly. Then it doesn't count as paying.
[QUOTE=Tools;50106431]No worries, instead of hireing them I'll borrow their services for free and donate accordingly. Then it doesn't count as paying.[/QUOTE] I am sure that rule will fool the police
Why is making porn legal but prostitution not? They're essentially the same. If you wanna bang a prostitute, just film a porno.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50106849]Why is making porn legal but prostitution not? They're essentially the same. If you wanna bang a prostitute, just film a porno.[/QUOTE] Because somewhere along the lines between prostitution and porno, someone got the idea that prostitution is just perverted filth and porno is enterprise artisticness. 100% idiotic because it's completely the same thing except one's with the intention of sharing the incident.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;50104464]Yeah, that's why it's a good question, it takes the statement (That something is "Wrong", and therefore should be illegal/dissuaded), and shows it to be an untenable position. If they actually try to defend the position no doubt there will be moral debate, subjective or not.[/QUOTE] ... but that would apply to any and all criminal actions. Why is theft wrong? Why is inciting violence wrong? Why is trespassing wrong? etc. etc. They all come down to fundamental moral assumptions. If that question successfully shows this idea to be untenable, then it also shows all moral laws (all of them) untenable. [editline]10th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Tools;50107092]Because somewhere along the lines between prostitution and porno, someone got the idea that prostitution is just perverted filth and porno is enterprise artisticness. 100% idiotic because it's completely the same thing except one's with the intention of sharing the incident.[/QUOTE] The main difference is that you don't have to come into contact with porn unless you want to.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50108302]They all come down to fundamental moral assumptions. If that question successfully shows this idea to be untenable, then it also shows all moral laws (all of them) untenable.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=glitchvid;50104464] If they actually try to defend the position no doubt there will be moral debate, subjective or not.[/QUOTE]
You can't have a debate about subjective things beyond emoting your feelings at each other. Like I said earlier, it would be like arguing over what color is best. Can you do it? Sure. Is it meaningful in any way? No.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50108317]You can't have a debate about subjective things[/QUOTE] Whether you can debate about subjective things or not is entirely subjective. [QUOTE=sgman91;50108317]Can you do it? Sure. Is it meaningful in any way? No.[/QUOTE] hasn't stopped you so far [editline]10th April 2016[/editline] To clarify, why even include yourself in this debate if you think it's going to be meaningless? It seems like you're only trying to shut down any attempt at a discussion because you think it is wrong but don't want to justify it or risk being wrong in an argument.
[QUOTE=lxmach1;50108347]Whether you can debate about subjective things or not is entirely subjective. hasn't stopped you so far [editline]10th April 2016[/editline] To clarify, why even include yourself in this debate if you think it's going to be meaningless? It seems like you're only trying to shut down any attempt at a discussion because you think it is wrong but don't want to justify it or risk being wrong in an argument.[/QUOTE] Because he asked what I think to be a silly question and a lot of people seemed to agree. So I thought, "Hey, I might as well tell them why I disagree and see if there's something I'm missing." So far, it doesn't seem like it. People love to dismiss other's moral ideals based on subjectivity, as the original question implies, but fail to see that the same exact line of reasoning would apply to all moral ideals equally. Showing why a question is absurd is a perfectly legitimate answer to the question.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50108302]... but that would apply to any and all criminal actions. Why is theft wrong? Why is inciting violence wrong? Why is trespassing wrong? etc. etc. They all come down to fundamental moral assumptions. If that question successfully shows this idea to be untenable, then it also shows all moral laws (all of them) untenable.[/QUOTE] Literally the only thing you have to ask to know why those three are considered to be amoral is "who does it hurt?". The same can't be said of paid sex. In a scenario where consensual sex involves a transaction of money, who exactly is hurt?
[QUOTE=sgman91;50108317]You can't have a debate about subjective things beyond emoting your feelings at each other. Like I said earlier, it would be like arguing over what color is best. Can you do it? Sure. Is it meaningful in any way? No.[/QUOTE] except this isn't debate class? if someone wants to talk about morality, they can. if someone wants to talk about the legal aspect of it, they can. and you're free to call someone out on backing legal decisions with nothing but subjective morals (or, apparently, defend them while ironically going on a tirade about what makes for 'good' arguing)
I recently watched Stacey Dooley's "Sex in Strange Places" which focuses on prostitution in Brazil, Russia and Turkey and in Russia and in Russia, some of the Politicians see Prostitution as being on the same level as murdering someone. I really don't see the point of banning this activity as they'll just carry on no matter what laws are put in place and is there really any harm in the activity aside from potential STDs?
[QUOTE=sgman91;50108317]You can't have a debate about subjective things beyond emoting your feelings at each other. Like I said earlier, it would be like arguing over what color is best. Can you do it? Sure. Is it meaningful in any way? No.[/QUOTE] When it comes to freedom and liberalism, prostitution should be 100% legal as it grants freedom to a lot of people.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50106849]Why is making porn legal but prostitution not? They're essentially the same. If you wanna bang a prostitute, just film a porno.[/QUOTE] I [b]think[/b] the main difference is that: In prostitution, one partner pays the other. EG the man pays the woman to have sex with him. In pornography, a third party pays both parties. EG the studio pays a man and woman to have sex with each other. Obviously other things come into play such as the camera, and "homemade" pornography (where then [b]no one[/b] receives money), and such, but I think that is the major difference: where the money is coming from, and who it is going to.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;50114614]I [b]think[/b] the main difference is that: In prostitution, one partner pays the other. EG the man pays the woman to have sex with him. In pornography, a third party pays both parties. EG the studio pays a man and woman to have sex with each other. Obviously other things come into play such as the camera, and "homemade" pornography (where then [b]no one[/b] receives money), and such, but I think that is the major difference: where the money is coming from, and who it is going to.[/QUOTE] I don't know the validity of this anymore, but it used to be that "Johns" looking for prostitutes, would ask them if they'd make a video with them. The reason being that a under cover officer would reject that idea outright, where as a prostitute would entertain it, moneys money after all.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;50114614]I [b]think[/b] the main difference is that: In prostitution, one partner pays the other. EG the man pays the woman to have sex with him. In pornography, a third party pays both parties. EG the studio pays a man and woman to have sex with each other. Obviously other things come into play such as the camera, and "homemade" pornography (where then [b]no one[/b] receives money), and such, but I think that is the major difference: where the money is coming from, and who it is going to.[/QUOTE] I fail to see how that makes any sense. From the porn actor/actress or prostitute's point of view it makes absolutely no difference; they're getting paid to fuck someone. The third party thing means nothing as well, what if someone pays a prostitute to offer her services to someone else as a "gift"? Does that make it legal then? As for the camera part, I suppose everyone understand how ridiculous it would be to have certain kinds of intercourse only be legal if caught on tape. Anti-prostitution laws simply don't make any sense, especially in countries where the making of pornography is legal.
I never claimed it made sense. I was just explaining my understand of how the legal system differentiates them.
I think for me the issue comes down to the loss of intrinsic value of love with sex when it becomes a market exchange. I mean what are the reasons a prostitute is doing the job? Probably out of desperation, thus it is not a choice. And the man? He just wants to bust a nut. But if it isn't and the prostitute simply "enjoys sex" and is a "high class escort", well they've reduced sex down to a meaningless act... They also set a precedent for young women to think that prostitution is a legitimate form of employment. It seems pretty selfish IMO. Well what if they argue they are trying to comfort lonely men? How does having sex with a complete stranger create a meaningful connection? Even if they go out on a date, talk and maybe actually enjoy each other, it becomes meaningless the next day and the man would in fact become lonelier and gain a dependency on prostitutes... If you pretend that sex is less than a meaningful act and pretend to ignore the true intrinsic value of love and that you can just "market people" I think there's seriously something wrong with people. Same with organs, if you allow third-world countries to allow organ donation, there is no shortage of desperate people who will sell their organs for a quick buck before realizing they have significantly decreased their lifespan. And as a result, those countries who are rich will be able to view third-world countries as a resource for them to live longer, because they have more money. Is that the kind of world we want to live in?
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;50127721]I think for me the issue comes down to the loss of intrinsic value of love with sex when it becomes a market exchange. I mean what are the reasons a prostitute is doing the job? Probably out of desperation, thus it is not a choice. And the man? He just wants to bust a nut. But if it isn't and the prostitute simply "enjoys sex" and is a "high class escort", well they've reduced sex down to a meaningless act... They also set a precedent for young women to think that prostitution is a legitimate form of employment. It seems pretty selfish IMO. Well what if they argue they are trying to comfort lonely men? How does having sex with a complete stranger create a meaningful connection? Even if they go out on a date, talk and maybe actually enjoy each other, it becomes meaningless the next day and the man would in fact become lonelier and gain a dependency on prostitutes... If you pretend that sex is less than a meaningful act and pretend to ignore the true intrinsic value of love and that you can just "market people" I think there's seriously something wrong with people. Same with organs, if you allow third-world countries to allow organ donation, there is no shortage of desperate people who will sell their organs for a quick buck before realizing they have significantly decreased their lifespan. And as a result, those countries who are rich will be able to view third-world countries as a resource for them to live longer, because they have more money. Is that the kind of world we want to live in?[/QUOTE] How is prostitution not a legitimate form of employment if it's legal, other than you thinking it "devalues love"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.