What's actually wrong with Prostitution?

I believe all of them had been addressed by the end of your last post.
They had not been at the time of my post, however, which is why I said something about it. But now... I think you've got it all covered. That's not to say you're right, simply that you've mentioned everything I have.

Ah, but even if they are used properly (which they often are not) they break all the time. And that's assuming they've used properly in the first place.

My point is that neither condoms nor birth control are not foolproof ways to prevent pregnancy, and lots of women still get pregnant even if both are used.

Oh I have plenty of faith in men. However, I do not have faith in ANYONE who chooses to be a prostitute, male or female.

Yes there are plenty of men who do stay to help take care of the child. Plenty of others decide they can't be bothered and take off. I think the risk outweighs the benefit in this situation (risk being that the guy leaves you, benefit being that he stays)

Alright. I'm not sure if this is as obvious as I thought it was, but I am female. And I will say it again: Women are weaker than men. This is not an opinion or an insult, it is pure fact. Women don't produce testosterone like men do. Women do not build muscle as easily as men. It's a simple fact of life, and any feminist who chooses to believe otherwise or is offended is an ignorant fool. One more time: Women are weaker than men. Yes, there are certain women who are stronger than certain men, but if you take the strongest woman in the world and put her up against the strongest man in the world, the guy will win.

Yes, women can have more willpower than men, but I don't think it's really possible to get out of being abused just by willpower. I don't see how a higher pain tolerance helps with that, either.

I'm certainly not discarding women as weaklings who are helpless and unable to throw off a man's advances. I myself take karate, and know several other women who do. Any guy who tries to mess with them will get more than they bargained for, believe me. But not every woman takes karate or lifts weights. And those who do are still not invincible.

I also don't think men always push sex or act violent towards women when they don't get their way. However, some do, and a prostitute environment will promote that sort of behavior.

Yes, legalization would certainly help with the spreading. But again, people did not make prostitution illegal just because. They outlawed it for a reason, and making it legal just to slow the spreading would be pointless. STDs are a natural consequence of prostitution, and for that reason help should not be provided.

You also cannot pick and choose the bad points if you are to make a point against the Bible. And yes, I do follow God's word quite well. I just don't give as much of my attention to things such as how to clean mold off of clothing, fabrics etc. We have chemicals and such for that now. But things such as "Thou shall not lie." are just as important today as they were 5000 years ago, no?

If you're saying I should take it completely literally, then that's also incorrect. The Bible, when taken literally, contradicts itself quite often. Rather, the Bible should be seen for its entirety, not one or two details. And I don't believe that just because you don't follow one or two things in the Bible, you aren't Christian or don't follow God's word.

 

You miss the point, along with everyone else who goes on constantly about STDs.

They would no longer be working independantly. They would work in brothels (or whatever they are renamed to) and would be regularly checked, screened and supplied with contraceptives. Clients would be screened also. Where is the problem?

 

I meant, give me the moral difference between a job of Prostitution and working in the office.

There is no practical difference because both are corrupt behaviors. An office man is confined to labor, which is a direct link to problems in the societal structure itself. It is a forced behavior in order to survive. Prostitution, as well, is the same fundamental symptom of this scarcity of money, forcing the individual to submit to some form of self-degradation (much like office work) in order to gain money to survive.

Both are essentially the same thing at the very core. I'll go into more detail on that, if you want.

Yes, I agree, it does hurt communities in that way.

But it isn't prostitution that is the bad thing. That's just a symptom of the real problem: the social structure has warranted this because it is the desperation to survive (gain money, as mentioned earlier). It's the fastest solution in the woman's opinion, much like the office man who submits to his other form of labor: because he has the credentials necessary for it. And, sure, a prostitute might not have credentials, however, physically, they can take advantage of what they have.

And, in my opinion, it isn't degrading only to the woman, but the entire social populace. It shows a failed operation of society taken advantage of (labor, work, etc). And of course it's degrading to the family. That's obvious. In fact, it's worse than that because two parties are involved. I didn't mention it because it didn't need to be added. >__>

And when it comes to sex, is it ever emotionally healthy? Prostitution is seen as a negative activity entirely, by politics, so why even suggest the health of it? And actually, the ideals the man feels towards prostitutes is felt beforehand 90% of the time, and they are a product of their upbringing and environmental conditioning.

These are bad only because some previous entity warrants them as such, also. They can't just simply be bad because someone (even God) says so. A consideration is much different from truth. Consideration is the act of getting there, whereas your truth is what has already been fabricated by your personal belief.


Don't get me wrong, society and the public can be negatively affected by prostitution. But prostitution is hardly the issue. It's something much deeper than that. Morally, I suppose, I'm going to agree for now that prostitution is bad. But that is only because the conditions say so.

Hmm, I can agree with that.

True, not every person who sleeps around is a prostitute. But remember, the main form of exchange in that is money. Which brings up the question of: why does that all the sudden change everything? The overall goal is the same: pleasure. And for whatever reasons they may be. Right and wrong won't matter there, imo. Just a thought.

Uh, k. Seems like you're contradicting yourself, is all.

I mean a religious preaching, for example. The method of transference of these moral understandings are done with certain reasonings, and that is mostly from religion. What he was saying was how if religion wasn't involved, it could be just as effective.

There is no standard, that is the point I was making.

Yours as well. It's in all of us. It's subliminal, but overall, we are all conformed in some way in are understandings. Perhaps not so much on this site, of course.


And don't worry, I wasn't being patronizing towards the topic of God. I use it loosely this way in order for it to have more meaning. It isn't meant to be negative at all.

 

I love how alot of people are posting without reading the other comments. I don't remember if I posted something here yet or not, but here I go anyways.

There is nothing immoral about prostitution or sex or anything of the sort. We get pleasure from sex in order to mke us want to do it again. If sex were painful, we wouldn't be doing it and we would die out. That is necessarily what religion advocates against. It says sex is wrong and that it is a great and terrible sin and that sex is only for breeding in order to have a family and children. With that said, prostitution is to give others pleasure and enjoyment. We don't have sex because we want kids, we do it because it feels good. At least, that's the way things were before religion advocated otherwise. So, prostitution isn't an immoral thing, it's more of a question as to wether or not you are comfortable with having sex with a stanger. Answers will vary. I for one, am not comfortable with hiring out a prostitute and having sex with her. But, there are those who are. And there are those who want to be prostitutes. Who's to say? But because it's illegal there are alot of STDs going around and alot of violence because it is not a regulated career. If it were legalized, there would be very in-depth medical diagnosis' in order to avoid the spread os STDs. Also, there would be no violence because it is regulated. Who are we to say that the world's oldest profession is wrong and immoral if people have been doing this for centuries?

 

While it is indeed true that sex itself may or may not necessarily be bad in and of itself, people out on the streets in trades like this would be ridiculously hard or even impossible to put taxes on, therefore, the government does not like it and expects the same of us.

 

Perhaps prostitution would be confined to "brothels" as I mentioned? Taxing would then be easy, just like getting your haircut or something.

 

But then how would we keep the new people in the "brothels"? There is a problem with the business side of this, seeing as it wouldn't take an idiot to see how successful a business this would become, and a lot of people would want in. There's also the problem of licensing already existing prostitutes.

 

An office man is not "confined" to labor, he chooses to be there. He may not love his job, but that's just part of life. And if it gets to the point where he doesn't enjoy it at all, then he can quite and find a new one. There's nothing forced about it. And it's quite reasonable that people should have to work to get money. If we all just sat around on our butts and got money whenever we wanted it... I'd hate to think of what kind of a place the world would be.

Prostitution is also not forced. It is something people choose to do. But unlike working in a cubicle all day, prostitution is immoral and harmful to the community. I have already explained this in detail; perhaps you should read some of my other posts. If you already have, then reread them.

Please do. I'm earnestly trying and failing to understand your logic. Perhaps a more detailed explanation will help.

So it's society's fault prostitutes are prostitutes because we made them choose that path?

No, it doesn't. It shows a group of people who are either just plain sick, or good people who have simply had miserable lives and don't think they have any other options (I suppose it could be both...).

What do you mean it didn't need to be added? Are you saying the issue of family isn't important enough to be considered? I'm not sure I understand your point...

Sex can be very emotionally healthy, when it's used properly. When it's done without any thought other than "Ooh! I'm gonna get paid!" it is *extremely* unhealthy.

Yes, previous entities warrant it bad. But for a reason! It's not as if lawmakers got together and said "Heh! Let's ban prostitution! We'll make a lot of people mad that way!" They had good reasons: The physical and emotional health of both partners, and the effect prostitution has on surrounding communities. Reality has shown prostitution to be bad, not someone (not even God) saying so.

Oh, I think prostitution is the issue. And what do you mean by "only because the conditions say so."? Are you reluctant to believe that it is bad? (not judging, just asking).

I don't remember saying there was any moral difference between a prostitute and just some person who sleeps with multiple people. There is none.

And you still haven't told me when I said people who slept with more than one person are not fine, smart and religious. Just saying.

I'm not contradicting myself. Compare these two statements:

A. Prostitution is bad. No reason, it just is.

B. Prostitution is bad. Some reasons for this are *insert anything that I've brought up*.

I think the difference is pretty clear. And I think the statement I used in my argument is also pretty clear, as long as you read carefully (I can see how what I said might be confusing if it's NOT read thoroughly, though).

I'm still not quite sure I understand exactly what you're saying, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

Yes, religion can ingrain certain beliefs, and some people choose to believe those teachings without any thought (I am not one of them). But so can a lack of religion.

Just a note: I deliberately used "can" instead of "does" in both sentences.

Uh... So there's no difference between good and evil? Moral and immoral? No way to define either the words or the differences between them?

I have already addressed this issue quite well and in great detail in another post (not one directed towards you). If you still have that opinion after reading my views, however, please let me know. I will be glad to restate my thoughts on that subject.

Okay. Then perhaps to avoid further misunderstanding, you shouldn't be quite so mocking when talking about God being one of my reasons. But, no hard feelings on that.

 

Hmm maybe I misrepresented that idea.

What I meant was, a person who works in an office has to have -some- kind of job. If he doesn't, he will never be able to support himself as a human, and he won't be able to live. Prostitution is the same way. Sure, you can choose what you want to do, but this is irrelevant when it comes down to it, because either way you look at it, the society is making them do something in order to live. This is dangerous, because it warrants the possibility of prostitution. If you don't want prostitution, get rid of the system, or try and solve the problem by analyzing the conditions that make it appear.

I understand why you think it is immoral, prostitution, that is. But so is working in any job. Rather, it isn't immoral, you are simpy taking action in a corrupt practice by serving a job that you might or might not want to do in order to live. Because all jobs do is get you money, and all money comes from a bank, and ends up in the bank. The financial system is thus the issue here, not prostitution, because it allows the possibility of jobs, and from that, we get possibilities of jobs like prostitution.

So, really, the jobs themselves are not the same. The purpose is the same, however, and that is to live and support yourself. But if the system causes you to do that, things like prostitution will always happen. If it is wished to be gone, conditions need to be looked at which warrant it, and we need to fix the problem. Simply saying it is immoral and trying to convince people of that, might not be enough. But if we observe it on a more objective approach, it might make it more understandable.

In a sense, yes, because society has allowed the emergence of that job. When prostitution was first made illegal, it wasn't because it was "wrong," (though that is true on some level, I suppose, arguably) it was because it is a portion of the social system that has failed. And if prostitution is bad and wrong, then the system that created it must also have to have some responsibility. If not, then it being "immoral" or "wrong" wouldn't be possible. That would be an empty distinction at that point, or simply made up all together, for there isn't a foundation to base it off of (imaginary, in other words).

Yes, it does show a failed mechanism in society. I think I answered that above already, though.

It didn't need to be added because I wasn't looking at it from the same perspective you were, I think. I'm not sure if I missed it or subconsciously included it without even realizing it. But since what I'm saying is on such a broad scale (the entire system, not just prostitution), it seems to fall into place.

True. Very true.

Yes, but I was saying it was fabricated. Their reasonings for banning prostitution doesn't make sense. If it made sense, it would have been gone by now. Putting up a sign (or law, in this case) and saying it isn't legal won't solve anything. That isn't even a solution. You are essentially saying, "Hey, don't do this, or you'll get punished." That just shows how much more the society fails to truly try and solve the problem of prostitution. Obviously it takes more than that, I suppose. Of course reality will show it is bad, because going around sleeping with people for money (or any other form of exchange or reason) is essentially pointless. The only reason it is done is to gain money. People look past that because they say they are "sick." They aren't sick, they are mislead by the society. Hence, a failed solution and a failed structure to prevent this type of behavior.

Lol, yes, it is the issue, but what I meant was the conditions to allow prostitution to be a feasible form of exchange for individuals warrant the very practice to be immoral. If money wasn't a factor, it wouldn't make sense to begin with.

You're right... xD The only difference is money. Which is (unrealized-ishly) morally, and socially wrong.

You didn't say that. I was making a generalization for understanding. Of course it isn't everyone, I never implied that, in case that's what you thought. It just so happens that is the happily-accepted majority opinion... at least from what I've seen.

Hmm then I probably didn't read it as fully as I should have. It just looked like two opposing assertions in a sentence. You said "I never said it was wrong because it, 'Just is.' I said it was wrong because it is." Then a reason came after it... I couldn't tell what you were trying to say.

Mah bad.

Yep. That was the point he was making before. Which if you see religion as a negative aspect, I see how that is possible to be thought by the individual.

Religion promotes less thought, which seems to be a point in the argument. Which shows people aren't shown to really look at things to understand them, but just to simply do them.

Nope. They differ from person to person. The only thing that makes them have seemingly foundationed value and meaning is the wide-spread understanding and assumed thought of what "evil" is. It's a philosophical interpretation, and almost always applies to a religious context only. And since society is "one nation under God," it makes sense as to why the entire society has a focused idea of what evil is. Truth might be, I think, it could count as anything... but in the end, there is no difference, when you take both perspectives into account.

Hmm I can't seem to find it. If isn't too much trouble, a copypasta would be fine.

Well, it's God's ideal's, that's why I tried to take a whack at it. -failureee at whackage-

If I seem mocking, I apologize. I'm probably not going to even address him at this point anymore. lawl

 

Yes, but just because prostitution is a possibility doesn't mean one should take it. Those who become prostitutes because they feel they "have to" almost always have options other than the ones they chose.

Again, society is not "forcing" them people to do anything. Nature and natural law forces you. If a group of people live out in the wilderness, then they have two options: hunt for food or starve. It's just nature. And if society does anything, it makes that natural system more complex.

Again, just because prostitution is a possibility for a job doesn't mean you have to do it. People choose to be prostitutes; they are not forced to be.

Now, that's not saying that you're not forced to get a job if you want to amount to anything or even survive. Just that you're not forced into doing a certain job. And society is not doing the forcing.

I've already addressed this above.

How exactly did the system create prostitution?

Don't all laws do that? If any law is created that says you can't do something, are the lawmakers really not that interested in trying to prevent the act? How exactly are prostitutes "mislead by the society"?

So... are you saying that the problem isn't prostitution itself, but the method or reason for it? Sorry, just trying to understand...

Ah...

I have to disagree. Religion promotes more thought, not less. Sure, there are always going to be the crazies who believe what they've been taught without any thought, and who try to force their opinion on others. But there are crazies like that who aren't taught to be religious, or are taught not to be religious (not saying that's you, just giving an example). There are people like that for everything, not just religion.

I am not one of those people who just goes "Uh, okay!" to whatever they're told, and I know many people who also aren't like that. Even though I'm a strong Christian now, I once doubted the existence of God. But, before deciding whether to believe in Him or not, I researched. I looked at all the evidence I could find that supported the existence of God, and the evidence that supported otherwise. And afterwards, I decided that I did believe in Him. But I certainly did not just decide "Okay, sounds cool. Guess I'll be a Christian."

They differ... to a point. However, I think we can all agree that things such as murder and rape are evil, and something such as donating $100 to a charity is good. Although I see your point, I think there is always some difference between good and evil. Even though people do have their own moral codes, but surely they can't differ that much? After all, there are points in both directions where you just can't argue. I mean, there's no difference between being friendly to and befriending a new kid at school, and shoving him down and calling him names? Everybody has different moral codes, but they can only be so different, you know what I mean?

Okey-dokey.

"Excuse me? So because I have morals, I must not think about them too hard and I just follow them blindly because that's what I've been taught?

Do you think I haven't thought through why things are moral and immoral? Don't you think I've reasoned through things like lying? The person you lie to is hurt that you didn't tell the truth, and it breaks down the trust you have with that person. Don't you think that at some point in my life, as a young child, I didn't understand why taking something that belonged to something else was bad? Once I though through it and reasoned it out, I realized that stealing someone else's property was wrong because it wasn't rightfully mine, I didn't pay for it, and the person I steal from becomes very hurt by my theft. I am not a person who believes whatever they're told without giving it some serious thought. And you would be very wise not to accuse me as someone who does."

Note that the stern tone is not directed at you; this is, after all, a copy and paste :-)

Okayz :)

 

Of course, I agree entirely. But the fact is, it is there. If money did not exist, and likewise, the entire monetary based economic structure, prostitution wouldn't exist. Because that's what a prostitute needs: money. To survive. Not a smart move, obviously, but a choice taken nonetheless. And any time this opportunity can be given and utilized by those (possibly) not smart enough to see past the discrepancies of how society allows you to do this, it's just another reason why making a law saying it's banned, will do nothing. And in that fashion, the very foundation of prostitution is around simply because society allows it (but at the same time, trying to avoid/get rid of it). Which doesn't work, as explained before.

Of course. I agree entirely. But the choice is still taken, simply because it is there, and some people find reason to want to do it.

Explained this before...

It allows the conditions to exist for prostitution to be a way to survive. The societal system, that is.

Well, to some degree, yeah. A law essentially is an attempt by people to prevent corruption and flaw in the society. When a law is passed, that is irrefutible proof a portion of the social structure has failed. If the system was perfected and allowed people to be 100% prosperous, law wouldn't be needed, because everyone would be satisifed and understand their objectives in what they wanted to pursue, and likewise, wouldn't care about money at all. While this is present today, to some degree, we still get small percentages of people (lower class, you could call them...) cut short by the chain. People who fight for income. And that's the understanding of how prostitution is here. If it is bad and immoral, I can agree with that, and the method of solvency is finding why this it is even there in the first place. The society makes it wrong, not the act of prostitution itself. It is simply a choice, and I really don't consider choices right and wrong... just whether they are effective or not, or true or not.

In a sense, yes... and the way it is thought to be okay is provoked by the system we live in, which revolves around money almost entirely. The reason could be wrong, yes, and so could the method... but they are biproducts of the source, as expained before.

Very true. It just takes someone willing to grasp the concepts for themselves, instead of being spoon-fed.

That's a good thing then. lol Then it makes sense you feel the way you do about prostitution.

Yes, exactly. The physical seeing of what is right and wrong, mean and nice, will certainly be astranged (in the case of an action, rather than the thought of an action interpreting the reasoning).

There is a difference in the action taking place in your example, but think about the reasoning behind it, and what may have led the person to the point of wanting to include himself or herself into that act. It isn't good or evil, it is a product of that person's extrapolations on what he's already learned from existing interpretations on good and evil.

The same applies to prostitution: what allowed this type of behavior to take place? What happened in the woman's or man's life that led them to think that selling themselves for sex was okay? If that is understood, the whole meaning of it being bad/evil is void, because they might think it's completely fine.

Murder and rape, as well. Though on an off-topic note, donating 100 bucks to a charity could be seen as evil to some who know more about the monetary system... because they are including themselves, in their opinion, into a corrupt system of differential advantage (the monetary system, that is). The cause is good, the problem can never be completely fixed, however.

That's a reasoned moral view, which makes sense...

You seemed a little t'd off. lol

I was referring to the fact that a lot of the time, not everyone, but indeed the vast majority of people, are given influences that make their decisions and limitations on how moral and immoral are interpreted. Either subliminally by the society (which the proof is staggering on this), or through influence on others (which, too, have been somehow influenced by a society... so it's simply a duplication that can go bad or good, in the sense of how they saw it in the first place by the knowledge they had at the time).

Everybody is susceptible to this in some form or another... for instance, the pledge of allegiance. A song and tool used for children to know to make them appreciate the values and customs of the USA's society, without them fully knowing the reason behind it. They get it at a young age and know it until they die because it was given to them at an age before they could question it, and either did or didn't question it through their life.

Which is how prostitution works. A lot of women will see it or do this behavior, and not realize the implications: the whole society has taught them to do this without them even knowing it, because it is how they need to survive... (assuming their other options are limited, or that's what they actually wanna do...eck...).

 

well the issue about STDs, it wouldn't be spread in an IDEAL system if it were legalized. as of today, no, it is being spread. but wouldn't the prostitutes have to be screened after every client? would that be financially feasible? i am honestly asking that question because i dont' know how much money it costs to get STD screening (if any) and if it costs alot, would clients have to be charged ALOT to pay for this?

 

If money didn't exist, than many problems would be gotten rid of yes. And just as many would be created.

And I think banning it does have some effect. It's not completely useless, or I don't think lawmakers would even bother with them. Obviously they do something; they just don't eleminate the problem completely.

Yes, but just be because it's taken doesn't mean it's okay. Just because a choice is available doesn't mean you should take it. And just because someone does take it doesn't mean it automatically becomes okay, even if they think it is. Having a reason that you feel justifies your behavior doesn't work either.

I have also explained this. There are many possible ways to survive. Some are okay, some are great, and some are just really bad. But none of those possibilities, whether they be good, bad, or in between, are forced.

That's like saying something you did isn't your fault because "conditions" made it possible for you to do whatever you did.

No, law would still be needed. Things like murder, rape, and theft would still occur, and not caring about money wouldn't fix that. Some people are just horrible and like killing or raping for absolutely no reason (definitely not too many, but there are a few). If the system was "perfected" (which would be mighty difficult to do) then murder, rape, prostitution etc wouldn't just disappear.

Of course choices are right and wrong. Suppose someone chooses to start using illegal drugs. That choice isn't exactly effective, ineffective, true, or false, is it? It's a bad choice. Likewise, refusing illegal drugs when some friends offer them to you is a good choice.

I think I see what you're saying now. Prostitutes think what they're doing is okay because to them it's just another way to earn money in a world where money is necessary for survival?

I still think that the source has nothing to do with the problem. Yes, society may have made it possible for there to be prostitution, but that doesn't mean they're forcing it on or even recommending it to people.

I have to disagree. An act is either good, bad, or in between. It's not the product of anything. If a kid's been abused his whole life and doesn't know anything other than violence, then he might very well think that violence is perfectly fine. But that doesn't make it so. It's just that it's the only thing he knows.

If someone commits a murder, is that okay simply because the murderer didn't see a problem with it? Should the murderer be let off? Likewise, is it alright for someone to get raped because the rapist thought it was fine?

That can be true, yes. But many of the schools I attended (and I went to a lot, believe me. All that moving I had to do >_<), at some point in time, sat everyone down and discussed the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance, one word at a time.

And yes, a lot of women do becomes prostitutes because they feel they have no other options. But except on extremely, extremely rare occasions, they do have other options. Society has not "taught" them to do anything, and prostitution isn't necessary for survival.

 

That's true, but that's based on the assumption we're all completely dependent on the monetary system to begin with (which we sadly are).

It does have some effect, but it doesn't solve the problem in its entirety. And that's what I was getting at.

I know, I agree with you. I'm simply saying the society allows for the possibility. That is the problem. Of course you shouldn't take it. But they do. Why? Because it is there and they "want" to (for whatever reason).

I don't care if it is right or wrong at this point, it's there, it is taken, and that is the problem.

Yeah, but WHY do you think they take the option of prostitution? They take it because it is there and the influences of their life allow them to simply take it, whether by force or because they want it.

And technically it is your fault for making the decision, I agree. But when we get down to the real roots of it, it's a product of the system. Simply because we made it.

Haha. The whole understanding is that prostitution, rape, murder, and theft are because of monetary incentive.

If you don't have money, a woman will resort to selling herself.

If you see a car and you like it, you steal it. Why? You can't afford it. Money not a factor, you see a car you like, you can just go and get another one. And if someone steals your car, you can just go get another one as well, on top of any material items you lost. It isn't an issue without money. In the society, no problems would occur unless the items in question are worth something of significant value. And through that perspective, why even steal it if it's free?

Murder and rape can bel allowed the proposition that money doesn't always involve (or if anything, significantly less than the other types of crimes). But in cases like marriage, custody, and other financial gain or advantage, it occurs there. So even if -this- particular set of problems doesn't completely go away, a vast majority will be gone. And most of the people who do this generally grew up in low-income environments, ghetto, etc.. So they realize that stealing is their method of confection for material items and that reflects in how they act towards people; in a "do what I say" or "I get what I want" attitude.

So yes, wouldn't completley disappear, but significantly declined. People behave much differently when they aren't threatened their conditions of living and money.

In that case yes, because it is applied in a practical sense. But using the same logic, someone could view not taking drugs as a stupid or bad action. Such as pharmaceuticals. The "bad" drugs (whatever that means) carry a health risk, as to any other pill or drug. The only thing that differs is the amount you take to help yourself. Counter to overdosing. But they might not view that as wrong. On a physical level it's clearly not a smart choice, but that doesn't mean it is bad or wrong.

Exactly.

True. But then why do we still have prostitution? If it isn't forced and everyone understood that, then why do we still have it? It's because maybe you grew up in an environment that said "hey, this is possible." The source produces this. It doesn't make sense to say it'd be gone simply because the source alters it. The source has to be altered, then the conditions change, and then the amount of said action will increase or decrease (in this case, we want it down).

Who says so? If people already see actions as right and wrong, and it changes from person to person, then where does the standard lie? It only lies in the decision widely believed by the social system.

Yes, he will think it's fine. But you don't. Who's right? The one who is on the society's side, because you know what is better for the society itself. But if the parents are poor or not quite up to par with money income, those types of conditions produced that child. He THINKS it is okay, but you don't. No one is right or wrong. You simply need to think of what is the wiser choice in terms of "does it even matter?" And even that will be up in the air for interpretation.

Of course the murderer shouldn't be let off. You should examine what allowed for this behavior and solve it that way, instead of getting punished by the system. We allowed this to happen simply by having our system. That isn't to say it will go away indefinitely, but if you ever hope to alter perception on what makes it okay or not, you need to try to reduce the amount of it. If everyone was a murderer and rapist and thought it was okay, then anyone not doing raping or murdering would think you were insane. Why? Because the vast majority of the social consciousness doesn't agree with that logic. The "parting from the pack" attitude is what I'm getting at with this.

If society didn't teach them, what did? People? Well people are a result of the society, and all those people are influenced by the society as well. Ultimately it was the system that gave them this idea. So to them it is a feasible option.

 

XD It took me three tries to get this post up. Thank goodness it worked this time around, I don't know if I'd have the patience to do it again lol. Back on topic...

No, laws don't completely eliminate problems. But no laws will be perfect (just as no people will be perfect). And eliminating laws will not eliminate human nature, which is what laws are borne from. Federalist #51:

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Yes, society does allow for the possibility. I'm not denying that. But how does that make it society's fault that people choose prostitution? "Because it's there" is not a way to pass the blame. If they choose to because they want to (for whatever bizarre reason they may have) then that's not society's fault either.

But that's what we are discussing, is it not? Whether prostitution is right or wrong?

No prostitute is forced to be a prostitute. They did it of their own free will. Now, they may feel like they were forced, but they were not. Prostitution is almost never the only option someone has. And if they want to do it, then that's immoral. Society did not "influence" that person to choose prostitution; they chose it of their own free will. If they don't think it's immoral, that doesn't change the fact that it is. But someone feeling forced or not knowing any better doesn't mean we can pass the blame to society. I'm not denying that we make prostitution available, but that doesn't make it society's fault that people choose it.

The only time prostitution is ever forced is in cases of labor (for instance, selling a child into prostitution). But that's often not the case.

Just because a woman will "resort" to something doesn't mean it's okay (and it doesn't mean it's society's fault either).

Stealing is still wrong, even if no money is involved. Let's pretend no money is needed to buy things; you can just go pick up whatever you want for no cost. Suppose you get a really nice gift (it was free, of course, but still very nice) and that it was from someone you really cared about. If someone stole it because they wanted it (perhaps it was out of stock at the store/car shop/wherever the gift came from, or they don't have access to it for some reason), then that would really hurt the person who was stolen from. And even if it wasn't anything special and didn't mean a whole lot to the person you stole from, it still doesn't belong to the thief, so it's still wrong.

Yes, although many problems would be eliminated by getting rid of our need for money (I'm not denying that either), many more problems would remain and be created, too.

Allow me a question: why do you think money was created in the first place?

"Bad" drugs are things like cocaine, heroine, etc. Illegal drugs that can caused collapsed veins, liver disease, and abscesses among other things (sheesh, it's a wonder anyone ever tries that stuff). Rereading my other post, I worded this incorrectly, but I actually meant that it was a bad choice because of the physical consequences, not because it was immoral. In other words, you said what I was trying to say :) I apologize for the confusion.

However, I will say that illegal drugs can be (and quite often are) immoral, because of the damage they do to other people. Alcohol as well. What if a parent was drugged out or drunk half the time? What do you think that would do to the child? What about drunk driving? How many innocent people do you think have been killed out on the road by people who were drunk?

I don't think it's so much of a standard people have, more of just whether something is right or wrong. Anyone could say that rape is horrible, but that doesn't make it so (NOT saying rape ISN'T horrible). Likewise, anyone could say rape isn't horrible, but that doesn't make it so. I think that reality and facts decide whether actions are right or wrong. For instance, rape is wrong because for one, you're forcing someone to do something they don't want to do, which isn't nice. Two, if the victim is young enough, the rapist will end up physically destroying the victim's body. Three, sex (especially when it's unwanted) can be very damaging emotionally when it's being used incorrectly, which it is here. The victim will be emotionally destroyed for quite some time, if not for the rest of their life. Four, all of the above is caused because someone is selfish enough to do this to another human being.

The person who presents the most facts and evidence to back themselves up is right. Yes, if most everyone thought murder and rape were acceptable, then I would probably be sent to a mental asylum. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. The opinion of the majority of people does not decide whether something is good or bad. For example: hip-hop/rap. You can probably guess my opinion on rap, right? (I hope so, after all this discussion) I dislike it because a) the immense amount of foul language and b) quite a lot of rap describes men treating women like objects to be used for entertainment - either that, or they're about prostitution. Foul language is quite unnecessary in all situations, and women are not objects. They are just as human as men are, and there is really no difference between men and women except their sex and biological structure. So, rap is pretty immoral and wrong. But many, many people listen to it rather voraciously, and find it perfectly okay. Does that make it so?

This is one of those times where I hope that I'm wrong. The murderer shouldn't be punished for taking the life of another human being? We should simply try to "fix" the problem by finding out what "allowed" for the murder and try to "solve" it? Did I get it wrong? Please tell me I misunderstood you...

Not all evil or immoral acts are caused because the person was "influenced" to do whatever they did. Sometimes, people are just born with an evil streak and with no empathy. They may grow up having a wonderful childhood and still turn out just plain evil. Likewise, someone can have an absolutely horrible childhood and be good through-and-through.

I've already addressed this above.

 

Prostitution actually goes back to like ancient times, i cant remember.

But if it's ones only way of getting money then it should be fine. Im sure that majority of prostitutes didn't choose this life. Particually because it's dangerous.

I'm guessig some people see it as wrg because it goes agaist what they believe, or what they do't what they're children to be. City officials see it as wrong because theydon't want they're town to look bad you know...

 

So do drug dealers.

You could put drug dealers in a classy establishment and they will still be drug dealers.

So if I'm an assassin, kill innocent people, and get a lot of money, I'm not trash?

Mostly everyone on the planet. Prostitution is frowned upon, and there's a reason for it.

'Captain invalid Conclusion'?

 

You would compare drug dealing to protitution? Drug dealing causes direct harm in the addictive traits of the products, the high prices and the frequent poor quality. Drugs are dangerous and there is no way to protect yourself (even partially) from their effects unless you don't take them at all, unlike sex.

See above.

And now you are comparing murder with prostitution. Again, see my first point.

Have you spoken with mostly everyone on the planet? Are they all making informed decisions or basing their answer on an archaic law brought into effect because an even older book said it was wrong? Lol I just realised another possible reason for it to be made illegal. It is a way for men to further their control over women. It could be seen as a way for women to actually make an income, so they took it away from them making them even more dependant on a husband.

Also, could you give this reason?

 

1) Nothing wrong with drug dealers. People choose to buy the drugs.

2)Yes, but they'll be classy drug dealers.

3) Assassins aren't necessarily trash; if they can make it into an art and/or their targets deserve to die, I would consider them very creative and/or noble.

4) Go to the Netherlands and tell me prostitution is frowned upon.

5) White Rook's comment was meant to be an insult. I found it pretty obvious.

 

One of the main reasons prostitution is "frowned upon" is because the girls themselves often enter the circuit against their will and are often ripped off by their employers. The profession itself is not necessarily being watched through suspicious eyes.