In almost every case, it's abuse. Consent doesn't erase abuse. Nor does it justify it. People all over the world consent to be abused every day, just to survive.It is not abuse. It is a choice between two consenting adults.
In almost every case, it's abuse. Consent doesn't erase abuse. Nor does it justify it. People all over the world consent to be abused every day, just to survive.It is not abuse. It is a choice between two consenting adults.
In almost every case, it's abuse. Consent doesn't erase abuse. Nor does it justify it. People all over the world consent to be abused every day, just to survive.
I think you are exaggerating because it doesn't sit well with you, morally. If that is the case, that is all you need to say. No need to guise it as something else.In almost every case, it's abuse. Consent doesn't erase abuse. Nor does it justify it. People all over the world consent to be abused every day, just to survive.
sex =/= abuseit's different when an adult chooses to "be abused" for money. if it was legal and regulated -
Interesting perspective. Could you elaborate a bit? Do you think this is really about the morality of it or does gender roles and money play a bigger role?Who gave men the right to pass laws restricting the income of women?
In our society, we all did. It's supposed to be a representative democracy, after all.Who gave men the right to pass laws restricting the income of women?
It's still abuse, for money. And consent does not mitigate the fact that people would not do it if they REALLY had a choice.it's different when an adult chooses to "be abused" for money. if it was legal and regulated -
My moral proclivities are not based on whim, they're based on reason. And I am trying to explain my reasoning so that you can't dismiss them as a personal whim.I think you are exaggerating because it doesn't sit well with you, morally. If that is the case, that is all you need to say. No need to guise it as something else.
Either way, I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it.
Sure. More tax revenue.
I suppose that is our difference in opinion. In countries where prostitution is legal, I have not noticed any sort of social decomposition. Their lives go on as they always have.My moral proclivities are not based on whim, they're based on reason. And I am trying to explain my reasoning so that you can't dismiss them as a personal whim.
I also understand and respect the ideal of personal freedom, including the freedom to be self-destructive. But we don't have the freedom to be socially destructive. And I believe prostitution is not just personally destructive, I believe it's also socially destructive. And I have been explaining why I believe that.
I'm not a religious conservative. I believe gay marriage should be legalized. As well as multiple marriage. Because I do not see them as being individually nor socially destructive. While I do see prostitution as being both.
No, why legalize immorality? It's encouraging it.
You know, the muslims feel exactly the same way. The argument you just gave is exactly the same as their argument for sharia law. I have the same response to you as I have for them. You wouldn't want others enforcing their religion on you. Just because you believe it's wrong isn't reason enough for a law just like the muslims believing bacon is wrong isn't reason enough for a law. That's why we require rational reasons for laws, not a belief in the supernatural.No, why legalize immorality? It's encouraging it.
Sure they could, why wouldn't they? Maybe they genuinely enjoy the work. Just because you don't understand why doesn't mean it isn't possible.It's still abuse, for money. And consent does not mitigate the fact that people would not do it if they REALLY had a choice.
NO!!!
How many prostitutes do you really think "enjoy the work"? And what's to enjoy? Letting people you don't know, and wouldn't choose, use your body for their own sexual gratification?Sure they could, why wouldn't they? Maybe they genuinely enjoy the work. Just because you don't understand why doesn't mean it isn't possible.
This is true. How many single mothers stay with an abusive (often even physically so) man because it's impossible for her to provide for her child otherwise?Exploitation, violence and domination of women happens outside of prostitution ... the latter two, even in marriage and relationships.
The difference is that legally regulating something would give more protection to those who actually *need* the protection. Minors.
Who gave men the right to pass laws restricting the income of women?
Really, PureX? Are you comparing prostitution to child molestation? You know they aren't the same thing, I thought better of you. These women offer a service to a client for a fee, by their own choice. They don't have to do anything and if they want to stop they are able to do so. Just like any other profession.How many prostitutes do you really think "enjoy the work"? And what's to enjoy? Letting people you don't know, and wouldn't choose, use your body for their own sexual gratification?
If I sexually abuse a child, and the child likes it, because he/she doesn't know any better. Is it no longer sexual abuse? How about if I pay them, afterward?
Consent doesn't mitigate sexual abuse. Money doesn't mitigate sexual abuse, adulthood doesn't necessarily mitigate sexual abuse, and neither does "liking it".