Anyone want to do a private group debate? I'll set it up.

[dust1n]

Is there a big difference between openly advertising on the street and giving it up after a date in exchange for dinner and a movie?

Should I approach the question a priori or a posteriori?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Is there a big difference between openly advertising on the street and giving it up after a date in exchange for dinner and a movie?

"Giving it up" nice one.

Yeah all women are basically prostitutes right? We "give it up" because a man paid for our food not because we like him or anything. And if a woman feels obligated to have sex with a man because he bought her dinner, surely this is more of a problem?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

The mindset that might engender such behavior/expectations may well be horrible, but the question remains a valid comparison.

 

[TheKnight]

I'd be interested if you'd have me. Actually, back when I worked in law enforcement we'd have discussions about whether or not we should patrol certain areas with the intent of preventing crime (IE we know crime happens in areas, A, B, and C so we go there to prevent it by presence, etc) or should we patrol certain areas where we are needed to respond more quickly (IE places where response times are normally bad).

The reason the question wasn't really limited to just "patrol the place where the most crime happens" is because often times our major events happened in areas where crime didn't happen as often and our more common crime areas were the ones that would get favored. The result was that we would be able to reduce a lot of the common crime (albeit less major) in the more crime-infested areas but had really bad response times to (more major) events in the places where the crimes didn't happen as often.

So the question of a priori vs a posteriori is an interesting one. Personally, I think I'm more of an a posteriori type of guy, but I can also see the value in a priori. I think that in most cases a posteriori knowledge is superior to a priori knowledge.

I would initially look to advance two arguments
-That the only legitimate sources of objection are those that may be directly effected by objectively negative outcomes directly resultant from prostitution.
-That legalized prostitution provides the capacity to implement enhanced control mechanisms as compared to illegal prostitution.

It is my belief that these two arguments are well founded (though the first admittedly more difficult to prove) and that between the two, not only does it deal with the world as it is in terms of minimizing negative outcomes but also deals with the world as it should be, in that criminalizing prostitution where all parties directly involved give their informed consent, is punishing a victim-less crime and is therefore an approach to social engineering whereby behaviors people dislike are banned simply because they dislike them rather than because they actually are detrimental, that it contributes to the erosion of liberties based on cultural suppression by the majority (or those with the majority of influence at least)

This sums up how I feel about prostitution far better than I could ever imagine to.

 

[Shermana]

"Giving it up" nice one.

Yeah all women are basically prostitutes right? We "give it up" because a man paid for our food not because we like him or anything. And if a woman feels obligated to have sex with a man because he bought her dinner, surely this is more of a problem?

Yes, "giving it up" is indeed a common usage of the term to let another person make use of their body as they want.

Why would a woman feel obligated? Kind of like how she might feel obligated if she was handed money? If she accepts $30 in food to meet the "obligation" criteria, what's the difference from accepting $30 in cash?

Now as for "liking a man", what exactly makes a woman like a man? I've seen so many cases where a guy simply has to be rich and can be a COMPLETE d-bag and jerk to get the girl to give it up. Is this not essentially prostitution? Does not a prostitute "Like" the John because he's paying her? So where's the fine line in what decides if a woman likes a man enough to give it up over materialistic issues? Is there much difference in a prostitute choosing a man who can pay her and a woman choosing a man purely because she likes his power and wealth?

I mean I suppose I can understand if the guy is hard bodied and athletic and "good looking" but still a total dbag and jerk, since most guys won't have nearly as much success unless they're athletic or rich, but that's another issue. One could argue that the woman is "paying" the man with her body so that she can enjoy the physical component of the man as well if she finds him physically appealing, in a way being a reverse prostitute. If a woman will give it up to a man purely out of looks, is she not basically paying him for her own desires to be indulged?

So in essence, unless there's actual love and relationship involved on a level economic setting, all sexual relationship is somehow prostitution.

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

This is not a debate forum. This forum is for commenting on on-going debates in the Invitation Only Debates - Religious Education Forum , or for attempting to set up such debates.​

 

[dust1n]

***Mod Post***

This is not a debate forum. This forum is for commenting on on-going debates in the Invitation Only Debates - Religious Education Forum , or for attempting to set up such debates.​

Thank you!



Okay, announcement.. I ending invites here, as of now, cause I think I got a ton of people going through. I'm still working on the thread, be patient, and when I'm done, I will have it up.. sometime this week!

 

[dust1n]

I'd be interested if you'd have me. Actually, back when I worked in law enforcement we'd have discussions about whether or not we should patrol certain areas with the intent of preventing crime (IE we know crime happens in areas, A, B, and C so we go there to prevent it by presence, etc) or should we patrol certain areas where we are needed to respond more quickly (IE places where response times are normally bad).

The reason the question wasn't really limited to just "patrol the place where the most crime happens" is because often times our major events happened in areas where crime didn't happen as often and our more common crime areas were the ones that would get favored. The result was that we would be able to reduce a lot of the common crime (albeit less major) in the more crime-infested areas but had really bad response times to (more major) events in the places where the crimes didn't happen as often.

So the question of a priori vs a posteriori is an interesting one. Personally, I think I'm more of an a posteriori type of guy, but I can also see the value in a priori. I think that in most cases a posteriori knowledge is superior to a priori knowledge.



This sums up how I feel about prostitution far better than I could ever imagine to.

Oh, you're definitely in.

 

[dust1n]

Newsflash! It's come to my attention that I'm about to be swamped with some real life things, so, someone should take over the debate, 'cause I don't think I'm going to have enough time to pay it much attention, or any of RF for that matter.

So: someone do what they will with it, if anyone so chooses.