• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An example of why I am against prostitution

dust1n

Zindīq
Does this happen where it's regulated, like in legal brothels?

How much?
Where?
When?

Does legalized prostitution increase human trafficking? Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

In reference to this: Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking? by Seo-Young Cho, Axel Dreher, Eric Neumayer :: SSRN

The Law and Economics of International Sex Slavery: Prostitution Laws and Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation

Despite this, I support decriminalization for consensual prostitution, and in the continued criminality of brothels, pimps, escort services serving as third party, etc.

I'd answer more in full, but I haven't even gotten through the thread and got stuff to do.
 
Last edited:

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It's a good idea.

Thanks! One thing I don't understand is how the word "entitlement" is being used in this thread. I'm not sure it's being used in any sense that I'm familiar with, or -- actually -- that is logically coherent with the senses of the word that I am familiar with.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Despite this, I support decriminalization for consensual prostitution, and in the continued criminality of brothels, pimps, escort services serving as third party, etc.

I think the government should have a monopoly on prostitution, and that brothels should be state owned and operated.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Thanks! One thing I don't understand is how the word "entitlement" is being used in this thread. I'm not sure it's being used in any sense that I'm familiar with, or -- actually -- that is logically coherent with the senses of the word that I am familiar with.
It's just as when I go to Subway, I'm "entitled" to the BLT I pay for.
The negative connotations of the word don't work so well in a scenario
about purchasing sexual services or Subway sammiches.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Thanks! One thing I don't understand is how the word "entitlement" is being used in this thread. I'm not sure it's being used in any sense that I'm familiar with, or -- actually -- that is logically coherent with the senses of the word that I am familiar with.

I think it's strange to say that a person feels "entitled" to have a basic need met and when there is a person willing to fulfill that need, even if for a price. :areyoucra
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Does legalized prostitution increase human trafficking? Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

In reference to this: Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking? by Seo-Young Cho, Axel Dreher, Eric Neumayer :: SSRN

The Law and Economics of International Sex Slavery: Prostitution Laws and Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation

Despite this, I support decriminalization for consensual prostitution, and in the continued criminality of brothels, pimps, escort services serving as third party, etc.

I'd answer more in full, but I haven't even gotten through the thread and got stuff to do.
I didn't see where the report quantifies the claimed increase.
But it should be balanced against reduced imprisonment due to decriminalization.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It's just as when I go to Subway, I'm "entitled" to the BLT I pay for.
The negative connotations of the word don't work so well in a scenario
about purchasing sexual services or Subway sammiches.

Well, it's just that I don't think the word is always being used in that sense in this thread. I think a new usage is afoot here. And I'm not comfortable with it because I don't think it is logically inconsistent with the more familiar usage of the word. But I haven't quite put my finger on how it's being used here.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I think it's strange to say that a person feels "entitled" to have a basic need met and when there is a person willing to fulfill that need, even if for a price. :areyoucra

There are actually at least three issues here. First, whether a person feels entitled. Second, whether a person is entitled. And third, whether their entitlement is morally justified.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
I think the government should have a monopoly on prostitution, and that brothels should be state owned and operated.

I think brothels should be prostitute-owned and operated. I wouldn't count on a government to appropriate or manage the sex trade.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
I didn't see where the report quantifies the claimed increase.
But it should be balanced against reduced imprisonment due to decriminalization.

I apologize I can't grant you access to the studies.

Decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing. I support the former.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I apologize I can't grant you access to the studies.
Decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing. I support the former.
Legalization would allow useful regulation to prevent disease, coercion & violence.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
To me, "entitlement" is a neutral word. Entitlement can be either moral or immoral. All else being equal, when I pay for a sandwich at Subway (to use Revoltingest's example), I am morally entitled to receive the sandwich. But if the labor at Subway is being immorally coerced, exploited or abused to produce that sandwich for me, then I would no longer be morally entitled to purchase it. At least, that's how I see it.

What I don't understand is how a john can be immorally entitled to purchase the sexual services of a prostitute if that prostitute is not being immorally coerced, exploited, or abused by the john or by a third party (e.g. a pimp) to the transaction.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I get that some johns feel a sense of entitlement. I even get that johns who have sex with women coerced into prostitution are entitled whether they feel entitled or not.

What I don't get is why all johns must feel entitled and/or be entitled. I think there are very likely to be circumstances in which neither would be the case.



Thanks! That's actually helpful in understanding a female perspective, and one that seems likely to be shared to some large extent by most of the women I've known well enough to guess or know their attitudes towards such things. And yet, I still don't think every last prostitute on earth, under every last circumstance in which prostitution occurs, necessarily feels that way about being penetrated by her john.

The conversation in this thread seems to me to have come down to the distinction between all johns are jerks and some johns are jerks. Whoopie do!

I'd prefer we discussed something else now since we've reached an impasse on that point.

Despite my clever use of biased rhetoric, I genuinely don't pass judgment. I don't know whether they're terrible, abusive jerks or delicate, wounded birds who deserve my utmost compassion. What I DO know is that they are all people who, when their desire for sex, therapy or intimacy is going unfulfilled, all feel entitled to hire somebody to sort them out, regardless of what the other person wants.

Those who don't feel entitled to another human being's cooperation in their self-gratification don't hire prostitutes. They go to a real therapist, masturbate, or talk to people, or just be patient and seek out mutually agreeable, authentic sexual relationships.

I keep bringing up entitlement because it is the crucial distinction between those who frequent prostitutes and those who don't. There is no other distinction. We all feel lonely, horny and unfulfilled sometimes. Often desperately so. The only difference between "johns" and "not johns" is that johns feel their personal needs are a perfectly legitimate reason to penetrate a real, live, breathing, thinking woman regardless of how she feels about it, or about them.

I still think my notion of licensing johns is a damn good one.

I think so too! One thing that stuck with me listening to an interview with an ex street prostitute was her comment that part of what made hooking such a crappy deal as opposed to being a porn star was that every single time she had a "date", all that was going through her head was "I really hope he doesn't kill me". She doesn't have to worry about that on a porn set, but she's still got other things to worry about, like disease, physical injury, coercion and a less terrifying form of violence.

Thanks! One thing I don't understand is how the word "entitlement" is being used in this thread. I'm not sure it's being used in any sense that I'm familiar with, or -- actually -- that is logically coherent with the senses of the word that I am familiar with.

Entitlement: "I want something, therefore I deserve it."
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Alceste, I really don't think your generalizations of those who hire sex workers are helpful or realistic. In fact, I find them pretty insulting and shaming.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
To me, "entitlement" is a neutral word. Entitlement can be either moral or immoral. All else being equal, when I pay for a sandwich at Subway (to use Revoltingest's example), I am morally entitled to receive the sandwich. But if the labor at Subway is being immorally coerced, exploited or abused to produce that sandwich for me, then I would no longer be morally entitled to purchase it. At least, that's how I see it.

What I don't understand is how a john can be immorally entitled to purchase the sexual services of a prostitute if that prostitute is not being immorally coerced, exploited, or abused by the john or by a third party (e.g. a pimp) to the transaction.

It's nothing to do with morality, consent, or one's right to receive a mundane, everyday good or service for a payment rendered.

It's to do with the belief that wanting = deserving, paired with the reality that prostitution is the most dangerous and traumatic job on earth. It's about as dangerous as being a soldier deployed in a war zone, and with many of the same psychological consequences. A prostitute is not your average, every day employee. She's a person who has considered the Donald Trump / sodomy / million dollars proposal (on a smaller scale) and decided "What the hell? I need the money!" And unlike you or I, who probably wouldn't go through with that deal for a billion dollars, she already knows she is able to dissociate and feel nothing during the unwanted penetration she must endure in order to get paid. And as far as not being beaten, raped or murdered during the transaction is concerned, she just keeps her fingers crossed - hence the high probability of PTSD.

My point is that even the most gentlemanly John in the world is penetrating somebody who is extremely likely to be going through that the whole time, and to him this is a far less pressing consideration than his own sexual or emotional gratification. That's entitlement. "I want = I deserve", coupled with "my wants and needs > your wants and needs".

I understand your point about the hypothetical ideal scenario, but I don't think this debate becomes any more enlightening by orienting our exploration of the issues around some hypothetical happy hooker, or some perfectly respectful john, or around the possibility that they might find each other in this crazy world. For what it's worth, I do acknowledge the possibility that such a scenario might exist somewhere in the real world, but for the purpose of discussion I think it's necessary to conceptualize what would be a more typical scenario, based on the evidence we have to work with.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"Useful regulation" from a libertarian. Ooo, boyy.. :D
Regulation needn't be a massive & mostly wasteful burden.
And legalization with regulation is more libertarian than illegalization.
Ensure health of all concerned, not fixing the price of a reach around.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Alceste, I really don't think your generalizations of those who hire sex workers are helpful or realistic. In fact, I find them pretty insulting and shaming.

Well, they're not. :shrug:

I'm not talking about you, personally, Frank. I still think you're a perfectly decent human being. If you one day decide to hire a prostitute, I wish you the very best of luck. Hell, I can even recommend you a fantastic one who is one of the nicest, smartest, funniest, sexiest people you'll ever know! I just don't think you'll find it's quite like you imagine it to be. She's one of the most compassionate, down to earth people I've ever met, but after she takes your money, she's basically gonna be done with you, because she is not interested in having any kind of relationship with any of her johns.

If you were her friend, though, she'd probably bang you for free and still be your friend. She's good like that.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Regulation needn't be a massive & mostly wasteful burden.
And legalization with regulation is more libertarian than illegalization.
Ensure health of all concerned, not fixing the price of a reach around.

If there were one area I would expect corruption to occur from a government operated entity is a sex-trade situation.

Here's some of the governments who've stated that their countries policies towards legalized prostitution have failed to meet their objectives.

http://www.equalitynow.org/sites/de...g_Prostitution_Protect_Women_and_Girls_EN.pdf
 
Top