Sex workers?

[Riders]

Is it amoral to see a sex worker? I think it's amoral to pick up sex workers who work on the streets and the trucker stops**mod edit** But if you go to an escort business where they don't hire underage people, they are on the up and up is that ok?

How do we know they have not been kidnapped? **mod edit**

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is it amoral to see a sex worker?

Presuming you mean 'immoral,' no. What falls into my field of vision isn't something I control. Of course, I could walk around with my eyes closed, but them I'm more likely to walk right into a sex worker.

But if you go to an escort business where they don't hire underage people, they are on the up and up is that ok?

"On the up and up"? Did prostitution become legal somewhere I'm not aware of? Because we are talking about sex workers here, right?

How do we know they have not been kidnapped?

I suppose one could ask, but that would probably kill the mood.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, it's immoral to use people for your sexual pleasure. If you can't get it for free, you have a problem. Most sex workers are rape/molestation victims, too.

 

[libre]

I don't think there are sound arguments that should differentiate it from other non-sexual services one can hire someone else for providing that all parties are consenting.

 

[Alien826]

I don't think there are sound arguments that should differentiate it from other non-sexual services one can hire someone else for providing that all parties are consenting.

I agree. If you remove the cultural assumption that sex outside certain narrowly defined boundaries is inherently immoral, then it becomes no different from hiring out our other bodily functions, and subject to the same provisos concerning exploitation, harmfulness and so on.

My personal opinion (untested) is that most of the harmful things attributed to prostitution are related to its being illegal, rather than something inherent to the act itself. It's not for everyone of course, but neither is surgery for the squeamish.

 

[PureX]

Is it amoral to see a sex worker? I think it's amoral to pick up sex workers who work on the streets and the trucker stops **mod edit** But if you go to an escort business where they don't hire underage people, they are on the up and up is that ok?

How do we know they have not been kidnapped? **mod edit**

Prostitution is just modern form of slavery.

If we have to pay someone to let us use their body for our own pleasure because they would not do so willingly, otherwise, we are just using money as a tool to enslave and abuse them. Money is the new weapon of choice among humans for forcing other people to act according to our will, and against theirs. We used to point knives and guns at them and threaten to end their life, but now we just offer or withhold the universal means of survival: money.

And we are too stupid to even see ourselves doing it.

If I put a bag over a woman's head and choked off her access to air, and then offer to let her breath a little if she will allow me to have sex with her body, and she agrees, is that not still rape? Does her agreement under such duress somehow excuse my crime against her?

So how is it not still rape when society chokes off her ability to buy food, clothing, and shelter, and I then offer her some money to buy those things if she will allow me to have sex with her body, and she agrees because she wants to survive?

People think that somehow the exchange of money magically wipes away the crime of rape. It doesn't.

 

[Alien826]

Prostitution is just modern form of slavery.

If we have to pay someone to let us use their body for our own pleasure because they would not do so willingly, otherwise, we are just using money as a tool to enslave and abuse them. Money is the new weapon of choice among humans for forcing other people to act according to our will, and against theirs. We used to point knives and guns at them and threaten to end their life, but now we just offer or withhold the universal means of survival: money.

And we are too stupid to even see ourselves doing it.

If I put a bag over a woman's head and choked off her access to air, and then offer to let her breath a little if she will allow me to have sex with her body, and she agrees, is that not still rape? Does her agreement under such duress somehow excuse my crime against her?

So how is it not still rape when society chokes off her ability to buy food, clothing, and shelter, and I then offer her some money to buy those things if she will allow me to have sex with her body, and she agrees because she wants to survive?

People think that somehow the exchange of money magically wipes away the crime of rape. It doesn't.

That's rather extreme, don't you think? What you say could equally be applied to any form of work where the employed person wouldn't do it if they didn't need the money.

 

[ChristineM]

If the "sex worker" is not in anyway coerced then i see no problem in making a mutual transaction that satisfies both parties.

The problems arise from trafficking, sex slavery, legal definitions, religious views etc

When i was first at uni i had a room in a very seedy part of Manchester, drug trafficking and prostitution were common. I met several prostitutes who enjoyed their work, not trafficked, no coercion, no pimps, just money for sex that they enjoyed and earned far more working hours they wanted than slaving in a factory somewhere.

 

[PureX]

That's rather extreme, don't you think? What you say could equally be applied to any form of work where the employed person wouldn't do it if they didn't need the money.

Yes, it could. Money unfortunately has that kind of damaging effect. But the difference between commerce and slavery is that in commerce we trade for our mutual benefit. In slavery, there is no mutual benefit. There is only survival on one side, and exploitation on the other.

Those of us that have been raised to worship the mighty god of capitalism have a very difficult grasping this difference. Because we have all been taught that exploiting the other side in the trade for as much as we can get while giving them as little in exchange as possible is just "good business". It's what commerce is all about (according to the gods of capitalism). So if we see that the other person is at a disadvantage, we are encourage to exploit that disadvantage to the maximum. Because that's the ultimate goal of the capitalism: to maximize the profit returned of the capital invested.

So when we see some woman that's in such a disadvantaged position that she has to sell her body to be abused by others just to survive, we think it's just "good business" to take full advantage of this if we want to. We would even haggle over the price! And of course, we don't see any of this as exploitation because we don't see ANY exploitation looking through the lends of capitalism. Exploitation is just "business". It's normal. Morally acceptable. We love to throw around the term "fair trade" but under capitalism trade is anything but fair. We strive in every way possible to make it UNfair. Because that's where the profit is.

So as capitalism continues to poison the minds and hearts of billions of us, prostitution has become just another acceptable form of economic exploitation. So your daughter can sell me a hamburger, or sell me her body, right? Because, hey, money is money. And the pursuit of money excuses and justifies everything.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, it could. Money unfortunately has that kind of damaging effect. But the difference between commerce and slavery is that in commerce we trade for our mutual benefit. In slavery, there is no mutual benefit. There is only survival on one side, and exploitation on the other.

Those of us that have been raised to worship the mighty god of capitalism have a very difficult grasping this difference. Because we have all been taught that exploiting the other side in the trade for as much as we can get while giving them as little in exchange as possible is just "good business". It's what commerce is all about (according to the gods of capitalism). So if we see that the other person is at a disadvantage, we are encourage to exploit that disadvantage to the maximum. Because that's the ultimate goal of the capitalism: to maximize the profit returned of the capital invested.

So when we see some woman that's in such a disadvantaged position that she has to sell her body to be abused by others just to survive, we think it's just "good business" to take full advantage of this if we want to. We would even haggle over the price! And of course, we don't see any of this as exploitation because we don't see ANY exploitation looking through the lends of capitalism. Exploitation is just "business". It's normal. Morally acceptable. We love to throw around the term "fair trade" but under capitalism trade is anything but fair. We strive in every way possible to make it UNfair. Because that's where the profit is.

So as capitalism continues to poison the minds and hearts of billions of us, prostitution has become just another acceptable form of economic exploitation. So your daughter can sell me a hamburger, or sell me her body, right? Because, hey, money is money. And the pursuit of money excuses and justifies everything.

Agreed about capitalism, in general at least.

Where it becomes OK, in my view at least, is where there is a degree of consent on both sides, which you don't seem to think is possible. Slavery of course totally lacks consent, so we can dismiss that right away. On the other hand, there are lots of examples of people that are reasonably happy with the "contract" they have with their employers. I have been both happy and unhappy at different times. My first job, after school with an insurance company, paid so little that I could only survive by continuing to live with my parents. Later I moved to another area of the country and got paid enough for my needs and with some left over for recreation. Even later I got into computer programming, which I happened to be good at, and made a lot of money because at the time we good programmers were scarce (largely because companies wouldn't train people, but that's another story). Maybe we were exploiting the employers for a while?

Regarding prostitution, it depends on your attitude to it. If both sides are happy with the arrangement and totally free to choose, I don't see the difference between that and selling hamburgers. But it's an emotional subject and difficult to evaluate without preconceived values entering the picture.

 

[PureX]

Agreed about capitalism, in general at least.

Where it becomes OK, in my view at least, is where there is a degree of consent on both sides, which you don't seem to think is possible. Slavery of course totally lacks consent, so we can dismiss that right away. On the other hand, there are lots of examples of people that are reasonably happy with the "contract" they have with their employers. I have been both happy and unhappy at different times. My first job, after school with an insurance company, paid so little that I could only survive by continuing to live with my parents. Later I moved to another area of the country and got paid enough for my needs and with some left over for recreation. Even later I got into computer programming, which I happened to be good at, and made a lot of money because at the time we good programmers were scarce (largely because companies wouldn't train people, but that's another story). Maybe we were exploiting the employers for a while?

Regarding prostitution, it depends on your attitude to it. If both sides are happy with the arrangement and totally free to choose, I don't see the difference between that and selling hamburgers. But it's an emotional subject and difficult to evaluate without preconceived values entering the picture.

If there were consent on both sides, there would be no need for money to change hands.

People agree to have sex with each other all the time, and do so. No problem, as long as they are of age.
But if it takes money to gain consent, that is not consent. That is coercion. Honest consent is freely given. Coerced consent is not freely given. And is not consensual. It’s simply a purchased non-objection.

 

[ChristineM]

But if it takes money to gain consent, that is not consent. That is coercion.

No, it's a business deal.

Or are you coerced to buy food etc?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I met several prostitutes who enjoyed their work, not trafficked, no coercion, no pimps, just money for sex that they enjoyed and earned far more working hours they wanted than slaving in a factory somewhere.

Yeah, I've watched on the street interviews with street hookers who were obviously all beaten down, and some of them were saying they were doing it of their own free will, it's easy money, etc. I don't believe them for a second. It's just a way for them for feel better about the hell they're in. After all, we all want to believe we have some control or agency in our lives, no matter how bad they are. Addicts and people in abusive relationships do similar rationalizations.

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah, I've watched on the street interviews with street hookers who were obviously all beaten down, and some of them were saying they were doing it of their own free will, it's easy money, etc. I don't believe them for a second. It's just a way for them for feel better about the hell they're in. After all, we all want to believe we have some control or agency in our lives, no matter how bad they are. Addicts and people in abusive relationships do similar rationalizations.

You are entitled to your beliefs, i lived among them for 3 years and befriended a couple of decent, hard working girls. So i would hope you'll offer me the same freedom on mind as i offer you

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You are entitled to your beliefs, i lived among them for 3 years and befriended a couple of decent, hard working girls.

Yeah, I've known people who prostituted themselves, too. My ex would whore himself out online, too. They're a dime a dozen in the LGBT community, especially among gay men and trans women. It's sad.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If there were consent on both sides, there would be no need for money to change hands.

People agree to have sex with each other all the time, and do so. No problem, as long as they are of age.
But if it takes money to gain consent, that is not consent. That is coercion. Honest consent is freely given. Coerced consent is not freely given. And is not consensual. It’s simply a purchased non-objection.

That is not true, any more than it is coercion than for your local sports store to ask for money in exchange for new Adidas running shoes.

In contractarian or rights-based ethics, the key principle would be autonomy and consent. If both parties have full autonomy, are well-informed, and are freely choosing to engage in prostitution without coercion or undue influence, some would argue that this is a valid ethical contract. Both individuals are using the resources at their disposal (money or attractiveness) in a consensual exchange.

 

[Kathryn]

Whatever consenting adults do together is no concern of mine. That doesn't mean I would do it but I really don't care what consenting adults do.

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah, I've known people who prostituted themselves, too. My ex would whore himself out online, too. They're a dime a dozen in the LGBT community, especially among gay men and trans women. It's sad.

It's only sad if its not their free choice, if it's not what they want to do.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's only sad if its not their free choice.

I always find people treating each other like objects to be sad. Regardless, it's rarely a free choice.

 

[ChristineM]

I always find people treating each other like objects to be sad. Regardless, it's rarely a free choice.

For those im talking about it is their choice. It's a business transaction, if everyone follows the rules both parties leave with what they want. I cannot argue with that.
It's when it is not their choice that i agree with you.