The Morality of Prostitution and Pornography

[Skwim]

Prostitution = Its (more specifically the john or pimp)

The employee is not the end product, the thing or action being sold. An employee is to ensure the company produces or is paid for the product. The closest thing in prostitution would be the pimp. The product in prostitution is the prostitute and their actions(IE thing).

Have a nice day.


.

 

[LimeDragon99]

Viewing pornography and masturbating is actually a lot safer and Much cheaper then having sex, you may get viruses and have to buy a new computer if you go on the sites that causes virus without addblock, but that's nothing compared to paying child support or the hospital bills for the treatment for your new sexual diseases.

 

[dawny0826]

I'm not talking about the business of prostitution and pornography, how they may be run and where any money may go, and not about sex trafficking or any kind of coercion, but the basic nature of each. For purposes of the discussion these are the definitions you should keep in mind.

Prostitution: the exchange of casual sexual relations for personal gain,* commonly money.

Pornography: (participating in)* sexual behavior purposely recorded to generate sexual excitement in others.​

Make your case either for or against either or both of these activities.


* other than personal gratification.
* if one on wants to consider the participant(s).


.

I suppose that there's a very human type of need that's at the root of both. Human need and desire aren't really immoral unless manifested in a way that harms another.

If we're removing legalities and business specifics from the equation, I wouldn't say in blanket label terms that either are immoral.

But, I do view both as a kind of self-inflicted form of objectification as one becomes a service or an art form. I don't really consider this immoral in and of itself, unless one participant demeans or degrades the other in some way.

 

[McBell]

No I understand a prostitute does not need a pimp. Explain to me how the prostitute is not the product for sale? If the prostitute is the product similar to slavery they become a thing.

To claim prostitution is akin to slavery is to redefine slavery into meaninglessness.

 

[bobhikes]

To claim prostitution is akin to slavery is to redefine slavery into meaninglessness.

Really stating that prostitutes and slaves are treated as products(things) being sold not humans defines slavery as meaningless. You get I feel both are not moral practices.

 

[McBell]

Really stating that prostitutes and slaves are treated as products(things) being sold not humans defines slavery as meaningless. You get I feel both are not moral practices.

Yes I do, thus the reason you mistakenly align the two.

 

[bobhikes]

Yes I do, thus the reason you mistakenly align the two.

So to clarify you do not believe the prostitute is the product or the slave is the product.

 

[McBell]

So to clarify you do not believe the prostitute is the product or the slave is the product.

product of what?
The transaction?
In the case of the prostitute, the product is sex, not the prostitute.

Which is why I have to wonder if you are honestly ignorant of that or if you are being dishonest in your comparison.

 

[bobhikes]

product of what?
The transaction?
In the case of the prostitute, the product is sex, not the prostitute.

Which is why I have to wonder if you are honestly ignorant of that or if you are being dishonest in your comparison.

The john goes on-line and see's the type of girl or guy he wants and then calls them. All sex ads I have seen have pictures and the pictures are done up to sell the body of the person.

If it was just sex there are several ways to complete it without a prostitute.

 

[McBell]

The john goes on-line and see's the type of girl or guy he wants and then calls them. All sex ads I have seen have pictures and the pictures are done up to sell the body of the person.

If it was just sex there are several ways to complete it without a prostitute.

which sounds like a good argument until you look past the emotional rant part and look at the fact that after paying the john does not own the prostitute.

But no need to point out that little fact, right?

 

[bobhikes]

which sounds like a good argument until you look past the emotional rant part and look at the fact that after paying the john does not own the prostitute.

But no need to point out that little fact, right?

I never said the John permanently owned the prostitute and I did not compare that aspect to slavery. I only compared the fact that both make a human a product(thing) which in my opinion makes both not moral.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Lets have a look at Virtue ethics. Virtue ethics which states "an action is moral if and only if the act would be performed by someone who is virtuous". Now the definitions of who is "virtuous" vary, but I'm going to use Aristotle's concept of the golden mean.

Actually, the mean is more a rule of thumb to see if an action is right: e.g. are you being reckless or cowardly, miserly or profligate? In most classical, Chinese, and modern virtue ethics, the goal is a life that makes the most of being human - eudaimonia, as Aristotle said, which is sometimes translated as a state of flourishing.

So, the question is whether hiring a prostitute or watching pornography enhances ones life or makes it worse. Provided that one does not become a sex addict, it's difficult to see how either activity could be harmful. As for those engaged in the trades, it obviously depends on circumstances in which they work. Some may think there are worse trades. Think of being a soldier and risking ones life, or working in an Amazon warehouse in the USA where you can be sacked for being off sick or spending too long in the lavatory.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's amazing how much Victorian prudishness still pervades our society. That sex (or sex related subjects including nudity) is seen as some kind of special case regarding morality has no rational or logical basis.

 

[Skwim]

I never said the John permanently owned the prostitute and I did not compare that aspect to slavery. I only compared the fact that both make a human a product(thing) which in my opinion makes both not moral.

Is acting on stage for pay immoral? Is paying an actor to act on stage immoral? Is paying to see someone act on stage immoral?

OR

Is cutting someone's hair immoral? Is paying someone to cut your hair immoral? Is getting pleasure from having your hair cut immoral?

I can only conclude that while acting and getting one's hair cut are a moral activities, having sex is not. Is this about it?


.

 

[bobhikes]

Is acting on stage for pay immoral? Is paying an actor to act on stage immoral? Is paying to see someone act on stage immoral?

I can only conclude that while acting is a legitimate activity, having sex is not. Is this about it?


.

The acting is what the actor is selling, it is the actor's skill and ability to draw. I said even pornography I would consider moral if the actors did it because they really wanted to. We will take a one man show as an example. I am paying to see the entire show the actor is in. I am not paying to engage with the actor. The actor is also not be payed by me but buy somebody else for the skills and draw the actor can produce. Skills and draw being the product. You hold the actor to a pinnacle of human performance.

Prostitutes are engaging with the john. The body is what the john wants. The john picks the hair color, body size, and price etc. You a reducing the prostitute to an item.

Personally I don't see the big deal morals are personal. For me morality means treating all people as human. I don't believe prostitutes are being treated as equals but are dehumanized by the John's. If you don't believe that fine I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Prostitution has been around a very long time.