Prostitution

[TheReasonator]

The moral objections to legalizing prostitution when examined under a microscope don't hold up.

"Human dignity"? What is human dignity and how do we go about determining what is good for it and bad for it? Self-respect? Doesn't that depend upon what the self wants? Otherwise you're not demanding the person have self-respect you are demanding they 'respect' themselves as if they were you and had the same values and preferences as you do.

Misogyny? Then why not just make female prostitution illegal? How is gay male prostitution misogynistic? Furthermore, how is it misogynistic? It encourages men to treat women like objects? What's an "object" and what does it mean to be treated as one? Does it just mean I'm interacting with the person without really being interested in who they are as a human being? In that case everyone objectifies everyone everyday in most normal economic interactions. In fact in some cases the client does get to know her as a human being a little bit, that's up to the client and the prostitute and what they decide to talk about if anything in bed.

Distind didn't say he thought it should be illegal for those reasons, he just said he didn't like it.
Also, do you not understand what objectification means? It's already defined so why do you need to ask what an object is or whatever. Objectification isn't one of those things you can't escape. There's a difference between fantasy and objectification. There's nothing wrong with fantasy in prostitution, which is a woman showing love and interest to the consumer, but that's not the problem we are talking about.

Sexual objectification is viewing someone as a sex object.
Many adults do this to each other for free everyday legally. One night stands happen frequently these days.
My point was that by the same token you could say people are treated as means to the ends of our other desires in other ways.
Why is it hostile to human dignity if someone is being used (consentually) for sex versus for heavy labor (mechanical objectification) or as an aesthetic objectification (models) or other ways? It is only if one starts with the premise that sex is something shameful or bad.

[davedan]

The moral objections to legalizing prostitution when examined under a microscope don't hold up.

"Human dignity"? What is human dignity and how do we go about determining what is good for it and bad for it? Self-respect? Doesn't that depend upon what the self wants? Otherwise you're not demanding the person have self-respect you are demanding they 'respect' themselves as if they were you and had the same values and preferences as you do.

Misogyny? Then why not just make female prostitution illegal? How is gay male prostitution misogynistic? Furthermore, how is it misogynistic? It encourages men to treat women like objects? What's an "object" and what does it mean to be treated as one? Does it just mean I'm interacting with the person without really being interested in who they are as a human being? In that case everyone objectifies everyone everyday in most normal economic interactions. In fact in some cases the client does get to know her as a human being a little bit, that's up to the client and the prostitute and what they decide to talk about if anything in bed.

Distind didn't say he thought it should be illegal for those reasons, he just said he didn't like it.
Also, do you not understand what objectification means? It's already defined so why do you need to ask what an object is or whatever. Objectification isn't one of those things you can't escape. There's a difference between fantasy and objectification. There's nothing wrong with fantasy in prostitution, which is a woman showing love and interest to the consumer, but that's not the problem we are talking about.

Sexual objectification is viewing someone as a sex object.
Many adults do this to each other for free everyday legally. One night stands happen frequently these days.
My point was that by the same token you could say people are treated as means to the ends of our other desires in other ways.
Why is it hostile to human dignity if someone is being used (consentually) for sex versus for heavy labor (mechanical objectification) or as an aesthetic objectification (models) or other ways? It is only if one starts with the premise that sex is something shameful or bad.

As awful as this and as existentially disconcerting I find myself in agreement with the 'Reasonator' in that many occupations are an affront to human dignity and are perfectly legal. Not only those related to sex work but in many other fields. Plumbing where you are covered in shit. Mining where the need to extract valuable minerals outweighs the inherent risk to human life. The law where your obligations to your clients outweigh your desire to punch them in the face as they deserve. Advertising. The list goes on.

Why should sex be different. Frankly I would sell my sexual favours if there was any sort of market for them. It would be far more dignified than what I do now.

[Auggziliary]

The moral objections to legalizing prostitution when examined under a microscope don't hold up.

"Human dignity"? What is human dignity and how do we go about determining what is good for it and bad for it? Self-respect? Doesn't that depend upon what the self wants? Otherwise you're not demanding the person have self-respect you are demanding they 'respect' themselves as if they were you and had the same values and preferences as you do.

Misogyny? Then why not just make female prostitution illegal? How is gay male prostitution misogynistic? Furthermore, how is it misogynistic? It encourages men to treat women like objects? What's an "object" and what does it mean to be treated as one? Does it just mean I'm interacting with the person without really being interested in who they are as a human being? In that case everyone objectifies everyone everyday in most normal economic interactions. In fact in some cases the client does get to know her as a human being a little bit, that's up to the client and the prostitute and what they decide to talk about if anything in bed.

Distind didn't say he thought it should be illegal for those reasons, he just said he didn't like it.
Also, do you not understand what objectification means? It's already defined so why do you need to ask what an object is or whatever. Objectification isn't one of those things you can't escape. There's a difference between fantasy and objectification. There's nothing wrong with fantasy in prostitution, which is a woman showing love and interest to the consumer, but that's not the problem we are talking about.

Sexual objectification is viewing someone as a sex object.
Many adults do this to each other for free everyday legally. One night stands happen frequently these days.
My point was that by the same token you could say people are treated as means to the ends of our other desires in other ways.
Why is it hostile to human dignity if someone is being used (consentually) for sex versus for heavy labor (mechanical objectification) or as an aesthetic objectification (models) or other ways? It is only if one starts with the premise that sex is something shameful or bad.

That's still not objectification... way to miss the point.
Also, what is mechanical objectification? When you hire someone to do heavy labor you don't view them as just objects for working, right? Machines aren't hired and paid. This "mechanical objectification" you speak of is more comparable to slavery, since slaves who work are viewed as machines(objects) rather than people who work.

[TheReasonator]

The moral objections to legalizing prostitution when examined under a microscope don't hold up.

"Human dignity"? What is human dignity and how do we go about determining what is good for it and bad for it? Self-respect? Doesn't that depend upon what the self wants? Otherwise you're not demanding the person have self-respect you are demanding they 'respect' themselves as if they were you and had the same values and preferences as you do.

Misogyny? Then why not just make female prostitution illegal? How is gay male prostitution misogynistic? Furthermore, how is it misogynistic? It encourages men to treat women like objects? What's an "object" and what does it mean to be treated as one? Does it just mean I'm interacting with the person without really being interested in who they are as a human being? In that case everyone objectifies everyone everyday in most normal economic interactions. In fact in some cases the client does get to know her as a human being a little bit, that's up to the client and the prostitute and what they decide to talk about if anything in bed.

Distind didn't say he thought it should be illegal for those reasons, he just said he didn't like it.
Also, do you not understand what objectification means? It's already defined so why do you need to ask what an object is or whatever. Objectification isn't one of those things you can't escape. There's a difference between fantasy and objectification. There's nothing wrong with fantasy in prostitution, which is a woman showing love and interest to the consumer, but that's not the problem we are talking about.

Sexual objectification is viewing someone as a sex object.
Many adults do this to each other for free everyday legally. One night stands happen frequently these days.
My point was that by the same token you could say people are treated as means to the ends of our other desires in other ways.
Why is it hostile to human dignity if someone is being used (consentually) for sex versus for heavy labor (mechanical objectification) or as an aesthetic objectification (models) or other ways? It is only if one starts with the premise that sex is something shameful or bad.

That's still not objectification... way to miss the point.
Also, what is mechanical objectification? When you hire someone to do heavy labor you don't view them as just objects for working, right? Machines aren't hired and paid. This "mechanical objectification" you speak of is more comparable to slavery, since slaves who work are viewed as machines(objects) rather than people who work.

How people view things is up to their point of view. I could hire a bunch of people to do heavy label and then view them as just objects for working.

"Machines aren't hired and paid."
Then on that token paying the prostitute means you aren't objectifying her. Maybe we should require prostitution and say free sex is a form of slavery?

Or if you don't say that then a boss could just see paying his employers as an operating cost, have no interest in getting to know them, or feel anything for them, just thinking of them as a means to producing his product. Then how is that not objectification?

[ironbite]

You know I've read through that about 10 times now....it still makes no sense.

Ironbite-you use words reasonator...do you know what they mean?

[Scotsgit]

You know I've read through that about 10 times now....it still makes no sense.

Ironbite-you use words reasonator...do you know what they mean?

I think he's trying to say that apparently bosses need to get to know people.  But if someone pays a prostitute, then they're not getting to  know them.  At least I think that's what he said, it's 1AM and I've had long day, so I'm probably wrong.

[erictheblue]

Strangely enough, I think I see what Reasonator is trying to say...

If being paid for using your body is being objectified, why don't we consider construction workers or manual laborers objectified?

Why is it OK to have casual sex with random strangers, but not to be paid for that sex?



A lot of people are making the assumption that johns always see the prostitute as nothing more than "a hole to stick my dick in." While that may be the case some (maybe even most) of the time, it is not always the case. A RL friend of mine worked as a high-class call girl in NYC for about a year when she lost her job. Her clients took her to black-tie events. Sure, she was arm-candy, but she was intelligent eye-candy capable of carrying on intelligent conversation. (My friend is an MD.) An acquaintance of mine had worked as a prostitute as well. She told me many of her clients are only looking for someone to pay attention to them. Often as not, the sex isn't the important part of their time; it's the fact that someone is paying attention to them.

[Lt. Fred]

You know the saddest part of that story? The economy couldn't find anywhere to usefully employ an MD.

[erictheblue]

You know the saddest part of that story? The economy couldn't find anywhere to usefully employ an MD.

There's more to the story that I didn't want to go into.