Why Would it be wrong? probly the only way I'll ever get laid
"Here's Johnny" - Jack Nickelson, The Shineing
I don't think so-prostitution is an industry, and they have to make a living:). It's been around for thousands of years and isn't going away!
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
I voted no... u know why? becuase it isnt wrong if it is THIER choice to be a prostitue >_> lol some actually make better money than most of us can ... $12,000 a day O_○ thats insane lol... yea i just watched a thing on the news about a legal prostitution bar place and thats what one of the prostitutes said her record was in a day o.o ...gawd some people
I wanna hug :x!
I agree. But it is so said when you hear about human trafficing...those poor girls. Maybe if prostitution were legal we wouldn't have these tragedies.
yeah... not quite. how many people do you think really want to become a prostitute? i'd say it's not so much a choice, but a feeling of not having a choice and still needing some means of income.
"freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"
I doubt that many people want to become dustmen. However, I'm not going to stop generating trash just because they're unhappy - there's nothing morally wrong with using consumable products.
It's actually one of the oldest professions in history. It's of course terrible that some (women especially) are being abused and soforth, but for the 1s who do it freely, it is just another job. And for the ppl who pay for sex; as long as they're comfortable with it, I see no reason y they shouldn't.
As long as it's a choice for every1 involved.
Yea... or else its just cruel :(
I would never do it myself, but if you're really willing to do that, then go right ahead. I don't think I'd ever be that desperate that I'd pay to have sex with a complete stranger. You always have yourself, if all else fails.
Sex, between two strangers, is a service. Assuming that none are harmed (which we must, since there is no mention of prostitutes in specific circumstances), is paying for a service wrong? No. When you factor in the conditions surrounding who the payment goes to and why either person is in the position of needing to buy or sell sex, then yes, it could be wrong, but not because sex is being sold, which is what the question revolves around.
you shouldn't pay for sex. sex isn't really something everyone needs.Paying for sex is just as if your paying a prostitute. it's not the same just to go out looking for sex and find it and then have to pay someone, when you can go out find a boyfriend or girlfriend that can have sex with you for free. and even if you payed your b/f or g/f to have sex with you that's just wrong to b/c it's saying that you don't love them the way they should and what if their not ready to have sex in the first place. then it's called RAPE
Firstly, most people need some sort of sex to function properly. It releaves everyday stress. And some people are dependent on, what shall we say, more kinky things, to turn them on, some that obscure that they have to pay a person in order to fulfill their fantasy.
Yes, paying for sex is paying for a prostitute. so what? what difference does it make if u first go out looking for sex, and then end up paying?
But I don't just disagree, I believe u are mistaken as well: not everyone can find a suitable g/f or b/f, due to varuous conditions. A lot of handicapped people see no other way than to pay a professional to satisfy their needs.
Having said that, I am aware that some people think that there should be no sex without love. I can't change that, but I know that, for some people, it is just as natural as anything to have sex without really loving your partner.
As for calling any of this rape, I think u need a new dictionary. Yes, it would be wrong to lure your g/f or b/f into having sex when they don't really want to, but if the person agrees, even if it is because of money, it can no longer be called such a thing.
I am so reduced when writing English!
Firstly, designer clothes aren't something that everyone needs. However, far more people spend far more money on such clothes produced in sweatshops by people far worse off than your average western whore.
Secondly, the question asks whether or not paying for sex is wrong, not whether paying a prostitute to have sex with you is wrong. The two are completely different questions, akin to "What is the value of being religious?" versus "What is the value of being Christian?". If the concept is reduced to "payment for services rendered", rather than erroneously expanded to "paying a prostitute with a poor quality of life for sex", then there can be no right or wrong to it, it's simple bartering. The only real objection can be financial from the views of a communist, i.e. Paying for a service is wrong because services should be evenly distributed by the state.
Third and finally, if consent is given, no rape takes place. Take the example of contract law, which roughly boils down to (assuming that you are not a minor) "If you sign a contract, without duress, which does not contravene any other laws, you are bound by it". There is no provision for a contract which is detrimental to you but signed nonetheless - you are bound by having signed it. Similarly, if someone consents to sex, not under duress, then no rape can take place, bar statutory rape of a minor.
alright, your analogy is terrible. sweatshops v. paying for sex are two very different things. sweatshops are a result of large corporations trying to find the cheapest labor possible. it's a global problem created by greed. paying for sex is on a much more individual level. i don't even know where you're going with the 'it's akind to the value of being religious b. being christian' maybe pointing out that one question is more specific? one more thing, and then i'm done. as you pointed out, the question is, is it wrong? your answer to that was if consent is given, no rape takes place. that certainly would be a legal argument, but i can't say that a lack of rape is a very high moral one.
The moral aspect of buying clothes from sweatshops as far as the actual purchase is concerned is identical to that of buying sex from a prostitute. You are purchasing a service or product from someone who, if better off, would rather not be providing it. It doesn't matter that one got there through the greed of a corporation while the other got there through a smack addiction. You're still affirming the necessity of what they do - providing a market to keep them where they are.
The point I was getting at with regards to Religion vs Christianity is that Sessh's original question said nothing of prostitutes, just that sex was being paid for. Two people could have very similar views on whether to pay for sex/be religious, but the more variables you add, the more opinions will diverge and putting up the straw man by way of involving a prostitute in the question ignores the original dilemma of whether buying sex is inherently wrong.
Here's a thought experiment for you, adapted from one about unfaithfulness (can't recall who to cite). Consider a machine that stimulated the appropriate nerves to produce a response which convinced the user that they were receiving sexual intimacy from an entirely imaginary person. The machine costs £99 to purchase initially, plus a subscription of £15/Month or a pay as you go option of £1.25/Use. The user is, in the purest sense, paying for sexual intercourse, but we have removed the variable of the prostitute. Now is it wrong?
To answer the argument about rape, I would point out that rape is an entirely legal concept and that if a person, to the best of their knowledge, believes the other party to be consenting then the moral offence is committed by the unwilling party for not informing them of their objection and effectively coercing them into having sex against their will (assuming pure intent on the part of the "willing" party).
sorry, i got a bit mean and carried away there. your analogy is terrible, i just disagree strongly, and don't think that it proves your point.
Let me clear up what I meant. I meant that if your horny&you need to some&you&the whore are both going in to it knowing what your doing.
that is what I am saying.
"Here's Johnny" - Jack Nickelson, The Shineing
in my mind, sex is an expression of love between two people.
are there sound arguments for legalizing prostitution? certainly. however, does something being legal make right? not so much. i think many of us here have a better idea than most that was is legal and illegal does not constitute what is right and wrong. morally, i do not believe that paying for sex is right.