I've been giving this subject some thought recently due to some social media posts I've read about mistreatment sex workers, but this here isn't about that since
it's obviously plain wrong to mistreat anyone. The thing is, technically, a sex worker is just a woman (or man) who has multiple sexual partners and gets paid for doing that. If they weren't being payed for it then they wouldn't be a addressed as a prostitute. The very nature of the act is still the same, but then there's always this negative connotation about getting payed for sex that me and other people have but can't quite understand why. Like for example, even if you can logically explain that there's nothing wrong with prostitution, you would probably still never want a child of your own to do that. You feel me?

Quote from Salt

Like for example, even if you can logically explain that there's nothing wrong with prostitution, you would probably still never want a child of your own to do that. You feel me?

That's not necessarily illogical. I don't see prostitution as immoral because it's between consenting adults, if they're willing to take the risks involved that's up to them. But if I had a daughter I wouldn't want that for her simply because it's risky and not a very respectable or stable way to make a living. There's no cognitive dissonance from holding both of those views at the same time.

Quote from Exilement

That's not necessarily illogical. I don't see prostitution as immoral because it's between consenting adults, if they're willing to take the risks involved that's up to them. But if I had a daughter I wouldn't want that for her simply because it's risky and not a very respectable or stable way to make a living. There's no cognitive dissonance from holding both of those views at the same time.

Yes but some might argue that you would get the same risks from just having a lot of sexual partners, which despite not being encouraged for anyone generally it's not really as looked down upon.

Quote from Salt

Yes but some might argue that you would get the same risks from just having a lot of sexual partners, which despite not being encouraged for anyone generally it's not really as looked down upon.

It definitely is looked down upon between parents and their children, which is what Exilement was getting at.

The occupation of prostitution itself may not be morally wrong, but it does encourage a lot of immoral activity. It is a gateway immorality, where soon men will be forcing weaker women into prostitution for a buck.

It is also quite silly to compare it to having multiple sexual partners. With sexual partners, you get to talk to them, get to know them (even if its in a club or in a bar, you know something about them) and then you fuck them. With prostitution, any nameless john can give you money and you are now obligated to have sex with him which could lead to dangerous and unprotected sex. It also removes the moral responsibility of the physically stronger party to not mistreat the physically weaker party. If you get slapped by a guy you met in a pub across the face while he is having sex with you, you can and will walk away. Hookers can't walk away if a John slaps them, especially during sex or things will get really nasty. Because money is involved and has created a very dangerous, ill-defined and hasty obligation between the parties.

Quote from Nish

It definitely is looked down upon between parents and their children, which is what Exilement was getting at.

The occupation of prostitution itself may not be morally wrong, but it does encourage a lot of immoral activity. It is a gateway immorality, where soon men will be forcing weaker women into prostitution for a buck.

It is also quite silly to compare it to having multiple sexual partners. With sexual partners, you get to talk to them, get to know them (even if its in a club or in a bar, you know something about them) and then you fuck them. With prostitution, any nameless john can give you money and you are now obligated to have sex with him which could lead to dangerous and unprotected sex. It also removes the moral responsibility of the physically stronger party to not mistreat the physically weaker party. If you get slapped by a guy you met in a pub across the face while he is having sex with you, you can and will walk away. Hookers can't walk away if a John slaps them, especially during sex or things will get really nasty. Because money is involved and has created a very dangerous, ill-defined and hasty obligation between the parties.

This makes sense. I guess it was just my lack of knowledge on the subject.

Quote from Salt

Yes but some might argue that you would get the same risks from just having a lot of sexual partners, which despite not being encouraged for anyone generally it's not really as looked down upon.

None of this would happen if the state legally acknowledges it and legalizes prostitution. They did it for booze. They did it for drugs (some states). And if they did it for prostitution, the 'risks' would be government controlled and would never go out of control.

The problem is we're still living in a world where Prostitution is considered a taboo thing (or is now considered. They were quite lax with it back then.) so not alot of places actually have systems set up for it.

Las Vegas is one of the few places that legalizes Prostitution. Aside from making pimps obsolete, they do stuff like hold annual check ups for every sex worker that registers in the system. And they have protocols set up for catching STDs and mitigate/mediate any lawsuits made.

The TV Show Firefly had an interesting take on prostitution where Escorts are actually highly regarded in society, have the choice to choose their own clients and are strongly unionized to protect their interests.

But the problem with legalizing prostitution is that it still isn't going to cut down the supply. A woman who is down on her luck can still be manipulated into being a "pirate" prostitute, with a pimp. The pimp could simply sell her out for a lower rate than the government regulated ones and still get clients. So the cycle of violence would be reduced but not eliminated.

My problem with prostitution is not with the morality of the act itself, but with the vast areas of danger that it opens to the person providing (or sometimes forced to provide) the service.

My 'problems' with prositution are more along the lines of pimping and abuse. In my opinion unless the industry is legalised, controlled and there's sufficient health and medical care/treatment then its just going to end in lots of suffering for a few.

I also heard a story once about someone being offered a job as a prostitute while on benefits designed to get her back into work, and surprisingly turning down a job took away her benefits.

Prostitution absolutely can't be something someone is forced into to make a living off. I'd rather it was illegal than abused heavily or a result of loads of problems for those involved.

Ironically I treat it in a similar way to drugs like Cannabis. Legalise it only if you can control it and keep it safe as well.

Quote from Skeletonxf

I also heard a story once about someone being offered a job as a prostitute while on benefits designed to get her back into work, and surprisingly turning down a job took away her benefits.

This sounds like something out of an urban legend. Can you give us more details? How does a government take away someone's benefits for turning down prostitution?

Quote from Nish

This sounds like something out of an urban legend. Can you give us more details? How does a government take away someone's benefits for turning down prostitution?

Because it was interpreted as turning down a job offer and thus voiding job seeking payment.

Quote from Skeletonxf

Because it was interpreted as turning down a job offer and thus voiding job seeking payment.

This must be somewhere where prostitution is legal.

Quote from Salt

This must be somewhere where prostitution is legal.

I have never heard of a country where even when prostitution is LEGAL, it is a regular job that can take away your unemployment benefits if turned down. I'll have to call bullshit on that based on common sense, but I will change my stance if someone offers proof. There was an article on the UK telegraph about it a few years ago but I don't think that was legit, I will take a look at it again and get back to you.

Quote from Nish

I have never heard of a country where even when prostitution is LEGAL, it is a regular job that can take away your unemployment benefits if turned down. I'll have to call bullshit on that based on common sense, but I will change my stance if someone offers proof. There was an article on the UK telegraph about it a few years ago but I don't think that was legit, I will take a look at it again and get back to you.

Prostitution is legal in the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom

I can't vouch for the validity of the story, I don't have a link to it, but my point was to show that prostitution can't be treated like some other sort of job like working in a shop because it's not the sort of job you should be forcing anyone into.

Quote from Skeletonxf

I can't vouch for the validity of the story, I don't have a link to it, but my point was to show that prostitution can't be treated like some other sort of job like working in a shop because it's not the sort of job you should be forcing anyone into.

I did find a link to the story, and what it says is that the Employment Agencies threatened to remove the women from their list, not the Government. It then opens up a grey area, because governments might revoke benefits for women who are not affiliated with agencies. But the article only says that it "could" happen and not that it "did" happen.

Also, just because something is legal, it doesn't mean people can be forced into it. It is still a high-risk job, even if it is legal. You can't, for example, force someone to be a Boxer even though it is perfectly legal. You can't force them to be a sky diver, or a professional wrestler, or a deep sea diver.

Making something legal is NOT going to make it legally justified to force people into it. If that ever happens, a thousand lawyers and journalists will be on the story like flies-on-shit and it will be revoked.

Not in my mind. Sure it's not the greatest profession in the world, but I can't see anything inherently immortal about selling your body for cash. We already sell every other aspect of ourselves to employers. Why is sex taboo?

As long as you're using adequate protection that is. I imagine baring a child and not knowing who the father is, could be seen as immoral.