And you'll have to provide evidence that prostitution is bad for most prostitutes before I'll accept that comment at face value.
Well, I went to look for some evidence, tgho, and found Melissa Farley, but apparently she's disqualified because she's a feminist, or because she has political opinions, or something.
Never mind that she's been a practising qualified psychologist for more than 40 years.
I'm a feminist too, by the way. Does that disqualify me from this discussion as well ?
I said :
Here's some facts :
1. Prostitutes are more at risk of physical attack than any other profession.
2. Prostitutes are more at risk of sexual assault than any other profession.
and tgho replied :
Only where prostitution is illegal.
... unfortunately, that is rather most of the planet, isn't it ?
So the facts remain...
My observations about prostitution pertain to prostitution
now , not in some hypothetical future. I agree that global decriminalization would significantly reduce the incidence of physical and sexual assault. But we don't have that yet, do we ?
As things stand, right now, prostitution globally is mostly a highly dangerous profession, potentially very damaging to its practitioners' mental and physical health.
And anecdotal examples of happily-married prostitutes in enlightened places such as Nevada and New Zealand do not alter the wider picture.
I said that prostitution is not a respectable profession - on the whole, it is criminalized, marginalized, and its practitioners denied human rights such as a written employment contract, the right to belong to a union, and basic health and safety.
Some of you say that this is simply the result of its illegality - remove the illegality, and these problems would disappear.
Which begs the question: why was it criminalized in the first place, and why, given its reputation as 'the world's oldest profession', has it never become a legitimate profession ?
Easy.
Because it's not respectable. Society has so little respect for prostitution, it never bothers to make it legitimate.
I asked why one might object to one's wife becoming a prostitute; tgho said:
I would object solely on the ground that I'm a monogamous person
... thus proving my point. The vast majority of human societies are based on monogamy (legally or psychologically). Prostitutes in those societies therefore become undesirable as a girl-friend or partner or wife to the majority of men in their society.
Anecdotal rebuttals notwithstanding.
How does the exchange of money make a difference? Exactly what changes when money changes hands?
The meaning of the experience changes. Therefore the experience changes.
I said;
Having a partner is one of the things that prostitutes sacrifice. Nobody wants a whore for a girl-friend
wheezebucket said :
Are you ****ing kidding me? So a woman who has sex for money is somehow less than a person? Tell that to my friend who's married to a prostitute, I'm sure he'd love to hear that the woman he loves is, in your eyes, a sub-human
.
You've lost me there, wheezeB. Where am I saying prostitutes are less than people ? (You're not confusing me with gia again, are you ?)
And it's somewhat ironic, in that I'm trying to focus on the reality of a prostitute's life - acknowledging the endemic distress, anxiety, danger, violence, hatred and contempt which are their normal working conditions.
(Except in certain few enlightened places).
Again, please stop confusing your Disney fantasies with reality.
I'm not fantasizing. On the contrary. It seems to me that some of you have a highly romantic perception of prostitution, incorporating loving partners who don't have a problem with it, respect from everybody including immediate family, weekly blood-tests that are no cause for anxiety, and minimal impact of the day-job on their own sex-lives etc etc ...
I admit that might be the reality for some prostitutes; but very few.
And try not to delude yourself into thinking you're better than somebody just because they don't subscribe to your twisted ideas about morality
Again, are you mixing me up with gia ? I've stated quite clearly that I think prostitution per se is neither immoral nor unethical - merely dangerous and damaging. I have made no moral judgment at all.
Gnu.
) You take the idea that in casual sex you're on the couch, necking... It's exciting, wondering how far she'll let you go, thrilling in the next touch, etc. But, again, this isn't everyone's idea of "casual". Oft times it's well understood between 2 people where the evening is headed, there are no games, no wondering where it's going to lead. That kind of casual is very much the same as with a prostitute, except in that case she isn't there because she digs you, but because you're paying her. You have decided that for you this is unacceptable, and that's fine, but don't assume that because the one is void of emotional attachment that it is somehow false, fake and demeaning. Sex can be false, fake and demeaning without ever a cent exchanging hands.
