What makes Paying for SEX - Wrong ?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is not the smoking of the joint it is the possession of the joint. Now if you were a judge or a congressman or a famous banker they may not make such a big deal about it. Remember, the elite are not bound to the same standards as the poor or middle class. I don't think that anyone smoking a few joints now and then belongs in jail or much less in court. I agree it is a personal choice. Alcoholics say drinking is legal and it has no effect on others lives if they do it in their own homes. Not true. There are thousands of children who are now grown that suffer from the effects of their alcoholic parents. I have known and do know them personally. Alcohol fetal syndrome children who grow into adults collect SSI as they are considered disabled. We all foot that bill from someone else's freedom of choice that they made twenty, thirty years ago.

You can be arrested for being high. So we once again come to the question, who owns you? You, or the government?

Technically speaking, neither.

You don't believe you own your own body?

 

[Phoenix]

If she's good looking, disease free and wants to pay me for sex, I don't have a problem with it.

Well, if you look past the hunchback, the moustache and the peg-leg - I'm not too bad looking. I think they may have identified that lip fungus (FINALLY!) and I got a five-spot with your name on it.

So how 'bout it, hot stuff? Are you ready to tangle with the mother of all temptation?

 

[RodISHI]

You can be arrested for being high. So we once again come to the question, who owns you? You, or the government?

Technically speaking, neither.

You don't believe you own your own body?

No I do not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Technically speaking, neither.

You don't believe you own your own body?

No I do not.

Interesting. I, on the other hand, believe in the theory of self-ownership.

 

[alan1]

If she's good looking, disease free and wants to pay me for sex, I don't have a problem with it.

Well, if you look past the hunchback, the moustache and the peg-leg - I'm not too bad looking. I think they may have identified that lip fungus (FINALLY!) and I got a five-spot with your name on it.

So how 'bout it, hot stuff? Are you ready to tangle with the mother of all temptation?

Only if you shave first.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PI, you seem to feel that any sexual activity not limited to monogamous, heterosexual, married sex will lead to pedophilia. Pornography leads to pedophilia? I don't see how you made that leap.

Monty, that conclusion is simply not sustained by any objective reading of my work.

With regard to Porn and Pedophiles; re-read the argument; it's laid out, in detail.

It's a rare pedophile that is charged who is NOT FOUND WITH STACKS OF AND A HARD-DRIVE LOADED WITH CHILD PORN... Now you may say that they're pedophiles, so its natural for a pedophile to seek out child porn... but in reality, the vast majority of those caught pursuing children for sex; particularly the hetero-variety... had succumbed to years wherein they had encouraged an obsession fed by porn.

Here's a micro-example of how it works... Initially the playboy works great... all the elements and great articles to boot. Then the artfully more modest playboy slowly normalizes ... meaning that the images no longer produce the arousal and excitement that they did initially...

No problem, 'cause that is what Penthouse is for... Still artsy... but more concentration on the fun parts... Then the moderately elevated exposure in Penthouse normalizes and THAT doesn't bring the excited arousal that it once did and Playboy no longer gets close...

HELLO HUSTLER... Amplified concentration on close up shots of the fun parts, mocked masturbation and coitus and so on... Which works GREAT... until THAT normalizes... and so on...

Until, if one does not find the strength of character, to simply recognize the UNDENIABLE, OBVIOUS SIGNS, that there is no bottom to such; that the means of the human brain to normalize what it is repeatedly subjected to, will produce completely unacceptable circumstances; which in this instance will lead from the sexual arousal via simple visual stimulation of the Playboy variety, to that which requires exposure to those things which most people would never even WANT TO SEE... let alone requiring such, just to knock one off...

It's not debatable Monty... The instinctive hormonal induced desires of sexuality are the strongest in the species; they're perfectly natural desires... but that they are natural only means that they are ever present and do not need a ton of coaching, encouragement or concentration to bring on the sweats... thus they're readily subject to obsession and of course, that is where people begin to have problems.

Pornography is an evil which feeds the beast... most people will come to recognize this fairly quickly and turn away from pursuing and encouraging such and this is because of the incessantly noted CULTURAL STANDARDS; it is what MAINTAINS THOSE STANDARDS… it is the REASON FOR AND THE MEANS BY WHICH THOSE STANDARDS SHOULD BE AND ARE MAINTAINTED.

Some on the other hand do not... and that is who the pornography biz caters to...

Child porn is not being developed in a vacuum... it exist because there are people who will pay for it; because in their minds THEY NEED IT. A nice pair of ample hooters and a well quaffed labia no longer serve to produce the arousal that it once did... they have marched right past such to the point where they need to see the unreasonable to get off; they crave the forbidden... because that's all that is left; they‘ve ‘been there and done that…’

And at some point, the visual stimulus is not enough; they have to know what it's like to touch it... and worse. And there are people out there who suffer the same obsession; these people comprise the 'community of pedophiles'; they 'share tips' which provide the information necessary to 'work around the prudes and bible-thumping moralist' who establish laws to prevent them from exercising their would-be rights and doing with their bodies what they want to do, in the privacy of their homes, with other consenting people who enjoy their open, yet loving sexual relationships... people like 10 and 12 year old runaways...


and PRESTO! Another pedophile is born...

As far as prostitution being illegal, I find it ironic that the exact same activity is perfectly legal so long as there is no transfer of funds. Having sex is not illegal, with however many partners over whatever period of time, but if someone pays for it, suddenly it's immoral and illegal. How many other things can you do legally as long as no one pays for it?

Well I've never counted them up... but it shouldn't be that hard.

Let's just consider how many other things are perfectly legal when such serves an valid and justifiable imperative, but illegal when such competes with or otherwise opposes that imperative.

I can withdraw funds from a bank.. a perfectly legal activity when the funds I am withdrawing are my funds, or those appointed mine through the issuance of a check by another party.

Now where I go to withdraw funds from a bank which are not my funds... it's illegal; because I am contesting the moral imperative that requires that an individual is entitled to the product of their labor and that it is the responsibility of each individual to not exercise their rights to the detriment of another's...

Thus where I seek to exercise my right to withdraw funds from a bank, which are not limited to my funds; I violate the responsibility inherent in that right to not exercise it to the detriment of another; by withdrawing THE PRODUCT OF THEIR LABOR, which rest in that bank in the form of their funds...

Such is the case in Prostitution... While the Female may be willing to provide your penis access to her vagina... her vagina serves as the receptacle to her womb... thus the business office is accessed through the facade of fun part... and while it SEEMS like it's all fun and games, THAT facade is designed to promote BUSINESS... and that is a very serious business indeed.

We're talking human life here and while it is easy to concentrate on the fun part... that does not DISMISS the business... which is the only point of relevance. And this is because where one devalues or dismisses the human life which is conceived, this establishes a rationalization which sustains the devaluation of human life across the board; and Monty... where the human LIFE is devalued... surely you agree that this doesn't bode well for HUMAN RIGHTS.

Agreed?

 

[Phoenix]

Only if you shave first.

Hey! I've been growing that 'stache for a long time.

But fer you - I'll shave.

 

[alan1]

Only if you shave first.

Hey! I've been growing that 'stache for a long time.

But fer you - I'll shave.

Did I say 'stache?

 

[Phoenix]

Did I say 'stache?

So you like the 'stache? It can stay?


Sweeeeet!

 

[alan1]

Did I say 'stache?

So you like the 'stache? It can stay?


Sweeeeet!

I just know how proud you are of it.

 

[Phoenix]

I just know how proud you are of it.

You're such a considerate man.

 

[alan1]

You're such a considerate man.

I'm only here to help.





















And cause trouble.

 

[Phoenix]

I'm only here to help.


And cause trouble.

Both appealing attributes, depending on mood.

 

[Toro]

Because I like to cuddle afterwords.

Well, you can pay for that too.

There's nothing particularly wrong with paying for sex other than a personal act consummated as a commercial transaction is generally considered to be in poor taste. Think about if your friends invited you over to a barbeque on Memorial Day and after it was done you whipped out a $20 bill and insisted you paid for your share of the meal. That probably wouldn't go over very well.

 

[Citizen]

Nothing. It's simply two consenting adults making a business transaction.

Quite correct, but for some reason many people can not recognize this.

 

[mightypeon]

Well, while paying for sex is, in my opinion, significantly inferior to getting sex for free (although, in all honesty, setting up the required dates to get there may cost a fair bit of money, and certainly takes more time ), I do not see why it should be illegalized.

I also believe that a "prostitute mother" who tries to care for her child will be better off if the gouverment persecutes her oppressive pimp (and pimping should be illegal, pimps are also the main reason for injuries sustained by prostitutes) while the police would take care of her protection.
Right now that wont happen, since if an illegal prostitute appeals for gouverment help with her baby, what will likely happen is that the baby will be taken away.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It should be legalized because the government has no right to tell us what we can do with our own bodies.

 

[alan1]

It should be legalized because the government has no right to tell us what we can do with our own bodies.

They have no right, but the sheople continue to let them.

 

[Montrovant]

PI, I would say that, based on the popularity, prevalence and income of the pornography industry, that there is a very large number of adults who peruse porn. The number of those who are pedophiles is, I think, very small. So one does not seem to lead to the other.

Perhaps those who would be pedophiles are hastened along in their ways by easy access to pornography. I'll grant you that. But the same might be true of having easy access to children's programming. Maybe children should not be allowed in public unless covered in heavy robes to conceal their forms, just in case it should stimulate a possible pedophile.

Your analogy of the bank withdrawal doesn't actually answer my question about actions you can take that are legal so long as no one pays for it. Again, it is perfectly legal to have sex with as many partners as you wish, as often as you wish (obviously assuming they are willing partners of proper age), but if any of them pay you for the act, it becomes illegal. Especially in a capitalist society such as ours, that seems odd to me.

I imagine this is another of those issues we are simply going to continue to disagree about. As always, I hope I am not misreading the meaning of your posts, and I'm not trying to say your opinions are invalid, just that I disagree with them or the reasoning that brought you to them.

 

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know if it's "wrong" or not. But no way it should be illegal.