Hello:

There was a discussion on another page where one member believes that prostitution is just flat out wrong... This person posts on the dog forum where I understand she has a great deal of empathy for your pets..

I just wish she had the same empathy for our underprivileged PEOPLE... According to her avatar, she's a good looking girl who has NO trouble satisfying her natural urges... Some people can't do that, and if it were up to her, they NEVER will. After all, some people are disfigured. Some are in wheel chairs. Some drool.

But they're humans with the same needs and wants you and I have.. Don't THEY deserve to experience the joys of sex? Who would sentence them to a lifetime of no nookie?? Certainly, not I.

excon

If you're asking, yes, I think prostitution should be legalized. I think there should be mandatory health checks.

There is a difference between legalizing something and making something not a crime. Are you talking about legalized prostitution?

It is sex, and it is two people doing it and agree to do it. What is the real difference in Bob who is married, and his wife "cuts him off" till he takes her on a trip, or something else.
She is still using her "sex" to get something of value, but since they are married it is OK.

Julie needs a place to stay, so she meets Tom, she tells Tom that she would love to stay at his place. Does she love Tom, no, may not even like him a lot, but needs a place to stay.
So she is trading sex and other duties for a place to stay.

Take Johnny who is in high school, (but of legal age of course) and he knows he has to take her out to a movie and dinner and flowers and most likely she will come across for him. What is all the money he pays out but in so many ways a payment for the sex, but in a socially acceptable manner.

It is a outdated legal system. Based on the idea that "sex" is bad or wrong. If Ricky really wants someone in a lamb costume who will whip him first and can't find a girlfriend with those desires, but can pay a couple hundred dollars for it ( not sure what lamb costume ladies cost) who exactly is it hurting.

It is sex, and it is two people doing it and agree to do it. What is the real difference in Bob who is married, and his wife "cuts him off" till he takes her on a trip, or something else.
She is still using her "sex" to get something of value, but since they are married it is ok.

Julie needs a place to stay, so she meets Tom, she tells Tom that she would love to stay at his place. Does she love Tom, no, may not even like him alot, but needs a place to stay.
So she is trading sex and other duties for a place to stay.

Take Johnny who is in high school, (but of legal age of course) and he knows he has to take her out to a movie and dinner and flowers and most likely she will come across for him. What is all the money he pays out but in so many ways a payment for the sex, but in a socially acceptable manner.

It is a outdated legal system. based on the idea that "sex" is bad or wrong. If Ricky really wants someone in a lamb costume who will whip him first and can't find a girlfriend with those desires, but can pay a couple hundred dollars for it ( not sure what lamb costume ladies cost) who exactly is it hurting.



If prostitution promotes Ex's examples and your examples and also results in a decrease in sex related crimes then it is right. It prostitution turns out to be promoting the opposite then it is wrong.

On this basis prostitution is satisfying the principle of utility. Promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number.It is probably important to distinguish between right/wrong, good/bad for the purpose of this exercise because they don't necessarily means the same thing

Deciding the benefits to society of prostitution stresses upon the EFFECTS prostitution has on society. In other words, it looks at the CONSEQUENCES in order to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action.

I think the young lady in question was alluding to the MOTIVE from which this action is done. Now that is a different story.

Tut

I don't know who is more honest - women who "use" men for money, social position, being "seen" in the right places in exchange for sex (everyone knows a couple where the attraction is his money and her looks and he convinces himself that she loves "him" for who he is) or women who take money outright and no one lies about it.

I can't find the other thread!

(Lamb costume - ?)

I can't find the other thread!Hello Judy:

Look here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-member-discussions/moral-issue-correct-here-648829.html).

excon

Okay - got it. You lose me when your sources of reference are Judge Judy and/or Jeremy Kyle. I didn't realize that the OP could request that a thread be closed and that it would be closed.

I am also aware that some of the participants on some of these "shock talk shows" (and I'm specifically talking about one of the originals, and he's still on) are actors, paid to participate, coached. "Hot topics" sell. How do I know this? I know an actor who was paid to appear on that same show posing as a young man who meets and lives off older women. The argument was something along the line of being paid for your companionship. His first name was Patrick and they used his last initial, which is "P." Even the non-actors are paid. I would guess that people jump at the chance to be on TV... and to be paid on top of that?

There's good TV and there's real life.

EDIT: Ontario, Canada is moving toward permitting brothels and "bawdy houses," Province regulated. http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10869813-ontario-canada-greenlights-brothels The legal ban against them has been lifted. Just saw this this AM.

Personally I'm not in Canada and I already have a day job but...

Its been around for thousands of years! Why change it?