Biblical morality & domestic violence

[MaxVel]

Rape involves victims, prostitution is a victimless crime.

That seems like a broad brush. There are plenty of women working as prostitutes who are (to greater or lesser degrees) not doing that as a result of their free choice.

Even if a woman is a prostitute solely due to her own free choice, and her clients are also freely choosing to use her services, are you sure that there is no attendant negative effect on the community?

[The Pixie]

Even if a woman is a prostitute solely due to her own free choice, and her clients are also freely choosing to use her services, are you sure that there is no attendant negative effect on the community?

Do we have to be sure of that before we allow prostitution? Would you say we should ban anything that has any negative effect on society?

[MaxVel]

Do we have to be sure of that before we allow prostitution?

I think so. Even one woman coerced or forced into prostitution is one too many, at least IMHO. I don't know if you have children or not, but would you be Ok with your daughter one day telling you that she's chosen prostitution as a career? If not, why would we be OK with other people's daughters doing so?

Would you say we should ban anything that has any negative effect on society?

Ummm.... no... We should discourage things that have lesser negative effects, and for things that have clearer negative effects we should try to find ways to eliminate them. A ban isn't always the most effective way of changing things. Cigarette smoking is perhaps a good example. I think I'd probably err on the side of liberty rather than compulsion. I'd rather see people not smoking (say) because they have realised how harmful it is, and chosen themselves not to smoke; than see people not smoking because of some severe laws against it.

[The Pixie]

I think so. Even one woman coerced or forced into prostitution is one too many, at least IMHO.

I agree. But it is the coercion that is wrong. Assuming there is no coercion:

I don't know if you have children or not, but would you be Ok with your daughter one day telling you that she's chosen prostitution as a career? If not, why would we be OK with other people's daughters doing so?

It is called freedom of choice.

Ummm.... no... We should discourage things that have lesser negative effects, and for things that have clearer negative effects we should try to find ways to eliminate them. A ban isn't always the most effective way of changing things. Cigarette smoking is perhaps a good example. I think I'd probably err on the side of liberty rather than compulsion. I'd rather see people not smoking (say) because they have realised how harmful it is, and chosen themselves not to smoke; than see people not smoking because of some severe laws against it.

Religion has a negative impact; should we try to eliminate that? How about driving cars? Of course, they both have positive as well, but I notice you do not consider the positive here.

[MaxVel]

I agree. But it is the coercion that is wrong.

I think it's more than that. I think that prostitution is wrong and harmful in and of itself. It dehumanises the participants and demeans the act.

Assuming there is no coercion:

It is called freedom of choice.

So if your daughter chose to be a prostitute you would have no problem with that?

Religion has a negative impact; should we try to eliminate that? How about driving cars? Of course, they both have positive as well, but I notice you do not consider the positive here.

No, I just thought you'd understand that that was implied in my response. Of course atheism is far more harmful than just about any religion, although militant Islam gives it a run for it's money, atheism still 'wins'.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

But we should ban all worldviews except for mine,of course

[Aractus]

That seems like a broad brush. There are plenty of women working as prostitutes who are (to greater or lesser degrees) not doing that as a result of their free choice.

Right, again I don't dispute that - but why would you punish the victim with the legislature then?

Even if a woman is a prostitute solely due to her own free choice, and her clients are also freely choosing to use her services, are you sure that there is no attendant negative effect on the community?

Am I sure? Everything in life has negative and positive effects. Even assuming that prostitution has only negative effects doesn't alter the fact that criminalisation of it only produces further negative effects. For example, you can protect worker's health and safety with regulation, but you can't do that when it's criminal. When it's regulated a worker has the same right as anyone else to report a rape, when it's not they often have their rape claims immediately dismissed because they solicit sex. And that's without even getting into the problem of stigmatisation - my god the cyber-bulling of Alyssa Funke due to the stigma surrounding sex work directly lead to her suicide. Even if people do things you don't agree with, they do not deserve to be vilified, stigmatised, and bullied for it. Especially when they never hurt anyone.

In the civilised world there are regulations requiring condom use to prevent the spread of serious STIs. In places like the USA almost no prostitutes use condoms and consequently the spread of STIs are common. If you want another huge point of difference look at HIV/AIDS - Australia contained the outbreak very effectively, and I won't explain it at length, but the USA took the view that they didn't need to treat it like an epidemic when it emerged, and consequently the HIV rate in the States by the end of the 1980's was way higher - not only that, but it remains that way today. And that was due to the stigma - it was seen to only affect sexual deviants and therefore not of concern for most people.

[The Pixie]

I think it's more than that. I think that prostitution is wrong and harmful in and of itself. It dehumanises the participants and demeans the act.

So is your position is that anything that dehumanises people or that demeans the sexual act is necessarily morally wrong?

I am wondering what you mean by demeaning copulation. Do you mean that prostitution demeans the act for you (the general you), when you do it inside marriage? Or just the participants?

So if your daughter chose to be a prostitute you would have no problem with that?

I would also discourage her from skydiving and buying a motorbike, but I do not think either are morally wrong.

No, I just thought you'd understand that that was implied in my response.

Having just read through your response again, I see no suggestion that it was implied at all. Are you saying I should double-guess what you really mean? I find it better to respond to what people say, not what I think they should have said.

Just to be clear of my own position here, I think that you have decided prostitution is wrong, and are now looking for ad hoc rationalisations for that position. Saying it has a negative impact is one such, it looks to me. Having a negative impact is not a reason to eliminate a behaviour, it only becomes a reason when you have already decided it should be eliminated. I am wondering if this is also the case for dehumanising and also for demeaning the sexual act. Is prostitution wrong because it dehumanises the participants and demeans the act? Or is it wrong, and you are casting about for something, anything, to support that position?

We have now established that having a negative impact is not sufficient cause for eliminating prostitution. Should we eliminate anything that dehumanises the participants?