Stephan's podcasts on the topic

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...ion_Part_1.mp3

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...ion_Part_2.mp3

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...ion_Part_3.mp3

ian - yeah I listened to those, and read the debates on the board there a while back. While I think Stefan is often a little bit too "cod psychology", in general I find his argument very convincing and wholeheartedly endorse the conclusions.

Those that use her services. Would anyone here really condone prostitution where the act makes the girl feel like a complete piece of ****? Not on an economic level, but simply on the emotional level. If she relives the act of her abuse everytime she has sex with a stranger, would we really want to condone this kind of behaviour?

I don't really know if it's 'exploitation' or not, but the John is actively participating in and aggravating the abuse that the girl experienced as a child, in the podcasts above, Stefan describes it as recreating childhood rape scenarios and contributing to the self-destructive tendencies which often follow. I don't know if that's the case necessarily, but I think it should be clear that buying sex from such a person is extremely seedy, selfish and shows an extraordinary lack of compassionate on the part of the john.

Unethical but not immoral should be legal but socially stigmatised. For me it's pretty much like the hard drugs say heroin. Nothing good comes from it being illegal and I wouldn't want to use violence to stop someone buying or selling it but I don't think anyone should do it.

Vhawk, are you saying I look like hugh grant or act like him? I'm pretty sure one's a win and ones a fail.

If the girl is not being coerced, yes. The girl might be messed up but the John didn't mess her up. I don't hold the bartender accountable for an alcoholic's drinking.

Well why don't you tell me what ethical principle each of these violates, and I'll see if I agree.

If by "ethics" you mean "things that are anti-social and disturbing" then I'd agree these things fit, but that's not what I thought ethics was.

Are you saying people are literally coerced into buying or selling sex, or that life circumstances create a situation where it's the best solution when ideally they'd rather not have to do it? (Haven't been reading the whole thread.)

The latter isn't what I mean by "voluntary." I'm talking strictly about actions that occur without the initiation of aggression. If I pay you for sex and you agree, this necessarily lacks the initiation of aggression as far as I can see.

It could be the case that you're really desperate or something, but that doesn't mean our arrangement is involuntary. (It also doesn't mean that you aren't better off because of it.) Maybe involuntary behavior helped shape your circumstance in the first place-- but whatever your circumstance is, it has no bearing on whether or not someone has initiated force. Whether or not someone initiates force determines this.

If you all your economic productivity is coercively removed by the state such that your only option is prostitution then you are in an involuntary state

If you were raped or physically abused as a child such that you are incapable of holding down a job, succeding academically, have psychological issues, etc then you are in an involuntary state

ya but the ethical issue isn't the prostitution, it's the things that created the situation.

Since half my productivity is taken away, I guess everything I do from here forward is "involuntary"?

Ethics -

"1. (Philosophy) (functioning as singular) the philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct and of the rules and principles that ought to govern it; moral philosophy See also meta-ethics
2. (functioning as plural) a social, religious, or civil code of behaviour considered correct, esp that of a particular group, profession, or individual
3. (functioning as plural) the moral fitness of a decision, course of action, etc. he doubted the ethics of their verdict."

Do the above examples I gave not fall under the umbrella of "ethics"?

I did mean involuntary sex slavery, but ian has articulated another point about "voluntary" prostitution in the post above.

I really do have no idea why people on this forum seem to care almost exclusively about the initiation of force and violation of property rights. You use ethics in your everyday life all the freaking time to guide your action, whether something is violence or theft is not the sole determinant on whether such a thing is desirable, ethical, disturbing or whatever.

this

well I doubt you are in a situation where the government takes enough away from you that you are going to be forced into prostitution. If you are living in an area where the government has completely destroyed your economy and you have to turn to unsavory methods of survival, then ya you are in an involuntary state. You can still voluntarily choose to some degree, but many of your preferred choices have been coercively removed. Government theft is more than just a number on a balance sheet, it has real destructive effects in peoples lives. I think as ACists we would get alot more sympathy from people if we emphasized these aspects of government then simply as a tax annoyance for rich white guys.

This, I dont think anyone is saying it should be illegal, and I dont think anyone wants to get into the different between ethics and morals, whatever that means.

Most arguments I have read in this thread about why prostitution should be illegal, are about problems that are better addressed when prostitution is in fact legal. There would still be serious problems with coercion and human trafficking when prostitution is legal, but outlawing it tends to make those kind of problems worse, not better.

I've even heard women passionately argue that it's a worthless male moralist attitude to want to outlaw prostitution, as it takes away one of the means of a woman to be independent. I don't share that view exactly as I don't have a very strong opinion on the issue, but to me, the arguments for legalization have always seemed much stronger than those against.

If you want additional measures to protect the women from abuse and involuntary exploitation, you should address those issues and not criminalize the act of prostitution itself. What good does it bring the women if you make them the offenders?

Marnixvdb - check out the poll. Almost everyone here is agreed on the desirability of legalizing prostitution. What the discussion is mainly focused on now is whether men using prostitutes is ethical right now, or in a legalized environment.

It is not something that cannot be so narrowed down as 'unethical' or 'ethical' in that manner. It would need to be addressed on an individual basis.

For those of you who think it is unethical for a John to hire a prostitute who was abused as a child: do you also think it is unethical for a bar owner to sell alcohol to someone he knows is an alcoholic? I think the situations are morally very similar.

I wouldn't give my custom to a bar that predominately catered to messed up alcoholics likewise I wouldn't play at a pokersite where the vast majority of it's players were messed up addicted gamblers no matter how profitable it would be. Obviously those are super subjective and I wouldn't seek to impose my standards on anyone else except through argument.

Yes, I think it is. Obviously the bar tender is more likely to engage in this activity because he is being paid for it. I dont really understand how anyone could argue that its acceptable to facilitate individuals in their self-destruction. Not that any of this should be illegal, or that I would necessarily intervene if I was at that bar.

Because people are solely responsible for themselves and their own well-being. An alcoholic isn't any better off if the bartender refuses to serve him; someone else will. A current prostitute and former childhood victim of abuse isn't any better off if one particular prospective John decides not to hire her; someone else will. Both the alcoholic and the prostitute both need to decide to change their lives and do something to escape the bad situation they are in. The bartender selling the drink is not culpable because his end of the transaction is perfectly legitimate; there is nothing inherently immoral about selling alcohol. It is the responsibility of the buyer to make sure that he is using the alcohol responsibly.

The same logic applies to the prostitute. In my view there is nothing inherently wrong about selling or buying sex. It may be harmful or destructive or unhealthy for the prostitute, but if it is it is her responsibility to take steps to change her life.

I don't mean to be rude, but isn't this one of the definitions of psychopathy?

"Psychopaths lack a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright. Psychopaths also lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness."

When I make a transaction with another person I feel a need to consider the other person involved in that transaction. I feel that callously damaging the well-being of others in a vulnerable state is my responsibility if increasing their self-destruction is a foreseeable outcome of my transaction with them.

If your drunk friend asked you to borrow his car, would you not feel any sort of guilt about giving him the keys. Yes, he is responsible for his actions, but YOU have a responsibility if you choose to facilitate those actions.

I really don't get why you think the only thing to consider is if a transaction is voluntary or not.

Let's say your wife cheated on you. Would you blame the guy she cheated on you with? Why? She would have just found some other guy to sleep with if it wasn't him. Oh, and it's a voluntary transaction between two consenting parties, it must be ok, right?

Personally, if your hypothetical wife came on to me, and I knew she was married to you, something inside me would tell me I have a responsibility NOT to sleep with her and a responsibility to consider all parties foreseeably affected transactions. I don't find thinking with my dick here and banging your wife because I'm horny a particularly ethical thing to do.

You missed the point, its not simply a decision for these people. To make decisions one must have alternative economic opportunities. Your analogy breaks down because prostitutes are not addicted to prostitution. Addiction is a completey different topic.

NIMN's cheating analogy much more appropriate than selling alcohol to alcoholics

Is it unethical for the military to recruit males from broken homes or troubled childhoods? ones who were often physically abused growing up, have traumatic issues stemming from their childhoods, which lead them to having few other options as adults, is their joining really voluntary? What about doing some other crappy dangerous life threatening job that a healthy well adjusted male would never do. Voluntary or involuntary?

This thread seems almost sexist to me, treating adult women like they are just a byproduct of their childhood, can't make real decisions about their own bodies- well they can, but if they make bad decisions, like to be a prostitute then it is because they are not in control and we need to condemn those who frequent them.

btw i'm not saying that prostitutes aren't indeed often ****ed up, but find anyone poorly adjusted working crappy degrading jobs, struggling to get by, having addiction problems, and you often will find people with **** up childhoods, abuse/molestation lack of support and love ect. So is their crappy situation involuntary? kind of, same as a prostitute, those offering them crummy jobs for crummy pay taking advantage of them and their involuntary life situations? Ya, kind of....

Of course I wouldn't blame the person my wife cheated with. I don't have any sort of agreement with him. My wife would be solely responsible to the damage she caused in our relationship.

Nonsense. A prostitute has other economic opportunities.

But we're not talking about blame. The guy isn't responsible and doesn't have any moral obligation to not sleep with you wife but it's still a dick move.