Should prostitution be seen as something shameful whether your a hooker yourself or use their services?

>Should it be seen as shameful? Absolutely.
Why?

>Why pay for something that you can get for free?

Because prostitution gives pussy a fixed price, while non-prostitute women want to inflate said price by withholding it from men - therefore artifically increasing the rarity of sex and giving women a greater increase in demand compared to the supply. Allowing them to cash in greater revenue (if not material means then emotional).

>i'm a 28 yo virgin in a country where prostitution is legal

Reasons you should be proud of this:
>

> Why pay for something that you can get for free?

Oh please, pretty much all relationship cost you time and money, there's no reason to pretend that isn't the case.

I don't know why you think calling you a female would be an insult, but I'm sure it's some sort of projecting.

Not everyone are robots like you.
Besides, by keeping it legal we can actually introduce means to protect the rights of prostitutes.

Because you are wasting money on what you can get for free
>Because prostitution gives pussy a fixed price, while non-prostitute women want to inflate said price by withholding it from men
And you wonder why you have to pay to have sex
Ever heard of a one night stand? Oh wait.

>muh projecting
Stay butthurt, and worse, still thirsty

Is it any worse than other jobs where you got a big risk of breaking your body?

The sex industry is industry. It should be regulated and taxed accordingly. Brothels which are subject to health inspections and have to publish their accounts like any other business are much less inclined to tolerate competitors who undercut them by trafficking women and cutting corners to compete, and are much more likely to cooperate with law enforcement (even if it's covert cooperation) to stamp them out.

People are going to by (or at least rent) pussy irrespective of what the law says. We may as well regulate it to drive the right behaviours and reduce harm.

>Ever heard of a one night stand?
Oh yea something involving spending time and money clubbing don't cost time or money.

You're retarded.

1. You're going to have fun while clubbing 2. It's going to be cheaper and far less dangerous than going out and getting prostitutes.

>You're going to have fun while clubbing

implying

>Because you are wasting money on what you can get for free
>free
M8; how is it free? Dating = money + time / Relationships = money + time / Marriage = money + time.
It's all a large investment.

At least with prostitution it cancels out the added cost of time. Making prostitution the least expensive situation out of the two.

So let me ask you again; how is it not a service and why should it be banned?

>Fun
>Cheaper
>Less dangerous
For whom?

Just because you're autistic and don't know how to have fun doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer such a fate
Again, pump and dump.

>So let me ask you again; how is it not a service and why should it be banned?
It is, and I never said it shouldn't. I just said that it's disgraceful and you're going to be a laughing stock

>Fun
If you know how to have it, that is
>Cheaper
If you know how to play your cards right
>Less dangerous
Unless you're going to a ghetto strip club, you're going to be pretty safe

so just how unattractive are you?

The Elephant Man is Brad Pitt compared to me, but at this point I'm just argueing for the sake of trying to understand a shitty set of arguments.

>Fun
>If you know how to have it, that is
>Cheaper
>If you know how to play your cards right
>Less dangerous
>Unless you're going to a ghetto strip club, you're going to be pretty safe
Literally every argument you've just made you could make for the benifits of prostitution aswel.

How would prostitution not be the more benificial decision if compared to the pump/dump? It's the same end result no matter how you spin it.

Ego and mental well being.

You got the girl to sleep with you because you're funny/handsome/charismatic/whatever, but the only reason the prostitute slept with you is because of the moolah

So in either case they sleep with you because of your 'something'.

>Because you are wasting money on what you can get for free

I say the same about people who buy videogames yet I get bitched at.

>Ego and mental well being.
For whom? The pump and dump girl? If you've not made it clear that your only intention is to get in her pants - and she's fallen for you because of the funny/handsome/charismatic quality, while being oblivious to the fact that you don't intend to pursue anything else - how is the end result any better for BOTH parties involved?

Sure it's great if you want to get your dick wet, but if that is the end result; what is stopping you from visiting the prostitute?

And that's not even considering all the golddiggers in the world. How are they not sleeping with you for your 'moolah'? Hell; they're sleeping with you for the prospect of your moolah. There isn't even an exchange.

depictions of the elite have always mentioned the use of prostitution, or harems

>Why pay for something that you can get for free?
Not that guy, and I don't consider myself a robot by any means nor do I think I'm so bad looking, but the amount effort that one needs to get laid or make a relationship work is astounding. It requires a significant investment in not only time, but mental effort. You have to make an effort to connect with a girl, and this almost always means putting on a positive attitude (smiling, laughing, joking, storytelling) which doesn't come naturally to me most of the time and seems alien to living a productive, moral lifestyle (which requires planning, self-reflection, prioritizing one's personal goals and work over the priorities of others). On the surface you have to act spontaneous and in charge when with a girl, but underneath I always have to make cynically calculations because, in my experience (or perception) at least, women don't like any signs of weakness, sadness or faux pas. If you can't give them a perfect show they'll move on to the next guy...
Prostitution to me actually feels more honest to me because most of the time, with a little research, I know exactly what I'm getting and fulfilling a purely physiological urge without having to act cynically or inauthentically (and thereby alienating myself). Plus what if after all the investment to fuck a chick she turns out to be a shitty lay or has some physical defect? A prostitute usually has a reliable list of services so you don't have to rely on the whims of a girl who, understandably, don't always want sex all the time.

>Why pay for something that you can get for free?
You're retarded.

>And you wonder why you have to pay to have sex
He's trying to break it down in a rational manner. Basically all you're saying is that thinking in an intellectual manner is not sexy, which says more about the state of society today than you're hinting that he has autism or some mental problem

>is astounding.
Because sex is something that should only be done in a lasting relationship, not bartered or sold.

It's difficult to get with a girl like that, because they're after something permanent, not sex and eventual dumping when you get tired of them.

So is murder for hire.

People will always buy and sell sex.

You can make it as illegal as you like.

They will still do it.

Like drugs.

There is literally no reason prostitutions should be illegal, only right winged hypocrisy where they think that doing something while keeping it illegal is a good idea.

except in that case you're denying one person the freedom of choice forever

>no, just your male superior. Why pay for something that you can get for free?

kek, sucking your own dick doesn't count I'm afraid.

>Because sex is something that should only be done in a lasting relationship, not bartered or sold.
I agree but I find it difficult separating a woman from the sexual fulfillment she could potentially provide me with.

>It's difficult to get with a girl like that
like what? surely not all girls want permanent relationships like you say, though maybe you mean that most girls who give out sex on a regular basis are already in long-term relationships?

So what?
I was dismantling the "it's just a service" line of apologia for prostitution.

If "it's just a service" is insufficient justification for murder for hire it's insufficient justification for prostitution as well. There's no point in weighing the moral value of one if you're not going to do so for both.

Nigga are you for real? Do you really think murdering somebody and selling your body are the same thing?

Ok. Say you're the one providing the service in two cases.
Scenario one. You're a prostitute.
Scenario two. You're a hitman.

The prostitute is paid by a client to have sex with them. The client is, generally, satisfied with this arrangement. The prostitute is paid, and if she consented and the client didn't abuse her (say it's in a well regulated brothel) nobody was harmed.

Meanwhile, a hitman fucking kills somebody. Are you noticing a difference?

The service provided by a prostitute doesn't cause harm. The service provided by a hitman does.
Sex isn't illegal when it isn't paid for. Hell, pornography is legal, so you can fuck someone for money as long as you film it and sell the film?
Murder is illegal no matter what. You're selling a service that's already illegal and harmful. Apples and oranges.

It's more or less legal here(Japan). There are problems, but things work out for all parties for the most part.

>Should prostitution be seen as something shameful

Yes, which is why it is and why no matter how hard you try to convince yourself it isn't, you'll still feel guilty

that doesn't demolish it, senpai. saying "its just a service" simply means that you're commercializing sex, which according to a strict interpretation of classical liberalism which our society generally follows would mean that all is required is the consent between two persons (which would be represented by a financial transaction). Again, to kill somebody would be to deny someone's liberty/ability to make a choice forever and is a false equivalence

>why no matter how hard you try to convince yourself it isn't, you'll still feel guilty
I take it you're a mind reader who has access to all thoughts that have ever existed from the millions of people who have visited prostitutes throughout history? stop spouting moralistic nonsense

Guilty? No. Perhaps embarrassed if someone found out, but that's more a measure of society's views on it than my own. The same reason you'd probably feel awkward if someone walked in on you masturbating.

>Because sex is something that should only be done in a lasting relationship

stopped reading right there

>withholding sex

I'm honestly curious how many people believe women legitimately do this. it's always the women's fault, it couldn't possibly be because a man isn't doing anything to make the woman want to have sex with him.

I think the term "withholding" might not be entirely appropriate, but generally most people agree men are more sex driven than women. Men do stupid, stupid shit to get laid.

I'm not going to say all women take advantage of this, but there are plenty who do, just as there are plenty of men who emotionally manipulate their girlfriends/wives.

My little brother's wife does it all the time. What's more she says it in front of other people to further browbeat him. Anecdotal evidence and all that, but there you have it.

Your reasoning is wrong.
It's shameful because it is too easy. The amount of effort you put into dating is the most gratifying feeling you could have. I'm also tempted to think that most people who calls hookers end up feeling ashamed, which is rarely the case when you get to fuck the girl you've been discussing with for some time. Unless you're fucking someone who's disgusting. But as Frank Ocean would say, "never fuck someone you wouldn't want to be though".

I agree with you, but I am a little bitter because I s-u-c-k at dates and even when the girl lieks me and wants to go out with me, she always loses her interest after the first date.

>The amount of effort you put into dating is the most gratifying feeling you could have.

Honestly, my experience with dating has been that it's not been worth the time and effort to maintain a relationship - maybe I've not met the right person, but in any case the act of finding the right person is a real fuckin' process. The sex wasn't all it's cracked up to be, I'd rather just pay someone when I feel like it and be done with it. If I want a serious relationship I can pursue one, but it doesn't mean that sex for money should be shameful for that reason. Otherwise why not consider other easy activities shameful? Our society is all about paying the extra dollar for streamlining and convenience.

oh, I don't doubt at all that some do and it's cruel. I think feminism and women working heavily contributed to husbands and wives (even unmarried men and women in normal relationships) being unfulfilled sexually and emotionally and it's so sad.

That is horrible and shouldn't be tolerated, your brother should leave her. A marriage should be positive for involved, no tricks or withholding sex or affections.

Maybe it's for the best, user. Some girls are just shit and like the user's above brother's wife. Some girls are truly shy and too timid to make another move, it's very easy to confuse that with being uninterested. I hope you have better luck on dates and finds girl who is truly interested in you for you.

>That is horrible and shouldn't be tolerated, your brother should leave her. A marriage should be positive for involved, no tricks or withholding sex or affections.
I agree, but love makes you do stupid things.

>being unfulfilled sexually and emotionally and it's so sad.
Looking at this for a moment, if a man or woman goes outside of their relationship to get sexual fulfillment while still being emotionally faithful and considerate is it a bad thing? Especially if they turn to a legal option? Can you love someone but be at an age or time where you're no longer interested in sex even if your partner is? Are you obligated to participate in the act out of your love for them? How often should you be required to help them find release? Couldn't a lot of grief and frustration be avoided through regulated, safe prostitution?

It used to be more common and less shameful. That all started changing in the 60's and it got driven even more underground. Make something illegal and you make it more profitable and more dangerous but you don't make it go away.

>if a man or woman goes outside of their relationship to get sexual fulfillment while still being emotionally faithful and considerate is it a bad thing?

Yes, that's literally cuckoldry.

your whole leaks so much ignorance, Sacred Reich should rename their first album.

your whole post*

Why is it bad outside of memes?

>The amount of effort you put into dating is the most gratifying feeling you could have.
poster you're responding to here, and i agree with . While I agree that struggle and hardship make the rewards all the sweeter, it is not universally the case, especially when it comes to relationships. I also don't think you processed my argument about the cynicism and inauthenticity that goes into successfully courting a girl.
>'m also tempted to think that most people who calls hookers end up feeling ashamed
Like I say I actually feel less ashamed because I don't have to put on any airs and simply getting a service to fulfill my sexual urges. I agree that shelling out the money can leave me feeling guilty, but as people have argued here just as much time, "emotional capital" so to speak(which is subjective but in my case seems be very restricted to my upbringing and maybe genetics) and money spent drinks, food and gifts or activities and its about equal to visiting a prostitute.
>which is rarely the case when you get to fuck the girl you've been discussing with for some time.
But I think there's definitely problems here of fantasy not living up to reality. What if she doesn't look good under those clothes as you imagined she would be. What if she has a different sexual preferences? Why have to negotiate through all these challenging things when you can just screw a whore? To me its like cutting through a gordian knot

>But as Frank Ocean would say, "never fuck someone you wouldn't want to be though".
Ocean is gay kek (which changes the dynamic I would think) and sadly I don't see many women as people I would want to be in the sense that many don't share my hobbies or my outlook on life.

With a prostitute mind, not some housewife down the street.

>outside of memes

Virtually all civilizations in history hated that shit and sometimes it was even punished by death, I guess because of """memes""".

Only if women did it.

the difference with cuckoldry is that there's no money involved. The exchange money is what makes prostitution what it is. Sure you and the prostitute can form an emotional bond, but the transaction makes it more impersonal than cuckolding. As someone else said here, you're basically renting a pussy to fuck

Chef from South Park taught me you're not actually paying for the sex, you're paying for the woman to leave afterwards.

Men as well.

>you have sex with proffesionals so you can't get sex for free

Who invented this meme? I don't pay for just "sex", I pay for a cuban in her 40s who enjoys having 4 of my fingers up her ass while she sucks me. I'm supposed to enter the club and get this, or any other horrible fetish?

Prostitutes exist so they do to you what other women won't. Just like any other low class job, except they probably get more cash than rubbishmen and builders.

Durr.
But why should I care for random people? She's merely an excuse to satisfy my urges as well as feed my ego.

>Who invented this meme? I don't pay for just "sex", I pay for a cuban in her 40s who enjoys having 4 of my fingers up her ass while she sucks me. I'm supposed to enter the club and get this, or any other horrible fetish?

>as well as feed my ego

I always kind of wonder how people who go clubbing and fuck trashy girls in one night stands actually feel proud of it. At least the prostitute thinks she's worth something.

>But why should I care for random people? She's merely an excuse to satisfy my urges as well as feed my ego.
ayy, a prostitute does this as well senpai. but I don't understand the "ego" part that so many have argued for in this thread. to me there is nothing that feeds my ego about winning a girl, because at that the point you formulate a consistent way to pick up chicks it would become a mechanical formula at that point. It would make more sense to feed one's ego actually making lots of friends, being respected/having authority which, thinking on it now, why people relish leadership, being politicians, having power etc. etc.

also may I add achieving personal goals, career goals, moral goals, cultivating your knowledge and innate talents, learning hobbies and so on and so forth

I find it amusing that you think everyone in the world abides by your moral code that views sex as harmless and killing as the worst thing ever.

We degenerates will inherit the world, my fellah. It's just a matter of time before the guy who shamed the autists for not enjoying clubs, and others like him, start shaming the same autists for not going to the brothel with the lads.

Why do you assume that everyone is a classical liberal?

I find it amusing that you're thick enough to not realize that something done between two consenting adults is very different than something done unilaterally by an individual to a non-consenting party, and that comparing the two is a false equivalence. I'd also like to remind you that consensual sex for free is not illegal, but murder for free is still illegal.

If it gives you some perspective, I also think assisted suicide shouldn't be considered murder and that it should also be legal. Because both parties consent.

All that should matter is that the prostitute and the customer are classical liberals, besides that it's none of your fucking business what they do. I hope, if you're against prostitution, that you're also against pornography.

it would be foolish to say that everyone is. but classical liberalism is generally frames how western societies and law function today, so there's no escaping it or pretending it doesn't exist

More assumptions.
"Consent" is a meaningless and arbitrary buzzword. I doubt you think that sex with children becomes acceptable once the child "consents" because it agreed to prostitute itself for an ice cream.

>b-but consenting ADULTS
and what exactly is an "adult"?
Just another arbitrary buzzword that shifts with the times.

Here's a question for you my " consent " obsessed friend. Does murder for hire become ethical in your esteemed opinion if it occurs in a society where citizenship and the franchise is only granted to an "adult" person who "consents" to the risk of being murdered by state sanctioned assassin?

>yeah but what about this completely made up hypothetical scenario

I think we're done here, keep living in your made up fantasy world where sex for money and murder are the same thing.

When discussing whether or not something that exists outside the law should be brought inside the bounds of law, it only makes sense to abandon all preconceptions of what is accepted as law and start considering it from scratch ethically instead.

Toodles coward.

...

>there is no difference between having sex with a 20 year old and a 2 year old
hmmm really makes you think

You're arguing with two people. I'm the other guy. Yes, the idea of child and adult has shifted throughout history. There's no denying it. But to say that consent is otherwise a buzzword is nonsense. There is a generally agreed upon definition of adult and child that is accepted in the West today. Yes, it differs slightly from state to state in the US or a bit more variably from country to country, but I think its fair enough to say that while the definition of these terms differs from society to society the idea of adult and child and consent for that matter have great implications as framed in our laws. Defining adult and child or guardian/subordinate has been a hallmark of western law since the romans. You're example on the other hand has never been enshrined in law throughout Western history and is totally anomalous to a commercial society. It's is an absurd example that has and most likely will never exist.

What's the difference between having sex with a 15 year old and a 16 year?

>It's is an absurd example that has and most likely will never exist.
It happens all the time in my Chinese pornography cartoons. He's probably conflating those with reality.

>it only makes sense to abandon all preconceptions of what is accepted as law and start considering it from scratch ethically instead.
"no." that is not how our legal system works. what you're describing is a kind of natural law, an idea that exists but hasn't really been popular since the enlightenment.

depends on the individuals but generally people are able to responsibly make these decisions by age 18

generally the difference between a 15
year old and a 16 year old is small

the age of consent is arbitrary. we generally agree that most people mature during puberty, but it's so variable that we couldn't possibly monitor every teen through some scientific or medical test and say "hes mature enough to make decisions now!" in order to dispense justice properly. It's a trade-off between the efficient operation of justice and the unfairness of prosecuting a teen who possibly hasn't fully developed his/her mental faculties yet. It's necessary evil desu. maybe there should be a seperate legal category for teens?

No I'm aware I'm arguing with two people.
It doesn't matter if you think the example is absurd, it's not being offered as a viable model of society but as means to get you to crack open your skull and examine your own ethical assumptions.

If you're going to argue that murder is bad from the position of assumptions based in Western law going back to the Romans it doesn't make sense to then argue that sex is an inherently harmless activity that should go mostly unregulated as you'll find that ethical position unsupported by most traditions of Western law going back to the Romans as well. A society where sex outside of marriage isn't viewed as a vice would appear every bit as absurd to people of the past as my hypothetical society where murder for hire is viewed as morally acceptable under law.

Which is why I brought it up.
Just because in 2016 some people view casual sex as a victimless act that has no harmful effect on society does not objectively make it so, and with that in mind it doesn't make sense to just OK prostitution based on the justification "it's just a service" since lots of other things are just services as well that are considered unethical and therefore not allowed.

kek

I don't limit my thoughts based upon their popularity.

The distinction had been drawn not between unregulated sex, but unregulated sex for money. You could fuck 500 people in a night if you wanted, as long as none of them paid you for it. Why, exactly, is the financial transaction where the line has to be drawn?
And why does it have to be an exchange of currency? What about girls who go "I only put out if you take me to a really fancy restaurant"? What about the girl who'll fuck you if you get her a nice necklace?

because one is being legally sanctioned by the state and the other isn't.

By legalizing prostitution the state transforms promiscuity into an act that it legally condones.

Promiscuity is already legal, exchanging money for it doesn't change that.

There are plenty of laws that restrict and illegalize acts of promiscuity.

Such as? Are we talking things like public indecency?
Because even if that's the case, that doesn't rule out private sex with a prostitute.

If it's your opinion that promiscuity should be illegal alltogether that's your business, but while it's legal it's an arbitrary distinction to say you shouldn't be allowed to ask for money for sex but you're allowed to
A) Have sex with that potential client free of charge.
B) Have sex with that client for money, film it, and sell that film.
C) Have sex with that client conditional on them taking you on a date which they pay for.
D) Have sex with that client conditional on them signing a contract with you to support you financially for the rest of your lives.

And if you think promiscuity should be illegal, to what extent? No extramarital sex? How do you enforce it? What's the punishment? Are my tax dollars going to be paying for police officers to waste their time making sure Jim isn't fucking two girls at the same time?

>If you're going to argue that murder is bad from the position of assumptions based in Western law going back to the Romans
this gets into legal territory I'm afraid I don't know enough about. But while I concede my ignorance, I never argued that "murder was bad" only that your particular case of freelance murdering has never been an important theme in western law because there has never been historical conditions where this was a problem and large amounts of ink had to be expended on the topic (though I'm sure somewhere out there legal scholars have touched upon the subject).

>it doesn't make sense to then argue that sex is an inherently harmless activity that should go mostly unregulated as you'll find that ethical position unsupported by most traditions of Western law going back to the Romans as well
Am I really arguing this? Please tell me when I said this or if that was inherent in one of my arguments... Evidently, we have consent laws for a reason as well as laws regarding rape. I'm also not arguing that sex should be totally unregulated. Prostitution should be legal but regulated, and societies of the past recognized this legally even if they grumbled about it personally. On the flip side, the law system in practice almost always punished males less harshly than women in cases of adultery, even if the law said otherwise (and I'm certain even the law recognized this in Roman times, among the nobility in medieval times, and I'm 100% sure this double standard was codified in law during the 19th century and even earlier, having read french and english history about this period). So even if the law acknowledged it, we can be certain that infidelity was pretty damn common among the upper classes, who were basically the only proper citizens that existed from antiquity to early modern society. Infidelity/sex is part of the human experience in settled society forever. Your example of murder for hire is not.