Is it wrong or selfish to fuck a prostitute...

Ethics is philosophy which is Humanities.

Ever saw how many "tw when no gf" threads they produce?

pol love shitposting here.

What? If I was born a hot female I wouldn't hesitate one second to become an escort. The best ones can easily make $ 2000 / day.

It's obviously different if you're talking about underage brazilian girls who got sold by their families and now are forced to fuck random men only to get compensated with crack. In that case, it's probably wrong.

yes it is wrong. Women want to choose who fuck them and buddy, you are not part of their choice.
Women become very sad when they have to deal with what they see as poor and ugly men. You worsen the lives of those women.
This is why women hate whores, they know they do not get the choice of their mates and they hardly get orgasms, and the man has the upper hand, until he gives the money, then the woman regains the upper hand, but it is too late for her: she knows she is just a slut and she must make effort to get money from bad sex with some fugly beta.

All systems of employment are abusive and what the hell is a 'compromised position'?

Drug addiction, human trafficking, violent consequences if they try to leave. Extreme poverty. I would like my whores to have some options so I know they'd prefer to be doing what they're doing.

Good bait attempt

they're confined to the entire site

Yeah, I think prostitution is ethically wrong. Here's my thinking:

>What makes something ethically wrong?
If harm is done to somebody.

>Even if they don't know it's being done?
Yes. An injustice is an injustice despite ignorance of it.

>Even if they enjoy it?
Yes. People can enjoy being exploited, doesn't make it right.

>Even if they consent to it?
Yes. Coercion exists, and everybody has to find some way to make money.

>Even if they want it enough, they'll do it for free?
Now this is where it gets tricky in my opinion. I view the main harm in prostitution not the possibility of STDs or unwanted pregnancies, because we've all but eliminated those as possibilities. The main problem is that an individual is exchanging their principles for money. Only few people can walk away from a serious self-infringement upon their principles unscathed. And enough money (or enough desperation) can make almost any principle go away.

However, if prostitution is honestly something they would do for free and feel no guilt about it, my opinion is that they should test that theory, fuck anyone that asks for a year, and come back to it. If they honestly feel nothing, then maybe prostitution is not ethically wrong in their case. No psychological harm is being done, so no problem.

The reason why you need to test it before the payments come in, though, is because of cognitive dissonance. After long enough as a prostitute, many prostitutes probably come to think that it's not that bad, but only because they've gotten used to selling out their ideals.

I would put porn in the same category as prostitution. Though I don't visit prostitutes, I do watch porn. I don't come up with a crazy system of loopholes that makes porn okay but prostitution bad, I just accept that I do evil. Just like the killing and enslavement of animals for meat, I don't think it's right, I just accept that I do evil sometimes.

I read this twice and still have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say. Who are you to tell someone what they can or can't enjoy/consent/want to do? Or what is ethically wrong or an injustice?

The sex trade in Pattaya is an interesting example. To most of the civilized Western world, it would seem that such an environment is filled with despair/poverty but it isn't. These girls enjoy going on different dates and seeing how much money they can get spent on them or if they'll take them anywhere cool. It's a game for them. Really no different from girls in the West dating as young adults.

In Amsterdam a brothel has opened with support of the city government where the prostitutes run the whole thing themselves, get tested for stds regularly and clients must use condoms (supplied by the prostitute) or else its a no-go. Do you still think its evil when women (or even men) sell sex when its voluntarily and regulated like this?

>/pol/ is terrible, they're stupid, caricature their opponents and reduce the board's quality
>If you disagree with monetized sex you're a /pol/ virgin

ironically enough /pol/fags are the normalfags here given their neo-tradtionalist anti-degeneracy shtick that borders on fucking parody

>normalfags
>neo-tradtionalist anti-degeneracy

Take your meds

>shtick that borders on fucking parody

It seems you're taking bait posted here as candid opinion

You're getting trolled and fully falling for it the traditional sense of the word

well, they're more like failed normalfags but normalfags none the less

/pol/ has long passed the "communities whose individuals pretend to be idiots for a laugh will eventually become full of genuine idiots" thing.

>well, they're more like failed normalfags but normalfags none the less

???

Are you a le "I posted here since 1998" /b/tard?

> "communities whose individuals pretend to be idiots for a laugh will eventually become full of genuine idiots" thing

Plenty of people are still making bait and getting (You)s and kicks out of watching you get peeved by them.

It is a FACT that people complaining about /pol/ derail more his threads than /pol/ ever does.

...

Off-topic picture about the theory of a discredited proto-psychologist

It's amoral. You pay for a service being offered. Unless you can argue someone is being harmed, a service is all it is.

>wants his worldview to be the most relevant in soceity so he could be socially accepted by his peers
>not normalfag behaviour

lmao

>bait

It's not b8 if the person is genuine in his beliefs.

>See, I just changed the definition of the word so it would fit

int is a friend simulator

view not most relevant: not normal

Do you know what a norm is, brainlet?

He only know what an "epic win is", he is an "oldfag"

>neo-traditionalist
>implying this isn't a result of being virgin NEETs

The new in-vogue thing for people who can't get any pussy to do is become traditionalists. Same reason why anti-capitalists exist. They can't compete, they know it, so they switch sides

This assumes the woman shares your principles and attitudes to sex.

Selfishness isn't wrong. It can be abusive but to declare it inherently evil in every case is imposing your flaky morals on others. The "trick" should give a fuck about whatever she wants.

You're strawmanning. First line is true in general though.
My thought was more
>pol virgins are more likely to give a stupid advice based on their hate of women

Considering men pay for sex either way, I don't see what's wrong with it being a completely honest transaction.

That said, I don't think all prostitution is made from the same cloth, so to speak. If a woman chooses herself to be a sex-worker, then I can't see that there's anything wrong with it, however, in many cases prostitution obviously involves women who were forced into it without any say.

Conclusion in my opinion is that prostitution isn't wrong by definition, just potentially wrong depending on the manner in which it is done.

Prostitution objectifies women

Literally nothing wrong with objectification.

>You're strawmanning.
>First line is true in general though.

These are already conflicting statements

>>pol virgins are more likely to give a stupid advice based on their hate of women

You have categorically gave your stupid opinion on what /pol/ would proceed to say

>If a woman chooses herself to be a sex-worker,
women love to be paid to be fucked, but only in dilettante and on their terms, which means it is already like today but this time the exchange of money is explicit

>everybody has to find some way to make money
How come everybody else manages to make money without selling their ass?

Clearly you didn't think this through.

are you saying some women aren't objects?

>Considering men pay for sex either way
t. virgin
Seriously what the fuck dude, this is some serious muh chivalry faggotry. If your conception of a relationship includes the man paying for everything then you are 100% gonna have a shit time if you ever manage to convince a woman to spend time with you. If you treat a woman like a prostitute, expect her to be as trustworthy as one. Any sort of power imbalance fucks things up for both people. Unless you like vapid bitches who view you as a way to make an easy buck if they put up with your shitness in bed.

Look, you strive for a society where your world view would be the most relevant and thus a society where you would be considered normal, but since your views aren't represented in society at large, you're a failed normalfag, but normalfag none the less. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Does this woman look like an *object* to you?

>If your conception of a relationship includes the man paying for everything

It's way more complicated than that. Women associate money with status, which doesn't necessarily mean that she wants the man to pay for every little thing that comes along, but it certainly means that she considers a man who makes a lot of money more attractive than a man who doesn't.

>you're a failed normalfag, but normalfag none the less
>you're normal but you're not

>t. virgin
>ad-hominem

Personally I find nothing wrong with it and find it more noble than jacking off to internet porn.

> I can't make it any clearer than that.

Have you tried drinking bleach ?

most women would do it for free. So it's better if they get make money off it.
There's nothing wrong with it

Which is not the same as the man paying for sex. Like at all. And not accurate besides. Yes, women prefer men who dress well, take care of themselves, and aren't stingy. If I can do this as a student on a waiter's salary then I think it's fair to say that a lack of money is no object to sex, unless you're also hideous, which is actually also not the main point, because there is always some equally or more hideous member of the opposite sex out there. The real issue is people who are unwilling to improve themselves deciding that the reason women way above their station in terms of looks won't have sex with them is that all women are prostitutes.
This is Veeky Forums, insults are obligatory. Doesn't invalidate the rest of my statement though.

Still not getting it, huh? Let me illustrate my point with an example, your stereotypical fatass dakimakura-hugging weaboo isn't a normalfag, he pursues his obsessive hobbies and generally doesn't give a fuck about society at large and doesn't try to normalize or rationalize his asocial behaviour to the world. The /polr9k/ faggot, on the other hand, constantly whinges how all women are whores, how society is degenerate and how they would be socially accepted if it wasn't for the jews. That it the reason they go on these rather cringy internet crusades to "redpill" the masses, in a vain attempt to change society to be more accepting of them like the failed normalfags they are.

>Which is not the same as the man paying for sex

It kind of is. If a man has to compete with other men in all social domains and has to win in order to even be noticed by women and get sex, it is a form of payment by definition.

Unless of course you think that women will just give up sex for any reason whatsoever. Sex is as much a weapon as it is pleasure.

>The main problem is that an individual is exchanging their principles for money.

You retarded stupid fuck. You retarded stupid fuck. You retarded stupid fuck.

The basis for our economies is on a vast "web of evil" with the sole purpose of extracting oil.

And here you're grandstanding about fucking "Uhh principles for money uhhh"

Your fucking life is principles for money you dumb fuck.

ITT: Woman: The Eternal Riddle.

Women aren't a riddle at all. They are actually quite straight-forward, as are men.

CONT

And yes, I must emphasis about how much of a retarded stupid fuck you are.

Speaking of retarded stupid fucks, this fucking guy. Women are fucking prostitutes for the top 20% of men.

They literally would rather be "Chad's" 4th women on the side than be a beta's primary mate.

>Sex is as much a weapon as it is pleasure.
"No"
This is exactly the attitude that I'm talking about. If you allow a woman to use sex as a weapon to get what she wants, you are in a shit relationship. Further, I just explained how I as an average-looking guy who puts just a little effort into his appearance can quite easily find sex despite only making waiter's pay.

Guess I'm Chad then :) never change r9k. All it takes to be "alpha" is being assertive but not annoying and not a slob.

Submit your thesis on the subject to my office by 5 PM.

Just don't give a fuck. If the people don't want to be hookers then they shouldn't have become hookers. And don't let other people tell you it is wrong either. A lot of us guys just want sex without any of the romantic entanglements.

>I as an average-looking guy who puts just a little effort into his appearance can quite easily find sex despite only making waiter's pay.

Sure, if you don't have any standards yourself.

But I would argue that if you actually wanted something more than just sex from women, e.g a long-term relationship and children, suddenly your average looks and waiter's pay will become a problem.

Let me explain women for you, without r9k bullshit:
They are people just like men
They like sex
They don't like subservient cucks
They find neckbeard/"beta" behaviour as cringey as everyone else
They like being with assertive people who treat them as equals and don't allow themselves to be treated as less than equal.

Your whole post is /r9k/ bullshit.

literally the opposite attitude of those fuckig incels

I will dispute your point only slightly, but it's not relevant to the discussion of what it takes to acquire sex and kind of constitutes shifting the goalposts. Besides, I am currently in a stable and loving long-term relationship with those average looks and waiter's pay. But I agree that a relationship serious enough to include children requires both members to be financially stable. But that's just a basic requirement of growing up, there is no reason anyone with access to a decent education should be on waiter's pay past the age of 30, and I fully support anyone's decision not to marry someone based on that person not growing up.

A number of views are circulated there, each with heaps of self-delusions.

>Is it wrong or selfish to fuck a prostitute?
Are you using another as a mean rather than an end? Yes. Yes, you are.

Where are the self-delusions in that post? The tl;dr is literally "don't be cringey and also remember that women are people"

>But that's just a basic requirement of growing up

Sounds like a reductio ad absurdum to me.

Do you really think that men's incessant need to compete and win in society, both socially and economically, doesn't correlate at all with the fact that women actually want the winners?

Because it does.

And I hope I don't need to remind you that 50 years ago, it wasn't a "basic requirement of growing up" that both the woman and the man had to be financially stable to have a family, this is a new neo-liberal phenomenon where wages have stagnated to such a great extent that having children is now reserved for people who are rich.

and then how much work is furnished by men compared to women?

>men's incessant need to compete and win in society, both socially and economically
Wut? I just take care of myself, go for a run a few times a week, work hard at my job and my studies, try to be a generally pleasant person and treat women as equals while not accepting less than equal treatment from anyone without an actual position of authority over me. Seems to work pretty well. If that somehow means I'm "outcompeting" some slobs then sucks to be them I guess. Men are not on display at a slave market where women pick and choose the best. Relationships and casual sex both happen through chance encounters, and all that matters is that you make a good impression during that chance encounter and then follow it up by being decent.

And I hope I don't need to remind you that 50 years ago domestic relationships were horribly imbalanced. Children are definitely not reserved for the rich, just the adult. A low-middle tier job with a long-term contract is not the same as being rich, literally all it takes is hard work and not being an irritating person.

Lmao wtf is "beta behavior" Mr robot?

...

...

...

...

...

...

6 0 K
0
K

>If that somehow means I'm "outcompeting" some slobs then sucks to be them I guess

Yeah sucks to be them, but it doesn't change the fact that you're doing it to increase your chances of getting poontang and children in the future.

You know full well what that term means, it's common across all boards on Veeky Forums (I have never visited r9k) and as silly as I find it, it's a handy shorthand for all the things that men who don't have any conception of women do. If I had to be specific I'd say "beta behaviour" as I used it here comprises all activities placing women on pedestals in the hope that they will reward one with sex and similarly any act of obsession over a women who has expressed her lack of interest, as well as any sort of sweeping and deflecting justifications for one's own romantic inability (e.g. all women are whores, women don't appreciate chivalry anymore, women just want a chad not a real nice guy like me, and so on).

...

...

>who are you to say what is ethically wrong
>OP is asking for opinions on whether prostitution is ethically wrong
Clearly, the answer to all such questions of right and wrong is that ethics do not exist, or if they did then bickering, wavering humans could not decide them. But I should have been more clear that this is merely my opinion.

My opinion assumes MANY things. The most basic assumption is that ethics exist. The second most basic assumption is that the code of ethics is always true. The third assumption is that betraying the code of ethics causes damage, because people feel bad when they do wrong. The fourth is that in this set of ethics, harm to humans is unethical. The fifth is that it is against this ethical code to betray it for something as trivial and worldly as money. The sixth is that sex is sacred, or is at least carefully selected. There are probably even more that I cannot even recognize right now.

For my argument to be sound, I would have to prove all of these things, but even the first assumption cannot be proved. So, I'm trying to at least make it internally consistent with all of the unstated assumptions that I am using. That is all any of us are trying to do with our arguments.

However, my opinion does not mean that I impose my thoughts onto others or judge them if they think or do differently.

One aspect of my argument was to explain that it's wrong to be convinced by money to do something unethical. It's not necessarily wrong to be convinced by money to do anything that ethics do not judge.

Yes, I think it is still unjust, because I don't really believe people can have such a lackadaisical attitude towards being prostitutes. I think that people who end up being prostitutes PROBABLY don't like the idea of it, and only become used to it after doing it enough.

>implying I'm not aware that all wage labor is exploitative and unethical
>implying I'm not a communist already
>mfw

...

...

Dude...

Women simply aren't attracted to the majority of men and most have to offer her something in return for intimacy.

This is compounded by womens' greater in-group mentality. In fair psychology experiments where students are given sweets to distribute to everyone but themselves, boys generally go around the class giving 1 sweet per person while girls immediately go to the other girls. Older boys divide the sweets using math while girls manually distribute them to the girls and a few popular boys.

Women continue to socially isolate a proportion of men throughout their lives and one only needs to look at feminism to see this phenomena. Feminism is an ethical ideal but in practice it reflects womens' fears and insecurities, the greatest among these is the "creep". Less than 1% of men will ever commit a sex offense, even these are unlikely to do it at a particular moment and most are manipulative and have good social skills, yet any socially awkward unusual man is branded a "creep". It could be that they had a dysfunctional upbringing and never had the chance to learn, but they're not getting that chance, at least not in any social situation where there are women, his mere existence hurts their feelings. Far-left feminist dogma exists to find excuses to justify this and abuse women's fears, standards that don't apply to women or the most attractive men, naturally.

So what does a person like this do? They are good people, they just never get invited to parties and are constantly told they are not good enough, a loser virgin. A person like this ends up a "nerd". Someone who studies and tries to improve themselves relentlessly, someone who has to learn to break the rules and use initiative to get ahead because female teachers won't do their jobs properly. These people end up quite wealthy as adults, but are still "creeps". "Creeps" it is justified to discriminate against in education, work and divorce courts in favor of women, naturally.

The more you know.

>One aspect of my argument was to explain that it's wrong to be convinced by money to do something unethical.
The unethical one is the person offering prostitution then as they could be doing something else - like everyone else.

That is true, but what I'm trying to point out is that this whole competition for sex shtick that I keep seeing spouted here is not really true at all because the effort required to "outcompete" is actually so minute. You need three things to be romantically successful: a willingness to self-improve, a good attitude towards the whole thing, and a realistic appraisal of the genetic limits of your own looks. That's it. You will eventually find someone if you have those three things. Hell, being physically fit here means I am automatically more eligible than 30% of the population (30% obesity rate, same as US) and maintaining fitness is an utterly trivial act of self-improvement.

>All it takes to be "alpha" is being assertive but not annoying and not a slob.
This.

Just be yourself.

>sweets
That sounds interesting. Can you find the study/studies or at least give me some key words to search for? You remember the authors by chance? I want to read that. Most of the stuff I'm finding when I look for it are about obesity and such.

Mate, I literally have Aspergers. Yes I was a loser creep through primary school and early high school. And whaddya know, girls prefer guys who have social skills. But luckily I had parents who stomped hard on the attitude that it was anyone's fault but mine, and so I did fucking study, just people not books, and as a result I now have stellar social skills. It's difficult, but all it takes is commitment and honest, non-depressive self-criticism. I have zero sympathy for anyone who has this persecution complex because I am fully aware, from personal experience, of the fact that sympathy for this condition only enables the one receiving sympathy to wallow in it and not drag himself out of it.

Although I am very interested in those studies by the way, and I'd like to echo this user's request for any keywords.