Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Torm" data-source="post: 2051099" data-attributes="member: 12706">Actually, you can boil this down through logic and science. You're right that it will involve emotion, but not the way you imply:Scientific exploration of physics, the human body, and human psychology indicates that humans generally share enough of a common experience to allow a general consensus amongst many people's perceptions to act as a predictor for individuals.To use your example, I do not find torture to be an experience I would enjoy. I haven't actually conducted this poll, but I would be willing to bet that it is safe to say that a majority of the people here would agree. Based on this, it would be a good guess that a new member who joins tomorrow will not enjoy torture, either. When a trend like this is strong enough, one can conclude that exceptions are anomalies, and you might need to look for an extra factor in those cases - like someone who claims to enjoy torture, but who in fact enjoys degradation or certain types of pain. In those cases, there is almost certainly some sort of diagnosable psychological disorder or quirk that removes them from the standard.To follow this back to the situation under discussion - prostitution - you have to put each type through the same test:Type I: Being forced to have sex in exchange for money or other compensation like drugs (coercive pimp type situation) is not something I would enjoy, and once again, I would bet most here would agree. So that is wrong.Type II: Being lured by an amount of money difficult to resist into having sex for it, even though doing so violates the tenets of a religion one wants to follow, or causes an impratical likelihood of spreading disease or causing pregnancy. Here it becomes a little more vague, because there's no threat of violence - if one believes in degrees of wrong, this is a little less wrong than Type I on the part of the johns, a little more wrong on the part of the hooker. Still wrong, all the way around, though. And once again, placing most people here in the shoes of the hooker, I'm sure they would agree they were being wronged somehow.Type III: Getting paid to have sex that one finds either indifferent or actually enjoyable, when one has no religious strictures against it. If the reasonably normal, not-sick-looking waitress (or waiter, depending on your gender and/or orientation <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) offered you a decent amount of money to have sex with them, and you had no belief that there was any spiritual reason or reasonable logistical reason (high risk of disease, fear of pregnancy, angry spouse of the john) for you not to, I believe many people would. I freely admit I would.The Type III situation is what we are talking about - a situation that it may be hard for many who have certain religious convictions regarding the sanctity of the body, sex, and relationships between men and women to even imagine. But a situation that is nonetheless entirely possible - as has been proven historically - in the absence of religion, or in religions without the same strictures.</blockquote>

Verification