Prostitution

[Resurrexi]

. . .

Edited July 2, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Nihil Obstat]

No, I don't think it's ever acceptable.

[Resurrexi]

The following is taken from [url="http://www.illinoismedieval.org/EMS/VOL13/13ch4.html"]this[/url] website.

'Given these limitations of civil statute in regard to virtue and vice, Aquinas goes on to assert that human law leaves many sinful things unpunished and the example he uses is simple fornication, under which he has included prostitution.61 He clearly wants to include fornication and prostitution under that category of vices that human law cannot control and which must be left to eternal or divine law. Yet could not a case be made that prostitution is one of those activities that destroys social intercourse and so should be prohibited by civil statute? His general principle, by which the state would tolerate prostitution without approving it, is that human laws "leave certain things unpunished on account of the condition of those who are imperfect, and who would be deprived of many advantages, if all sins were strictly forbidden and punishments appointed for them."62 What Aquinas seems to suggest is that civil statute should not place too much of a moral burden on its citizens. In the disputed question on evil, Aquinas goes so far as to say that God permits evil to exist and in a similar way human law permits some evil to exist in light of the common good.63 Such tolerance on the part of Aquinas is striking given his absolutist positions on other topics such as lying.64

There are, then, certain limitations to the application of law in society, according to Aquinas. Legal statute cannot punish every wrong action, but should rather concentrate on those acts that threaten the social order. In light of these limitations public authority can tolerate the existence of certain moral evils taking into account the imperfections of its citizenry and other goods or evils which may be at stake. However, such tolerance by civil authority does not constitute the commission or approval of the evil act in question.'

[Resurrexi]

Obviously prostitution itself is never morally acceptable, but I think that in the social conditions that existed in the Middle Ages, it was sometimes morally acceptable for governments to tolerate non-sodomitical prostitution.

[Resurrexi]

I did not like the way that this poll was worded, so I made a [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95833&pid=1908538&st=0&#entry1908538"]new one[/url].

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1908540' date='Jul 2 2009, 08:05 PM']I did not like the way that this poll was worded, so I made a [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=95833&pid=1908538&st=0&#entry1908538"]new one[/url].[/quote]
Lazy spammer.

[CatherineM]

In the countries where prostitution is legal, human trafficking of women and children for the sex industry increases. The only place where it goes down is where the prostitutes are treated as victims, and the Johns are prosecuted as the criminals.

[Dan]

Let's take a look back in time. Seems to me that prostitution has been viewed in a rather dim light for the most recent 4,000 or so years.

If it has been held in poor light for that long, it is probably still wrong.

My view holds, in all things, that if it is true, it is not new, and if it is new, it is not true.

[Lounge Daddy]

I voted yes, but I would rather vote "the State shouldn't rule one way or the other" on prostitution.

The State simply shouldn't be in the business of recognizing such matters at all. And the State certainly shouldn't be deeming things moral or immoral (in legal terms, this would mean "legal" or "illegal.")

[Didacus]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1908520' date='Jul 2 2009, 07:01 PM']Obviously prostitution itself is never morally acceptable, but I think that in the social conditions that existed in the Middle Ages, it was sometimes morally acceptable for governments to tolerate non-sodomitical prostitution.[/quote]

To tolerate it is one thing, to endorse it by making it legal is entirely different.

[Didacus]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1908656' date='Jul 2 2009, 10:17 PM']In the countries where prostitution is legal, human trafficking of women and children for the sex industry increases. The only place where it goes down is where the prostitutes are treated as victims, and the Johns are prosecuted as the criminals.[/quote]

*applauds*

Remember when Germany was hosting the Wrold Soccer Cup and hundreds of women were 'smuggled' into Germany to provide for the expected 'increase in demand'.

Under no circumstances can prostitution be moral. The first victims of this crime of course, are the prostitutes.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1912683' date='Jul 6 2009, 01:46 PM']To tolerate it is one thing, to endorse it by making it legal is entirely different.[/quote]

Agreed.

[tinytherese]

ditto

[tinytherese]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1912816' date='Jul 6 2009, 05:08 PM']ditto[/quote]

Oh and when I say this I'm not saying that prostitution should be tolerated, just that tolerating something is not the same as endorsing for it to be legal.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this is the most sophisticated thread/ideas i've seen around here on this sort of topic

Edited July 16, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't think many of these sorta sins affect the social order enough to justify banning them. prostitution, maybe.

i always argued aquanis, i guess.

[quote]id guess they'd say only bad speech that has to do with sodomy, masturbation etc, and be inconsistent about it as they are with banning sins.

a significant number have a weird outlook on outlawing stuff. they say things like "if it's sinful, ban it". more specifically, "if it's stereotyipi\ally controversially sinful, ban it etc". eg, sodomy, masturbation, fornication, adultery.
some haven't considered masturbation etc, but it'd go up there with sodomy etc, if all that's banned too, there's really no way around it.

then out of the other side of their mouth, they say "don't ban smoking too much, or drinking too much. it's a free country"

actually, they dont per se say 'if it's sinful ban it',,, but it's the only conclusion one could draw. most haven't thought about the conclusions of their beliefs.
and they dont say ban it *because* it's stereotypically sinful, but that's why they hold those beliefs so inconsistently (me thinks

"don't ban, swearing at your own home" ?
"ban eating too much?"
"ban every sin in the book"? (whether it's enforceable is a separate issue of whether it should be banned or not


if i grant benfit of the doubt, and they say only ban 'serious sins', then they still should be against smoking andor drinking too much, masturbation, fornication, disrespecting yoru parents etc.



really, they should realize, that we're free to do this stuff. true, it's not freedom in a spritual sense, as we're slaves to sin. but it's freedom to sin, that God intended. (before anyone jumps on this statement... 'free will', now it's okay what i just said) he didn't want us to compelled not to sin. (it's not like their hearts aren't in it anyway
so if it's compelled, it's not freedom in any sense of the word.
that's what freedom people are talking about per the first amendment. not to be forcibly compelled to "freedom" of not sinning.[/quote]

maybe masturbation isn't that big of a deal in the social order, but one could definitely argue that it does.

in any case, getting drunk, does. yet many a conservative would say 'stay outta my house' 'outta my kitchen' or whatever. yet don't apply it to other things, inconsistently.

disrepecting parents, even as adults etc, do.
i guess those are not so much 'natural law' as some of these other things, ie like going to church affects social order but even many conservatives would draw the distinction that that's divine law and not mandatable or finable etc- and i can buy that distinction.

Edited July 16, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

The Libertarian in me says it should be legalized and never should have been illegal in the first place, like many other laws as well which prohibit people from other things/substances. The ethical man here does not condone anything like this at all, which of course is a condemnation of anything like this happening in my own home, ever.

[Varg]

Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, wasn't she?

[Nihil Obstat]

People have often thought so, but I don't think there's proof either way. I may be incorrect, of course, but I think that our knowledge stops at her being "a sinner".

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1922176' date='Jul 16 2009, 10:54 PM']People have often thought so, but I don't think there's proof either way. I may be incorrect, of course, but I think that our knowledge stops at her being "a sinner".[/quote]

Her name could etymologically be related to the word for "adulteress," and she is usually identified with the woman caught in adultery in [i]John[/i] 8.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Resurrexi