Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Yes, so? The whole point is that the gov't condones prostitution nationally. Do you not see how this could start one hell of a campaign especially from the fundamentalists?
There isn't a good reason not to, it's criminalisation doesn't appear to be stopping it anyway, and is in fact encouraging std spread as it's not official and there are no standards to follow. This and the obvious physical dangers to the women involved, pimps, crazy clients etc. It's more safe all round if instead of criminalising it and shunning prostitutes they're officially regulated.
The doctors are saving someone's life and risk the possibility of HIV. A prostitute is just getting a lonely guy with cash to blow his load and possibly contract the worst disease known to man in the process. I don't weight that.
So? Professional footballers risk permanent injury every time they play. Bricklayers making skyscrapers risk death every day.
It's just another job.
For a start, I can get the sex for free and find it preferable to do that anyway (you may argue the same for bricklaying, but we're not all professional bricklayers).
So there is no actual distinction beyond professionalism, is that what you're saying?
Secondly, it speaks mountains to me if you have to pay for sex and gov't mandated or not, fucking someone who sleeps with a whole city is not my idea of fun. If I want sex I'll find a decent girl and maybe get to know her, or if desperate, wank it off.
So you don't want to do it, that does not make it immoral or the person who did it a bad person. They bought someone's time off them for use of their body, much as with the bricklayer, as with the bricklayer, the person was consensual and protected by law.
Sarcasm doesn't become you, by the way.
Knee-jerk leftover christian moral judgments don't become you either.