[Discussion] Do You Consider Prostitution a Respectable Profession

[Venomous Cobra]

Nah, in fact it's kinda shitty. But, money isn't easy to get nowadays, and with certain circumstances, it's the only option, so I can understand.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

So someone's trying to degrade women because they get added benefits of a relationship? What does that say about the men paying for the ***?

People who go to prostitutes are just as bad if not worse then they are.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

So someone's trying to degrade women because they get added benefits of a relationship? What does that say about the men paying for the ***?

People who go to prostitutes are just as bad if not worse then they are.

actually no the person who's paying the money wants a one night stand with that said woman the job isn't degrading it just should be classified as a respectable one.

 

[Yubel]

Prove yourself right. XD

What kind of lame argument is this: "I have a claim, it is true until proven wrong."

I've already shown you why your claim is fallacious without empirical evidence. XD

Show me that most women get paid specifically for having *** in various types of relationships that exist.

A date is almost exclusively paid for by the male. I don't have statistics on this shit but it's a known fact in society that the man is expected to pay. Of course these are gender roles which minority groups such as feminism are trying to get rid of. However, since only a minority oppose gender roles that means it's true for the majority. Prostitution has been around longer than any profession but calling it a profession limits the situations where the definition can be applied. Logically, if money or goods is exchanged for *** then the one receiving the money/goods is a prostitute. The only situation where one wouldn't be a prostitute is when free *** happens with neither side losing financially.

 

[Claymantan]

Okay, I'll be nice to your argument and accept stuff without facts.

A date is almost exclusively paid for by the male.

See initial sentence.

Prostitution has been around longer than any profession but calling it a profession limits the situations where it can be applied. Logically, if money or goods is exchanged for *** then the one receiving the money/goods is a prostitute.

Okay, so this is the definition we're working with: A prostitute is one who receives money or goods in exchange for ***.

The only situation where one wouldn't be a prostitute is when free *** happens with neither side losing financially.

You require that "free ***" is a concept that exists. Therefore, if monetary exchanges or exchanges of goods are present, "free ***" does not exist, and therefore, one must be a prostitute.

You state that most women are in relationships where there is no free ***, and they receive money or goods in exchange for ***.

So, summary of your argument:

Premise 1: Most relationships are traditional.
Premise 2: Traditional relationships consist of men working and paying for the majority of the goods in a relationship. Women receive the goods and/or maintain the home.
Premise 3: A prostitute is one who receives money or goods in exchange for ***.
Premise 4: "Free ***" is *** with no financial loss.
Premise 5: Men pay for the majority of most dates.
Premise 6: Men are losing financially in most relationships.
Premise 7: Women are not losing financially in most relationships.
Premise 8: Women provide *** in most relationships.
Conclusion: Most women are prostitutes.

In order for your argument to be valid, the premises must hold true and the conclusion must follow the premises.

Now, my rebuttal:

Premise 1: Assumed as truth in order to give your argument a chance.

Premise 2: Assumed as truth in order to give your argument a chance.

Premise 3: Accepted as truth in order to have a working definition of "Prostitute."

Premise 4: Accepted as truth in order to have a working definition of "Free ***."

Premise 5: Assumed as truth in order to give your argument a chance.

Premise 6: Flawed.

Men are not losing financially in all relationships.

Firstly, in marriage, men's net worth does not decrease. It is illogical to say, without some external variable, that men would be better off financially while not married than married. Women absorb many of the costs of running the home that the man would have to himself absorb otherwise. A man who doesn't have to worry about household tasks can work more hours and focus on work. Therefore, marriage provides a tangible and measurable monetary advantage to a man.

Secondly, in committed, long-term relationships, the above applies if the female is living with the male.

I'll get on to short-term relationships later. For now, I'll concede that maybe your premise holds true for short-term relationships.

Premise 7: Flawed.

Women do lose out financially in most traditional relationships.

In marriage, traditionally, women must leave behind the financial support of some other family member. Additionally, in a traditional marriage, a woman gives up the opportunity for future income by working for herself in a job. In a long-term relationship, the same rules apply, because the woman is aware of the future financial situation she will encounter in an expected marriage.

As an additional note, in a traditional relationship, any income that the woman does make would be under the purview of the man, no?

Again, I'll get on to short-term relationships later. For now, I'll concede that maybe your premise holds true for short-term relationships.

Premise 8: Flawed

In order for women to always be the providers of ***, your definition of "Free ***" requires that neither side lose out financially; therefore, "non-free ***" is *** where one side loses out financially, assumed to be the male.

However, as I have demonstrated, both sides may be losing out financially. Alternatively, the woman may be losing out financially while the male gains net worth. Alternatively, they may both increase their financial gains as a relational unit together. Thus, there is plenty of room for "free" *** in marriage or committed relationships, even if we assume that most women don't have jobs that contribute significantly to the relationship's income.

You must be registered for see links

I'm sure that holds true for most of the Western world. As for the rest of the world - the above contradictions in assuming that women do not lose financially from traditional systems of heterosexual relationships still apply.

Your definition of prostitution necessitates that *** is provided by one individual. As you say, prostitution is an exchange of money or goods for a service (***). In this narrative, women provide ***; men provide money and goods. Or vice versa. However, it is generally true that most long-term relationships consist of a variety of exchanges between men and women. It's idiotic or useless to say that both the male and the female are prostitutes; it's also useless to make gradations such as "a certain amount of transactional disparity = being a prostitute."

Conclusion: Shown to be invalid with the above argument. Empirical data openly defies some of the assumptions. Most women are not freeloaders.

A final note in regards to short-term relationships: In accordance with my above statements, your argument requires that most women are having *** in relationships that are short term (you definitely cannot assume this in any nation). Without empirical data, you cannot prove or assume this. You would have to modify your argument to state: "Most women who have *** in short-term relationships are prostitutes." However, the lack of empirical data and lack of clarity as to what defines "short-term" means that this remains a weak argument.

In conclusion, your argument is logically invalid and factually baseless.

Guys, don't take being a sexist lightly. Requires some effort for people to not completely see through your crap.

 

[Yubel]

Okay, I'll be nice to your argument and accept stuff without facts.



See initial sentence.



Okay, so this is the definition we're working with: A prostitute is one who receives money or goods in exchange for ***.



You require that "free ***" is a concept that exists. Therefore, if monetary exchanges or exchanges of goods are present, "free ***" does not exist, and therefore, one must be a prostitute.

You state that most women are in relationships where there is no free ***, and they receive money or goods in exchange for ***.

So, summary of your argument:

Premise 1: Most relationships are traditional.
Premise 2: Traditional relationships consist of men working and paying for the majority of the goods in a relationship. Women receive the goods and/or maintain the home.
Premise 3: A prostitute is one who receives money or goods in exchange for ***.
Premise 4: "Free ***" is *** with no financial loss.
Premise 5: Men pay for the majority of most dates.
Premise 6: Men are losing financially in most relationships.
Premise 7: Women are not losing financially in most relationships.
Premise 8: Women provide *** in most relationships.
Conclusion: Most women are prostitutes.

In order for your argument to be valid, the premises must hold true and the conclusion must follow the premises.

Now, my rebuttal:

Premise 1: Assumed as truth in order to give your argument a chance.

Premise 2: Assumed as truth in order to give your argument a chance.

Premise 3: Accepted as truth in order to have a working definition of "Prostitute."

Premise 4: Accepted as truth in order to have a working definition of "Free ***."

Premise 5: Assumed as truth in order to give your argument a chance.

Premise 6: Flawed.

Men are not losing financially in all relationships.

Firstly, in marriage, men's net worth does not decrease. It is illogical to say, without some external variable, that men would be better off financially while not married than married. Women absorb many of the costs of running the home that the man would have to himself absorb otherwise. A man who doesn't have to worry about household tasks can work more hours and focus on work. Therefore, marriage provides a tangible and measurable monetary advantage to a man.

Secondly, in committed, long-term relationships, the above applies if the female is living with the male.

I'll get on to short-term relationships later. For now, I'll concede that maybe your premise holds true for short-term relationships.

Premise 7: Flawed.

Women do lose out financially in most traditional relationships.

In marriage, traditionally, women must leave behind the financial support of some other family member. Additionally, in a traditional marriage, a woman gives up the opportunity for future income by working for herself in a job. In a long-term relationship, the same rules apply, because the woman is aware of the future financial situation she will encounter in an expected marriage.

As an additional note, in a traditional relationship, any income that the woman does make would be under the purview of the man, no?

Again, I'll get on to short-term relationships later. For now, I'll concede that maybe your premise holds true for short-term relationships.

Premise 8: Flawed

In order for women to always be the providers of ***, your definition of "Free ***" requires that neither side lose out financially. However, as I have demonstrated, both sides may be losing out financially. Alternatively, the woman may be losing out financially while the male gains net worth. Alternatively, they may both increase their financial gains as a relational unit together. Thus, there is plenty of room for "free" *** in marriage or committed relationships, even if we assume that most women don't have jobs that contribute significantly to the relationship's income.

You must be registered for see links

I'm sure that holds true for most of the Western world. As for the rest of the world - the above contradictions in assuming that women do not lose financially from traditional systems of heterosexual relationships still apply.

Your definition of prostitution necessitates that *** is provided by one individual. As you say, prostitution is an exchange of money or goods for a service (***). In this narrative, women provide ***; men provide money and goods. Or vice versa. However, it is generally true that most long-term relationships consist of a variety of exchanges between men and women. It's idiotic or useless to say that both the male and the female are prostitutes; it's also useless to make gradations such as "a certain amount of transactional disparity = being a prostitute."

Conclusion: Shown to be invalid with the above argument. Empirical data openly defies some of the assumptions. Most women are not freeloaders.

A final note in regards to short-term relationships: In accordance with my above statements, your argument requires that most women are having *** in relationships that are short term (you definitely cannot assume this in any nation). Without empirical data, you cannot prove or assume this. You would have to modify your argument to state: "Most women who have *** in short-term relationships are prostitutes." However, the lack of empirical data and lack of clarity as to what defines "short-term" means that this remains a weak argument.

In conclusion, your argument is logically invalid and factually baseless.

Guys, don't take being a sexist lightly. Requires some effort for people to not completely see through your crap.

Before we go any further, you should take the time to read this.

Strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

I don't know if you need to improve your reading comprehension or if you purposely misrepresented the premises you adressed as flawed.

 

[Claymantan]

Strawman rebuttal

Yeah I didn't make a strawman out of you, in fact, I gave your argument far more credit than it was due.

It's a nice option to try and say your argument was misframed, but no one's buying that XD

Either way, I put the argument up there exactly as I understood it, it's not like it takes effort to say where you think you're being misrepresented

 

[Jack Spicer]

Well, I refer only to people who practice prostitution because of their free will, not because those who are forced to it (which is undeniably horrible).

I think it's disgusting, but it's not my life, so they can do whatever they want. I accept it.

100% agree with this.

 

[Yubel]

Yeah I didn't make a strawman out of you, in fact, I gave your argument far more credit than it was due.

It's a nice option to try and say your argument was misframed, but no one's buying that XD

Either way, I put the argument up there exactly as I understood it, it's not like it takes effort to say where you think you're being misrepresented

I told you where I was misrepresented. It can't be a coincidence that you agreed with my points that weren't misrepresented.

Premise 1: Most relationships are traditional.
Premise 2: Traditional relationships consist of men working and paying for the majority of the goods in a relationship. Women receive the goods and/or maintain the home.
Premise 3: A prostitute is one who receives money or goods in exchange for ***.
Premise 4: "Free ***" is *** with no financial loss.
Premise 5: Men pay for the majority of most dates.

These are the ones you agreed with and ones I stated in my posts.
The rest of your premises, the ones you debunked weren't actually mine.

You just put them there on your own accord, probably because it was easier to argue those.

 

[Xanthos]

Eh its hard to say. People don't think highly of fast food workers until they need a Big Mac......I hope you see where this is going. LOL

 

[Claymantan]

Okay, look, TL;DR for the argument below: If you actually thought that just because Premises 1-5 were true, your conclusion would be valid, even if I didn't extend your premises, then I don't really know if there's a point to arguing with you. Simply put, if I had left your premises alone, there is a very obvious rebuttal to your argument: "Of all women, most women are not dating and most women are not having *** while dating." Without empirical data, you cannot disprove this claim, and the inability to disprove this claim inherently prevents your conclusion from holding true.

I could have just said that, I suppose, but I chose to extend your premises, and that is a legitimate approach to your argument. Why that is is below, after the quote:

I told you where I was misrepresented. It can't be a coincidence that you agreed with my points that weren't misrepresented.

Premise 1: Most relationships are traditional.
Premise 2: Traditional relationships consist of men working and paying for the majority of the goods in a relationship. Women receive the goods and/or maintain the home.
Premise 3: A prostitute is one who receives money or goods in exchange for ***.
Premise 4: "Free ***" is *** with no financial loss.
Premise 5: Men pay for the majority of most dates.

These are the ones you agreed with and ones I stated in my posts.
The rest of your premises, the ones you debunked weren't actually mine.

You just put them there on your own accord, probably because it was easier to argue those.

A coincidence? Literally what I said is that I was going to accept or assume those premises were true solely so your argument could have some merit. Proceeding to see how the world must operate under those premises, if they were true, and then finding that the world cannot logically operate under those premises in order to disprove them, is a legitimate way to attack an argument. It's not "constructing a strawman."

You don't understand what a strawman is. It is my belief that if you hold premises 1-5, then you must logically uphold premises 6-8, or rather, premises 6-8 must logically be true, in order to reach your conclusion. Otherwise, arriving at that conclusion is not logical. Exploring what your premises actually imply is not constructing a strawman.

If you argue "A house on fire burns down," and I say "That implies that fire burns wood," that's not constructing a strawman, brah. It doesn't matter that you didn't argue that fire burns wood. Your premises require that fire burns wood.

Look, premises 1-5 simply do not lead to "Most women are prostitutes" on their own. Unless one of your premises is "Nothing else matters but dates." Even that premise is insufficient, as shown in the first paragraph of this post.

If you say "Free *** is *** with no financial loss" and "Men pay for the majority of most dates," and your conclusion is that women are the prostitutes in these relationships, then you are saying "Men are the ones taking the financial loss." It is a necessary condition for your conclusion. If I show your premises cannot logically lead to the conclusion (i.e.; men are not the only ones taking financial losses; or men do not take financial losses in most long-term relationships), by showing premises that must extend from the premises you state, then this is a reasonable way to critique your argument.

The rest of my critique proceeds in this fashion. I showed that traditional relationships don't operate monetarily the way your premises require that they do, for example.

Premises 6-8 must extend from premises 1-5 in order to reach a logical conclusion of "Most women are prostitutes." Premise 5 is really the only premise that actually extends your argument to some kind of conclusion; the rest are definitions. In any case, basically, I can argue that if you hold Premises 1-5, you must logically hold 6-8, if you believe your conclusion.

Otherwise Premises 1-5 don't actually say or prove anything, and you're leaving out a whole bunch of evidence just to suit your invalid conclusion.

If you really think an argument as shallow as "Men pay for dates" somehow leads to "Most women are prostitutes," I actually benefited you by constructing a so-called "strawman"; your argument is more hollow than what I supposedly misrepresented. "Men pay for the majority of dates; therefore, most women are prostitutes," is such a bad argument. Why that is, is presented in the rebuttal at the beginning of this post.

Either way, I did actually say something like that in the post you say misrepresented your argument, so this is redundant. XD

Like I said, calling a critique to an argument you make - an argument that has very narrow premises and excludes all other evidence, mind you - a "strawman" is intellectually dishonest at best, if that critique is based on "Well what do your premises actually mean if we apply them?"

 

[Yubel]

Okay, look, TL;DR for the argument below: If you actually thought that just because Premises 1-5 were true, your conclusion would be valid, even if I didn't extend your premises, then I don't really know if there's a point to arguing with you. Simply put, if I had left your premises alone, there is a very obvious rebuttal to your argument: "Of all women, most women are not dating and most women are not having *** while dating." Without empirical data, you cannot disprove this claim, and the inability to disprove this claim inherently prevents your conclusion from holding true.

I could have just said that, I suppose, but I chose to extend your premises, and that is a legitimate approach to your argument. Why that is is below, after the quote:



A coincidence? Literally what I said is that I was going to accept or assume those premises were true solely so your argument could have some merit. Proceeding to see how the world must operate under those premises, if they were true, and then finding that the world cannot logically operate under those premises in order to disprove them, is a legitimate way to attack an argument. It's not "constructing a strawman."

You don't understand what a strawman is. It is my belief that if you hold premises 1-5, then you must logically uphold premises 6-8, or rather, premises 6-8 must logically be true, in order to reach your conclusion. Otherwise, arriving at that conclusion is not logical. Exploring what your premises actually imply is not constructing a strawman.

If you argue "A house on fire burns down," and I say "That implies that fire burns wood," that's not constructing a strawman, brah. It doesn't matter that you didn't argue that fire burns wood. Your premises require that fire burns wood.

Look, premises 1-5 simply do not lead to "Most women are prostitutes" on their own. Unless one of your premises is "Nothing else matters but dates." Even that premise is insufficient, as shown in the first paragraph of this post.

If you say "Free *** is *** with no financial loss" and "Men pay for the majority of most dates," and your conclusion is that women are the prostitutes in these relationships, then you are saying "Men are the ones taking the financial loss." It is a necessary condition for your conclusion. If I show your premises cannot logically lead to the conclusion (i.e.; men are not the only ones taking financial losses; or men do not take financial losses in most long-term relationships), by showing premises that must extend from the premises you state, then this is a reasonable way to critique your argument.

The rest of my critique proceeds in this fashion. I showed that traditional relationships don't operate monetarily the way your premises require that they do, for example.

Premises 6-8 must extend from premises 1-5 in order to reach a logical conclusion of "Most women are prostitutes." Premise 5 is really the only premise that actually extends your argument to some kind of conclusion; the rest are definitions. In any case, basically, I can argue that if you hold Premises 1-5, you must logically hold 6-8, if you believe your conclusion.

Otherwise Premises 1-5 don't actually say or prove anything, and you're leaving out a whole bunch of evidence just to suit your invalid conclusion.

If you really think an argument as shallow as "Men pay for dates" somehow leads to "Most women are prostitutes," I actually benefited you by constructing a so-called "strawman"; your argument is more hollow than what I supposedly misrepresented. "Men pay for the majority of dates; therefore, most women are prostitutes," is such a bad argument. Why that is, is presented in the rebuttal at the beginning of this post.

Either way, I did actually say something like that in the post you say misrepresented your argument, so this is redundant. XD

Like I said, calling a critique to an argument you make - an argument that has very narrow premises and excludes all other evidence, mind you - a "strawman" is intellectually dishonest at best, if that critique is based on "Well what do your premises actually mean if we apply them?"

I'm obviously referring to men and women who have dates and have ***. What has women and men who do neither have to do with this thread?

 

[shelke]

Damn, it's a war-zone in here.

 

[ANiMUS]

Eh its hard to say. People don't think highly of fast food workers until they need a Big Mac......I hope you see where this is going. LOL

Honestly if you think of *** as anything intimate at all then you wouldn't equate it to something as simple as preparing food :| something is definitely wrong with the way you think man

Do you have experience in prostitution?

 

[shelke]

Eh its hard to say. People don't think highly of fast food workers until they need a Big Mac......I hope you see where this is going. LOL

Where is this going?

 

[Claymantan]

I'm obviously referring to men and women who have dates and have ***. What has women and men who do neither have to do with this thread?

Sure you were:

Our definition of prostitution is quite truncated. We should expand it because it's not limited to a profession.
Anyone who gets payed for *** is a prostitute and that applies to almost all females.

XD

 

[LustyLover]

When it comes to things sexual, as long as it's consensual people should mind their own business.

 

[babaGAReeb]

marriage should be illegal

 

[Edogawa]

It can't be a profession because there is no academic or practical qualifications a prostitute should have. It is also not part of the public and private sector. Now, I consider prostitution to be a crime and whoever is part of this industry should arrested. Take a look at the drug abuse, sexual violence and mental trauma to see why it's illegal in most countries.

 

[ahmo]

i doubt it legitimacy as a profession, but it sure is anything but respectable.
i've heard a guy preach of its importance based on the fact that people who seek prostitutes might as well resort to rape if prostitution did not exist.