The times have always been bad to one degree or another. I agree will Sells that our times are especially bad. But this is the inevitable result of capitalism which is an "advanced" form of the war of all against all and everything.

Capitalism depended on its success by turning the former seven deadly sins into the seven cardinal virtues---all promoted by propaganda central, that is the advertising industry with iis 24 hour a day call to the "faithful" to go to the local temple/cathedral or the local mega-mall and get your share of the colourful cargo.

Capitalism also depends on its continued "success" by finding more and more ways for the dreadfully sane every person to dramatise their endless desire for the amusements and consolations of the seven deadly sins. Everything IS for sale and all of the superior expressions of human culture inevitably become degraded and debased---reduced to an advertising jingle.

The tragic irony is that it is the so called "conservatives" in our so called "culture" who are the loudest and most strident champions of capitalism. Quadrant magazine comes to mind. As does the IPA and similar "right" minded propaganda factories.

Meanwhile Sells has an article in this months Quadrant---strange company for a a concerned "moralist"!

I'm willing to consider that the very first sex worker was a positive addition to the tribe and helped reduce the number of cross tribal raids necessary to fulfill the sexual and marital needs of the tribe. These same women and men today provide an essential service that is attacked and vilified in the guise of morality. Instead of attacking or vilifying the "prostitute", a very negative use word, our society should be making sure such career choices are not made out of desperation or drug use and provide laws and licensing to ensure the protection of both the sex worker and the client. There is nothing amoral about sex. It happens to be a very human need and is a need shared by MOST every other living thing on this planet.
Now, coercing young men and women into the sex trade. That is amoral. And some very harsh penalties need to be instituted under law.

Sells makes the point that "What we will get is a population hooked on the good time, undisciplined in relationships, failing to achieve marriages that will last long enough to raise children and the resultant demographic decline in our populations"

I thought that happened some considerable time ago. Perhaps, if the Church had been more honest with its attitude towards sex and encouraged discussion about what it was all concerned with, its adherents and the community at large might have adopted a more positive attitude toward members of the opposite sex. Perhaps St.Paul has a lot to answer for.

"There is nothing amoral about sex. It happens to be a very human need and is a need shared by MOST every other living thing on this planet."

A very true statement! Sells, if you want to understand the world,
put down the holy books and start studying nature, things will make
far more sense.

Swapping sex for resources goes all the way back to our distant
relatives, chimps and bonobos. Pairbonding, which happens in
many species, involves those where lots of resources are
required to raise the offspring. Some now call it marriage :)

Given that the world human population has gone from 1.5 billion
to 6.5 billion in a hundred years, heading for 10 billion, I don't
think that Sells needs to start panicking about survival of
the human species. In fact the opposite. I remind him what happens
to rats when they become too numerous. They start eating one another,
just like Easter Islanders did, when their population became too
numerous!

But then our society has all sorts of double standards. When a
lovely young blonde marries an old rich guy, thats accepted.
When the same young blonde is more honest, in wanting payment
for her services, thats frowned upon.

The Christian Church has to be careful. If they are suggesting that
sex is wrong, they might well be outdone by the Muslims, who are
offering heaps of virgins in their version of heaven. No wonder
Islam is gaining and will soon overtake them. If you sell people
hope, at least sell them something which feels good :

Dr. Sellick which of the bible stories should we use for moral guidance?

In the story of Lot, male angels were sent to warn Lot. They were welcomed by Lot into his house. The mob arrived at the door step. The mob then demanded use of the angelic messengers for male prostitution. Lot proffered his daughters virginity instead (Genesis Chap 19). Later Genesis 19:30-36 we read of incestuous love making between Lot and his daughters.

A similar story is told in Judges 19:21-29 of a concubine being offered to the mob instead of a priest, this time around the poor girl was dismembered.

Abraham the patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is said to have prostituted his wife before the princes of Egypt see Genesis 12: 11-21. For which episode Abraham earns a gentle slap on the wrist from the Pharaoh of the day.

Later in life Abraham presumable in a psychotic delusional state is about to slaughter his son. Fortunately for the boy at the last moment a small window of sanity returns to the Patriarch and the boy is spared. Genesis 22: 2-13.

Interested readers can find In Richard Dawkins book “The God Delusion” a hilarious account of these and several other so called moral and enlightening bible stories.

anti green, it looks like Dawkins is your new religion. And the God Delusion your new Bible. The tenor of your post place you smack dab in the centre of the extremist. So Dawkins morality is now your morality. Do you know of Dawkins personal moral or amoral appetites? Does he allow you to use the services of a prostitute or are such earthly fruits denied you? More like he/she must PROVE empirically that they are a prostitute before you can partake. Which then begs the question, do you have to pay for the proving or is that considered a freebie?

Sells, you would be far more convincing if you were more consistent in your approach.

First the set-up.

>>The liberal attitude is that we are free to do what ever we please as long as no one gets hurt<<

Then the little sly sideways dig.

>>It is also used to justify abortion because the fetus is believed not to be a person<<

Surely, to make this connection there has to be "no hurt" in the abortion. If there is hurt involved, then according your first statement, liberals must be against it. Right?

Then you put in a bit of religious waffle to pit theology against rationalism, to take the audience's attention away from the card up your sleeve.

Which appears as:

>>The article described how warnings on the danger of alcohol had no impact on boy’s behaviour... This shows the depths to which public morality has sunk<<

Sells, the reason that the article was written is because alcohol abuse is harmful. Picking on one aspect of that harm does not imply it is the only harm caused - it was simply using sensationalism to attract attention.

So, back to your initial statement. People are hurt by alcohol, so your "liberals" must be against it. Right?

>>It seems that we are encouraged to indulge in all of the traditional vices as long as they do not lead to an adverse health outcome<<

By whom, Sells?

Clearly, not those nasty "liberals".

>>“Prostitution: a health hazard”. I did not pause to read the article, the banner being enough food for thought<<

That's pretty slack. You have built an entirely imaginary scenario, and drawn some pretty far-fetched conclusions, on the strength of a headline.

I prefer your impenetrable musings on the minutiae of Christian devotion to this vaguely dishonest sleight of hand.

This article by Sells is an ill-conceived (pardon the pun) load of conservative theological twaddle. The church has always had a silly hangup about sex inherited from Jewish ideas of cultural and spiritual purity.
The church has never had anything sensible to say about sex and has no better argument than to claim that sexual union creates some sort of mystical, magical bond that is tragically broken if it is not exclusive. This is desperate stuff and clear evidence that the church lacks any rational basis for its stand on so-called sexual morality.
The desperation of the church is evident here in Sells article in the unjustified, alarmist claims that sex conducted in circumstances other than those prescribed by the church will have dire consequences, ignoring, by the way, the awful outcomes of many conventional marriages. It also ignores the real value of all sorts of childless relationships.
The attitude Sells reveals here goes hand in hand with an intolerance and a judgemental position that is unchristian and inconsistent with the values and principles of our civilised society.
To argue, as he does, that society has reduced the discussion to a 'medical' one is quite wrong. He is indulging the classical propaganda game of setting up a 'straw man' to knock down rather than engage in serious debate.
Sells, this is not a good one.... shame on you for publishing this awful article!

Reading your article it looks like I agree with you more than most.

Is prostitution morally wrong? I say yes.

Should it be illegal? Being a classical liberal, I say no.

Do we need to look down on prostitutes because we condemn prostitution? I don't see any reason to. We don't know what circumstances have led to that situation.

Do we need to dismiss a moral view because it also is religious?
I believe not. I think the case against prostitution being moral can be supported independent of a religious view.

Good article!

Stewartglass identifies an important distinction that Sells tends to overlook in lumping together several different political philosophies he disapproves of under the single banner “liberal”. It is one thing to hold a thing to be immoral, to disapprove of it, and to refrain from doing it, quite another to advocate that it should be prohibited or forbidden. I disapprove of prostitution, but I don’t think it should be illegal.

Morality includes the concept of refraining from doing what one ought not to do, even though one is free to do it. Or indeed, even if one is not “free” to do it – and let’s face it, practice of the “oldest profession” is not exactly limited to modern western “liberal” culture.

Liberalism takes seriously the responsibility to choose ones own moral path and to live with the consequences of that choice. It is also reluctant to force its own moral code on others, recognising that their interpretation of their moral obligations in some circumstances may be different to ours.

Christians are called upon, amongst other things, to judge not, lest we be judged; to remove the “log” of sin from our own eye before the “speck” from our neighbour’s eye (Mtt. 7.1-5); and to leave it to the one without sin to cast the first stone (John 8.7).

Maybe Sells is a little hasty to rush to judgement here, especially as – by his own admission – he didn’t read the article below the headline.

My sole point in this very short paper was to highlight the growing connection between morality and health outcomes as if they were the only consideration. Liberalism, as I use the word, is that attitude that would reduce morality to a bare minimum and which ignores the deeper harms that come from certain behaviours. Certainly such a deeper harm is involved in prostitution since that which is by its nature intimate, private and future directed becomes unemotional, non-intimate and short term. Without a rich understanding of the nature of the human person, which I believe the Christian faith gives us, we are open to the moral reductionism of “as long as no one gets hurt”. A deeper analysis would show that the client gets hurt because he is displacing a full sexual relationship with something he can have on demand, ie, no strings of relationship or shared living or future plans. The prostitute is harmed by having to suffocate her natural emotional connection with sex and become an object. Both client and service provider (now there is a neutral description) are damaged by the act that they engage in. Surely the triumph of Christian faith is to insist that intimacy must displace ownership. What do you think “love your neighbour means”?

Sells

I think "A deeper analysis would show that the client gets hurt because he is displacing a full sexual relationship with something he can have on demand, ie, no strings of relationship or shared living or future plans. The prostitute is harmed by having to suffocate her natural emotional connection with sex and become an object."

Shows a very shallow analysis, for a start you insinuate that men are the client and women are the "prostitute". This very one dimensional view shows you have little or no information.

Men have sex with women for money, men have sex with men for money, women have sex with men for money and women have sex with women for money.

Always have always will, in fact the majority of human relations are defined around the need for sex.

The disturbing bit in your article which nobody has commented on is "the resultant demographic decline in our populations".

Demographics is a marketing term, so what are you saying is "our populations" meaning Anglican heterosexual monogamists?

In my opinion if the Anglican heterosexual monogamist demographic is in decline it is your own fault.

I have been appalled, in this article, to note that the main requirement of prudent and moral regulation of prostitution, that of architectural regulation, has not even been mentioned.

The important thing about prostitution is that it must be carried out in single-story premises.

The reason, of course, is to cut down on the f**cking overhead.

I think this Sells quote says it all for me:

>>Liberalism, as I use the word, is that attitude that would reduce morality to a bare minimum and which ignores the deeper harms that come from certain behaviours<<

He has taken a perfectly innocent word, and twisted it to signify all the things he fears and hates.

Liberalism as most of the world use the word, has a totally different connotation.

My OED defines "liberalism" as follows:

"The holding of liberal opinions in politics or theology; the political tenets characteristic of a Liberal"

The definitions they supply for "liberal" in this context are:

"Free from narrow prejudice; open-minded, candid"

"Free from bigotry or unreasonable prejudice in favour of traditional opinions or established institutions; open to the reception of new ideas or proposals of reform"

The latter segment adds:

"Hence often applied as a party definition to those members of a church or religious sect who hold opinions 'broader' or more 'advanced' than those in accordance with its commonly accepted standard of orthodoxy"

The position Sells takes appears to be categorical: anything "broader" or more "advanced" than traditional opinions by definition "would reduce morality to a bare minimum".

That seems to be that, then.

Discussion is futile.

Sells,

How terribly 'scientific' of you to attempt to isolate just one dimension of so complex an issue.

"Certainly such a deeper harm is involved in prostitution since that which is by its nature intimate, private and future directed becomes unemotional, non-intimate and short term. Without a rich understanding of the nature of the human person, which I believe the Christian faith gives us, we are open to the moral reductionism of “as long as no one gets hurt"

Sells, this is the problem. You see the world through the tiny
little Christian window, in which you grew up, those who don't
comply must be immoral etc.

If you read up on some anthropology, you'll get a very different
understanding of the nature of the human person! Helen Fisher
makes a great case to show that lifelong monogomy is a relatively
recent thing, tied up with the invention of the plow and
agriculture. After that, women started to become male possesions,
marriage being the process.

Yes, if we look at swopping sex for resources in big cities, it
can be impersonal, but big cities are impersonal, many don't even
know their neighbours. You live there in a tribal way, ie the
200-300 people in your phone address book, nervous of the rest.

But in hunter gatherer tribes, where women had other resources,
from gathering etc, such as the San, sex was often swopped for
meat for the kids, doesent mean it was impersonal. Many wealthy
men have mistresses, including a number of our richest. All that
means is that they can afford it.

Have you noticed how the divorce rate has increased, since women
don't depend on men excusively anymore for their resources, but
go out and earn their own. I remind you that women used to
be told to chew an apple and think of England :) You mean they
wern't actualy swopping sex for resources for their kids? Would
the men have stuck around, if their supply of a bit of crumpet
was cut off? Think about it beyond your small world.

Yabby,

An interesting post. Primatologists state that Chimps are quite promiscuous and some apes [like some birds] mate for life. Human [great ape family] are somewhere in the middle.

Obviously, with AIDS and STDs, free sex is dangerous. But,it could be said to be situation specific. In some Amercian Indian Clans, it was the case that old husbandless women would teach the adolescence males, "sex". That is practical sex lessons. Suspect, if the environment is disease free, the practice is the norm of that society, and, the youths transition to more stable relationships, it makes good sense for them. The approach shows an awareness, lack of guilt and common sense. Freud would have had an empty waiting room. [Albeit, this is social communion not prostitution, as known to us.]

All,

The OT is full of immoral deeds of divine cause.

Sells,

Prostitution predates the Enlightment, my friend. Liberalism does equate to evil, as you allude. The ultra conservative pedophiles in the Catholic Church, demonstrate that inappropriate and immoral deeds are known to the Right

Sells,

You don't love your neighbour, you categorise your neighbour. And, either, offer paise or stand aloof, based on that categorisation. Those who have followed your last five or six articles and related forum discussion, know this to be true.

Few would agree with your strange definition of Liberalism.

Sells – aren’t you also arguing a consequentialist ethic, just drawing the consequences a little more broadly to include spiritual and emotional harm as well as medical risk?

With other posters I still think there is a wide gap between your understanding of what a liberal is and the self-understanding of those who claim the label. You also tend to use value-laden language (“reduce morality to a bare minimum”) to describe liberalism. Hence, you are vulnerable to the “straw man” criticism.

Admittedly, “liberal” is used to describe many people, from left-wing Americans through middle-of-the-road Britons to right-wing Australians, with a whole additional set of baggage for “liberal” theology.

But all these ideas have common roots in respect for the dignity of the person and a consequent insistence on human liberty. I don’t see anything in it that necessarily ignores the deeper harm from activity such as prostitution, although liberals may be less inclined than others to forbid it or condemn those who choose to practice it. You’re partly right that some liberals might think “we are free to do what ever we please as long as no one gets hurt”. But that doesn’t mean that they are indifferent to the choices made or think they’re right or harmless (I fully accept that prostitution is emotionally and spiritually damaging), only that they do not see coercion as a better option. And I see a similar caution against imposing one’s view of proper behaviour in the scriptures I quoted.

What do I think loving my neighbour means? Intimacy, certainly, and non-ownership of the other. But surely liberals are no less fiercely opposed to “ownership” of the other than you – indeed I’d guess we might be more so, as most liberals hold self-ownership to be a central value, and my reading of your theology is that you don’t (I’m aware I risk misrepresenting your position here, having accused you of doing that very thing– my apologies if this is so). And while I accept your commitment to never making your neighbour an object, don’t you rather want to make her a subject?

In contemporary society, the problems with prostitution involve exploitation, dishonesties and immaturities. These are all social problems. That said:

In Biblical times [source: Dead Sea Scrolls], it was there were sacred prostitutes for the holymen, whom were generally chaste, but were permitted physical communion with a women at certain times. I think this may have included the Essenes?

It must be a difficult task for Sells to condemn; perhaps rightly some postitution; where, accepting his God's moral standards [OT]. Genocide and slavery aside, and, focusing on the "sex stuff", Sells' God condones, pack rape and incest. [Lot] When Onan(?), Book of Solomon (?), refuses inseminate his sister-in-law, he struck dead by God. The Church spins Onan's "seed on the ground" [he withdrew], as against mastubation. But, read the story in context. This why Priests should not control the knowledge/lithury of Biblical texts.

Even those whom do not believe it all to be bun should be allowed forensic investigation of the evidence. As a lesson from the OT, as "a standard". Why not a debate (for/against):

- Did Lot commit incest?

From the NT, not to be left out?

- Did Jesus commit suicide? [condemned a oral sin by the Catholic Church)

Yes, Sells the Bible is full of moral harzards, but it is God and Co., whom are the greatest offenders. Secular humanism is a better moral compass, indeed.

Oliver, I got a great kick out of your post. You write of the Biblical stories as if they are other than human recollection. Your secular morality, what ever that is, is no more righteous, superior or different than any other take on morality. We all share the same values. Picking and choosing may differentiate between religious and secular but, right and wrong and moral and ethical remains constant in the human. Religion and politics cover the spread of human expression. There are but two extremes: right and wrong or good and evil, your choice. It's the popular grey area in between that we latch onto to differentiate between ourselves. Your charcoal trying to label me slate, while I describe myself as titanium

I'm as keen as the next secularist to indulge in some christianity-bashing, but after reading Sells' response earlier in the thread, I think he's making some fair points.

I didn't actually see Sellick advocating the removal of prostitution. He may advocate this, I don't know, but hammering him on this basis doesn't seem fair when he hasn't actually said that.

That being said, the point that prostitution can take the love out of sex is hardly a revelation.

aquarivs,

Morality is morality. You are correct. Please forgive me. I had just come-off contemplating the immoralities OT Christian god.

Some 1950s-1960s secular psychologists appear to have worked well in the area of moralities: e.g., Carl Rogers, Lawrence Kohlberg and Abraham Maslow.

Where secular morality might be differentiated from religious codes is inner directedness versus external monitoring.

Christians, well, at least, many Christians, believe the OT "stories" to be true. In fact at the time Justine the Martyr the OT "stories", especially the role of OT Law was under scunity. The Nazarines, in keeping with Jesus' alleged teachings were less doctrine. Docrine and Creed [literally] come Nicaea, not Jesus' life. Moreover, the borrowed/parrallel teachings of Jesus are common to other societies and earlier values.

One does not need a God to be moral.

Peter, another fine effort. There has been no discussion to your question:

"What will become of a society that officially subscribes to a minimalist ethic based on the medical and ignores generations of wisdom about what constitutes the human? "

This is the crux of the matter. Liberalists have trouble seeing any good coming from the human wisdom passed across generations because they were of times where God was a priori in general day to day thought and practice across social strata.

A limitation of Liberalism is that it is an "ism". The "ism" connotes defined and confined ways of thinking and acting. As a Christian who chooses to worship God in the Catholic tradition, I am not enamoured with the "practice" of Catholicism that many catholic church attendees attach themselves to as an identity exercise. And a sanctified way of avoiding the radical call of Jesus in one's life.

Liberal thought and practice can be engaged within any human endeavour. It can coexist with conservative thought and practice in one's total life. Such a blend is the radical.. getting at the roots of truth.

The group is the social: it manifests the dignity of humans and their interrelationship. The individual, must be - to be in communion with the Risen Lord. Once engaged, as the solitary lover, then his/her contribution to the group, in service, emboldens and enlivens the group for the common good.

Of course this is beyond utilitarian liberal thought. The consequences of liberalist licence, "if it feels good, do it" or "What's in for me?" or promoting licence as freedom, has jumped the great divide of the Bohemians and academia into the masses they generally despise. They have nothing to say, but blame the past

Isn’t Sellick just saying that Health Consequences are no substitute for some serious ethical thinking?

And, if we are going to think ethically about sex, he is just suggesting a place to start. (Mind you, I agree with his starting place.)

Sellick, I think you made a mistake mentioning liberalism. A burrow that almost everyone has disappeared into.

I think Sellick is just trying to encourage the embracing of ideals. When did you last hear the word “ideal”? What would be an ideal way of viewing sex and practising sex? I think it’s worth enquiring.

I’m waiting for someone to propose an alternative view, even a better one. We could, for instance, imitate chimpanzees. Or, even assuming we evolved from chimps, or that we enjoy some similar pedigree, we might consider ourselves free to behave differently from them if we think it's a good idea.

boxgum, you fall into the same slack habits as Sells when it comes to building an argument. Perhaps because the subject matter itself is so light as to be almost frivolous, but they also may be just habits that Christians lapse into when proselytizing.

>>Liberalists have trouble seeing any good coming from the human wisdom passed across generations because they were of times where God was a priori in general day to day thought and practice across social strata<<

A true liberal can accept historical wisdom without feeling that it is eternal and unchanging.

That's why they are called liberals, remember, "free from bigotry or unreasonable prejudice in favour of traditional opinions or established institutions". The key words being unreasonable prejudice; this does not imply automatic rejection.

Nevertheless, you try it on for size:

>>The group is the social... The individual, must be - to be in communion with the Risen Lord... Of course this is beyond utilitarian liberal thought<<

That's simply arrogant. It is not at all "beyond liberal thought", merely considered, and rejected.

You further posit that these liberalists see no good in "human wisdom", simply because it came from a period in history when God was somehow more important than today.

You offer no evidence for either i) that God was back then (when, incidentally?), in your words, "a priori" to a greater extent than today or ii) that this is in any way a reason for the liberalist's dismissal of the "wisdom of the ages".

Which, by the way, you also fail to identify.

But this does not prevent you from claiming...

"The consequences of liberalist licence, "if it feels good, do it" or "What's in for me?" or promoting licence as freedom..."

...as if these are somehow given truths.

You use the Sells definition of liberalism, which conveniently switches around cause and effect. First choose the effect - "licence as freedom" - and then name it "liberalism".

As I said to Sells, I find this vaguely dishonest.

"I’m waiting for someone to propose an alternative view, even a better one. We could, for instance, imitate chimpanzees. Or, even assuming we evolved from chimps, or that we enjoy some similar pedigree, we might consider ourselves free to behave differently from them if we think it's a good idea."

Well Goodthief, if you are intellectually curious, reading about the
habits of bonobos, is not a bad idea. They are very similar to
chimps, only evolved a little differently, due to their isolation
in Central Africa. There are only a few thousand left, sadly.

Whilst chimps, much like humans, form warring parties and are pretty
aggressive towards other tribes, bonobos make love not war. They
are seemingly the original hippies :)

If they meet another tribe in the forest, everyone has sex, so the
males are pretty content and buggered I guess, so no need to start
wars and fight with the others :)

In that sense they clearly are ahead of us in conflict resolution
skills. When did you last hear of bonobos starting a war anywhere?

Clearly thats not a bad strategy, compared to "Onward Christian
soldiers, marching on to war"

Did you know that prostitution, along with modelling, are the only two 'professions' where women earn more money than men?

The greatest danger for prostitutes are those who exploit them (pimps), often men. If the market wasn't there, prostitution wouldn't exist. Clients are men. So, if this is a problem for society it can only be solved by you blokes fixing up your need for sex without commitment or intimacy.

During World War Two when women out numbered men in the workforce and jobs were plentiful and female employees were in demand, prostitution was at it's highest in Australia, Great Britain, United States and Canada. The continuing industrial demands ensured there was no "need" for the increase in the numbers of prostitutes. And a lot of married women threw over their husbands who were away at war for the man next door who was not going to war. However, being a time of world conflict and an unsure tomorrow the grey area between right and wrong expanded dramatically. Morality is as flexible or as strident and oppressive as the people and the times.

There are also plenty of women in business who earn more money than men. Honestly, the sexist rhetoric really must be brought up to date.

Oliver, thank you for your post. I don't believe many Christians actually believe the stories in the Bible are true as in, "handed down directly from God". Most Christians believe the Bible was written by man in the presence of God. Being that God was with in them, not dictating each and every word. The stories place God and man in confrontation with good and evil. One of the most poignant stories of the pervasiveness of the dichotomy of good vs. evil is the story of the fallen angel, Gods right hand man, who is cast out of heaven to become the devil. Actions and consequences. Religion is not necessary for morality but, Church/Temple/Mosque is a good place to be reminded about the consequences of our decisions in this hurley burley life. It's unfortunate that the human element is forever destroying our idealisations. We damn each other by our imperfections as if we ourselves would never trespass into the realm of immorality. Our perfect little sectarian selves. Men are this, Christians are that, Muslims are even worse, women are something else and lets not forget the Jehovah Witness, and on down the endless line of recriminations that are to place us above someone else. I'm different. I'm special. i'm not like you.

Sells

Your article suggested that it is insufficient to reduce ethical considerations to a discussion of 'medical consequences' and that theological reflection might reveal the real 'moral' issues pertaining to the business of prostitution.
Your subsequent post, however, simply added some emotional and psychological consequences worthy of consideration. Your points might be valid but they dont add any 'theological' dimension to the discussion merely more 'para-medical' consequences.
Having initiated this discussion it is incumbent upon you now to develop a genuinely theological response to the issue.
I generally find your articles theologically engaging even,or perhaps particularly, when I do not agree with you. This article falls a long way short of your usual standard and to my mind exemplifies well the Church's inability to deal with sex as a common, everday human experience. By elevating sex to a 'mystical, spritual', 'out of the ordinary' experience the Church is doing more harm than good and so far you are not helping!

aquarius,

"Oliver, thank you for your post. I don't believe many Christians actually believe the stories in the Bible are true as in, "handed down directly from God". Most Christians believe the Bible was written by man in the presence of God. Being that God was with in them, not dictating each and every word. - aquarius

Thanks.

No only Christians. Also, the Laws of Moses {Exodos], before that Laws of Abraham [family god.] "Wisdom" and laws is associated [influenced Zorocaster] with Ahuza Mazda. To quote Zorocaster:

"I will speak of that which is the Holiest declared to be as the word best mortals to obey; [next, a direct quote from God:] 'They who at my binding render him [Zorocaster] obedience shal in return attain all unto Welfare and Immortalaity by the actions of the God Sprit" [Yasna 43:11] ... In immoratality shall the soul of the righteous be joyful , in perpetuity shall be the tomrments of the Liars. All this doth Mazduh Ahura appoint by his dominion" [Yasna 45:5-7].

Earlier still we have the God Shamash, "who gave Hammurabi his laws".
"Shamash... is paised as the doing of just among men; punisher of evildoers,and helper of the oppressed". [McNeill]

What I find curious is Sells and Christians can read the above and not agree that the anient world was a "God Factory" [Wells]. Faced with the above and not seeing the links remind of me of O'Brian in 1984, [Room 101], being able to convince really convince Winson [Sellick] Smith, the number of figures stated by O'Brian is true, against obvious contractions. [Orwell]

Like Forrest Gump, Christians have an assotment of gods [chocolates]:

- The God of Abraham [Tribal supremacy]
- The God of Moses [The Law]
- The Teachings of Jesus [The Kindom of Heaven]
- The Hellenisation of Jesus [What about the Gentiles?]
- The Institutionalisation of earlier cults [Creeds, doctrine
(Nicaea)]

Related, the OT and NT have differnt godheads, and,several trinities and natures of divinity were discussed "leading to" [there was a halg council in 190), before Nicaea (325).

Oliver
You’re quite right, many religions preceded and influenced Judaism and Christianity. Within the Judeo-Christian tradition there have been some interesting deviations and blind alleys in the development of the understanding of God, including the household gods stolen by Rachel from her father Laban (Gen 31.19), and intimations of a plurality of gods or supernatural beings in early texts. Archaeological evidence suggest that early temple of worship of Yahweh often were also dedicated a goddess, his mate.

This stuff is confronting for fundamentalists, but for those of us who see our faith as part of an evolving tradition it’s fascinating and rich part of our history.

Once again I think people misunderstand the connection between what was written 1700 years ago and what people today actually believe and practice. There is an element from with in every religion who want the text to be the literal word of their God and for it to be observed as such. We call them fundamentalist and for them there has not been nor ever will be a reformation or any renaissance or enlightenment. If they budge one iota their faith and their guide book will be lost to them. Outside of this group there are many who generation after generation have taken great comfort in their written faith BUT place a greater value on their own interpretation and everyday use and have no fear of loosing their faith if they stumble as human beings. They are critical of their Church and of their religious leaders use of that text to guide the parishioners.
Religion does not dictate morality or social values. And while religious leaders may try to direct their parishioners to a moral and ethical high ground, advances in medicine, social configurations and other consideration weigh in with grater over all influence with in the grey areas of morality and ethics. A good bow bends not breaks. The textual language of mans Holy Books has changed very little but, mans interpretation has moved back and forth with in the bounds of the two extremes since the first writing. Prostitution is a moral hazard. Not just for men and women in the sex trade but, for all people who prostitute themselves for what maybe seen as easy gain with out consideration for the personal cost of "self".

Rhian and acqviuvs,

You both display an insight to your religion, I can respect. You adopt a forensic approach before drawing conclusions. Not so for, Sells, and many Theist contributors, here. Perhaps, a Forum presents biased population, but, I don't see parishioners and congregations pressing there priests, ministers and pastors, to revisit theological histographies, outside their churches. Relatedly, a Theist and an Athitheist, should hold a null hypthesis, as weak possibilty to their kernel beliefs. Herein, Dawkins admits he is not an "absolutist". Sells is, apparently: He knows he is infallible in matters of faith.

I have never been Anti-Theist, but I have been anti-Religion running block-defence between their respective denomination's teachings and the so called "lay" discovering history for themselves, before, said lay persons reach independent conclusions. A forsenic approach versus "indwelling" [Polanyi] the reinforcing [Skinner] performance of religious worship.

I can understand Sells ignoring athiest "snipers" with little say. But, Sells also ignores the posits of some high octate scientists, historians and philosophers. The is no null hypothesis, no doubt.

Most sincerely,

O.

Aqvarivs and Rhian: excellent posts.

I agree not many Christians in Australia are biblical literalists. Most energetic and thoughtful bible-types approach it differently. It seems to be different in the US, and I think the criticism we receive is largely a reaction to that.

In fact, it’s gone a step further. In some dialogues between Sam Harris (The End of Faith) and prominent Christians, Sam prefers to deal with fundamentalists. They are easy to discredit. Once a Christian presents as a “moderate”, he goes them for not accepting their own scriptures! So, this means that, if Sam Harris were a Christian, he would be a fundamentalist himself. I was very surprised, as he seems not only very intelligent but very principled. Have you ever come across this kind of thing yourself?

Waterboy, What if the “rules” in the Bible are actually about different levels of harm? Arguably, God has not invented rules for their own sake. Perhaps harm is the point after all. The “Jesus commandment” to love your neighbour as yourself doesn’t get any traction unless the individual loves themselves, and takes care of themselves. Perhaps Sellick's rationale is that certain behaviour can harm your psyche or your spirit. God, assuming for a moment he exists, is in a position to know about this kind of cause-and-effect.

Oliver, Yes, monotheism evolved from a very untidy situation that was congested with local, special-purpose gods. This doesn’t mean monotheism isn’t true. As for Sellick, surely he is permitted to claim to “know” something. Dawkins would have us believe that there is no such thing as knowledge. I was surprised to see him say he is not, according to his own categories, a “strong atheist”. I am still reading him and finding his constant resort to probability – itself somewhat mysterious, I would have thought – very interesting.

I agree that theists should not force-feed people on their beliefs. You'll have to say the same thing to the Dawkinsians. Meanwhile, priests do get pressure from the number of "laiety" who are educated in theology (incl modern scriptural scholarship).

Pax

Great posts from Aqvarivs, Rhainn and Goodthief. I feel that any of you would have made a more credible argument from a Christian's point of view as to whether and why if yes, prostitution is a moral hazard, than the author of the article.

If Christian morality could only be defended by declaring 'because God said so' and to do otherwise 'you'd be punished by Him' would make commands from God arbitrary and frivolous.

goodthief,

Thanks. I also appreciated Dawkins admitting that he was "not" an a seven [absolute atheist]. I would not be suprised if Sells is a 1.0
[Preceieved infallibly?]. Else, if he could be empirically studying the evolution of our posts? [Fits- in with some of his interests. Guess not. Seemingly, not double-blind]

I have held for 15-20 years that whether one a theist or athiest, one needs to concurrently retain the [opposite] belief, as null hypothesis or negative heuristic. Sells, wont engage on this matter, either. [Perhaps, it is a perceived power distance, being aloof thing, for Sells?]

Moreover, while one can come tied in knots applying science versus god to design and creation; history and antroplogy can pretty much explain thed development religionism and the architecture of theocrasia.

The problem with a varied evolving relious history is fitting it in with a doctrinaire denominationalist creed. There are contradictions everywhere. [Polytheism is more social.].

Actually, I feel that Dawkins should have [executive] edited an anthology. At times it is obvious he has strayed a little to far from the kernel of his expertise.

Cheers.

Thanks Oliver. There’s some language in your post I don’t understand, but I’ll reply to what I think your points are.

I can see the contrast between Dawkins’ self-score of <1.0 and Sellick’s 1.0. But, I don't think it's a fair comparison. Sellick scores 1.0 for his starting point - God. Dawkins is <1.0 for atheism, but he would self score at 1.0 on his belief in empiricism. Each scores the same for their respective starting-point - God for Sellick and empiricism for Dawkins.

I too self-score at 1.0 on God. However, after that, I'm happy, and probably duty-bound, to be a little cautious. You know, not overly confident on some particular issues. I think this is necessary, to be realistic and also as a matter of humility.

At that point, I agree with what I think your point is about maintaining a hypothetical grasp of the opposite view – so I can engage in discussion. I hope I have understood you correctly.

I also agree that evolution might come up with an explanation for the development of religious belief. However, that doesn’t mean there’s no God. Evolution might also explain the development of empiricism, but that doesn’t mean empiricism has no merit.

Pax,

goodthief,

Thanks. Sorry if my typing is poor and poorly coordinated with my mind which tends to race.

I don't have Dawkin's "God Delusion with me as I type. I recall him having 1-7 point interval scale with theism on the left pole and atheism on the right pole. Herein be 1 or 7, would be absolutist. Dawkins is a 6.5 [me too, and for 20 years+]. Selleck is entrenched. A 1. Had he lived in 1500s, he would not have accepted that Moses did not have horns based on a new understanding of language. The Church said horns, "therefore it is horns".

With Dawkin's et al. most of the debate is around science versus intelligent design. I see cultural-anthropology and history much more powerful instruments to revisit old beliefs and test/update them [than science]. The Christian Church we see was largely founded by Paul and Nicaea [Creed/Doctrine]. Even if God does exist, would it not be important to learn that in the period Jesus was not seen to be divine and false interpretation was carried forward thorough current era history?

Several fundamental matters on divinity and the godhead can be re-analysed with modern histographical techniques.[Much more was learned for a MRI scan of Tutankamon from an MRI than X-rays].

Cheers

Getting back on topic.........
The major problem with all contributions to this thread is that, although there is widespread agreement that prostitution is immoral, noone has actually produced a valid argument of any sort to justify this assertion.
The best we have is that prostitution might have some udesirable consequences. This, of course, does not consitute any sort of ethical argument as practically every human enterprise can have negative outcomes.
Prostitution is condemned in the Bible but only in the context of apostate cultic practice of other religions. The Hebrews were far more concerned with apostasy than sexual purity.
no-one

Waterboy, I guess the argument could be made that prostitution
is more moral then marrying for the money!

Yabby,

Yes, at least prostitution is honest 'work'.

Oliver: That’s fine, it was the technical language of “null hypothesis or negative heuristic” that threw me, not your typing and pace. I think Paul and the Council of Nicea would have had nothing of interest to say if it had not been for Jesus.

I can be cautious and open-minded about a lot of things – especially in what I say to other people – but the divinity of Jesus is not one of those things. I self-score 1.0 on that as well. Beyond that, I’d like to be well-mannered and easy to get along with.

Waterboy, I thought most secular ethicists relied on consequences to enable them to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action. And, I think one can argue a case for saying that prostitution inevitably produces harm, not just that it might sometimes. That is, the interior harm I was hinting at a couple of posts back.

But, if you want a non-consequence argument to gnaw on, try this. It’s based on the idea of an “ideal” – like I said, a word we don’t hear much anymore. If we were workshopping a definition of sex, I would personally insist that procreation be included somewhere. Not that it’s all that sex is about, but I think to define sex without mentioning procreation at all would be pretty silly. Once you do that, it follows I think that any activity that fails to recognise this is flawed, or wrong. The further away from this understanding you go, the further from “ideal” you are. I’m assuming a kind of principle here – the principle that one should use a thing for what it is, and not pretend it’s something else. A matter of integrity. I would say that prostitution is far from ideal - tough, but not "honest".

I would also say that sex should be loving, intimate. Again, prostitution falls short. Tragic, because sex brings people close, and to fail to love when at close range is a great pity.

Pax,

Marrying for money is prostituting oneself. There are many examples of prostitution other than sex workers. A man who goes against his better judgment to fit an expectation and to advance in his job prostitutes himself for social and financial gain. All examples are a moral hazard to the best expression of self. Outside of disease and the social discomfort of seeing men(boys) and women(girls) hustling for clients, selling their sex for money, it can be honest trade. However. There are many instances of women not living up to their sales pitch and many men who refuse to pay, and various instances of violence from both sides. Altogether not a very satisfactory way to enrich oneself monetarily nor spiritually. Attacking Sells for making this point doesn't seem honest to me.

goodthief,

"That’s fine, it was the technical language of 'null hypothesis or negative heuristic' that threw me, not your typing and pace. I think Paul and the Council of Nicaea would have had nothing of interest to say if it had not been for Jesus."

With Paul and Nicaea, I am saying that an "official" version is institutionalised which might not be accurate. Like the Amercicans, spin their assissinated presidents. Lithugy and creed protect the religion from forensic study.

My comment above was in opposition to the idea of being a 1 or 7. I would argue that one needs to maintain the alterntaive possibility, even if remoting, so. I feel that the Big Bag superior to the Steady State theory. But feel the later should be totally diregarded. That is one can hold a [tentative] positive conviction and the opposite via as a counterbalance, as to avoid being closed in outlook or feeling infallible/absolutionist.

When contributors "have a go" at Sells it is sometimes just a hit and run attack with little consideratation. Several others though have failed to engage him through the application of philosophy, science and the behavioural sciences. From my perpective, that say the period leading to Nicaea [the debates] could be revisited like anthropolists revisit histographics.

My plea to Sells is not "don't believe" it is be forsenic in one's approach, be willing to change, and don't adopt a priori positions

For a sexual ethic to be Christian it must be Biblically based. This naturally leads to some tension in our secular and pluralist society where the Bible is not given equal authority from all parts of said society. For most of the last three thousand years of Judaeo-Christian history, as evidenced by the Bible, heterosexual, monogamous marriage has clearly been held to be the only context in which sexual activity was acceptable and the rationale for this lies in the idea that procreation is the primary purpose for sex and that social cohesion and consistency depended on the familial structures determined by heterosexual, monogamous marriage. The inherent logic of this is so powerful that it has commonly been accepted that this is Gods intended arrangement. Accordingly Hebrew law proscribed adultery (Lev20:10,Deut22:22) and homosexuality (Lev18:22) and discouraged men from engaging prostitutes (Prov5). There is, however, another strand to Hebrew understanding of sexuality as evidenced in the creation stories of Genesis and by the Song of Solomon. These texts emphasise the relational and pleasurable aspects of sexuality rather than holding procreation as the primary purpose of sex. While this latter view potentially, logically leads to quite a different theology/ethic of sexuality such is not really developed elsewhere in the Bible and is virtually absent from the NT. In an age where procreation can be controlled through contraception and greater knowledge provides the means of managing health issues we might reasonably revisit the ethics of sexuality. Indeed the 'Sexual Revolution' did just this and there is no reason why Christians should not participate in this revolution, albeit with continuing reference to the Bible for guiding principles, remembering that the Bible is not to be taken literally or legalistically.

waterboy,

A modern clergyperson would condemn the incest and pack rape in the Bible. The Song of Solomon (your citation). Likewise, Lot knowing his daughters.

The Dead Sea scrolls refer to scacred prostitutes for Holymen, who were no "always" chaste. Essenes? The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, is silent on Jesus' viginity or knowing.

If we are to apply 19-21 century morality to Christianity, it would be necessary to cleve the OT from its scriptures.

In the Middle Ages, it is recorded incubi would often manifest themselves as priests (Sagan). I wonder why?

The esteemed characters in the OT and the History of the Clergy are poor role models towards high morality

Waterboy, great post. The Song of Solomon is a notoriously full-blooded, sensuous and joyous tribute to sex. And I’m not complaining. I think it is saying that people who have sex should be enjoying it to the max. However, this is not a promotion of promiscuity, or anything other than the sexual ethic of Judaism. It just means that, when you have sex you should go for it. Married people should be enjoying each other more, not enjoying other people.

The Christians inherited the Jewish sexual ethic, but they dehydrated it. Many still find the Song of Solomon too saucy, which is sad. Like you, I suspect that Paul has a bit to do with this – a bit monkish, he was. Anyhow, conventional Christian sexual ethics are pretty constipated.

I wasn’t saying procreation is the “primary” purpose of sex, but only that an understanding of sex must include procreation – for the obvious reasons.

Genesis: if you mean the Creation narrative, I would say that “the two became one flesh” of Adam and Eve supports the view that sex is so profound that it shouldn’t be bandied around. If you go around “becoming one” with lots of people – whatever it means exactly – you will end up in a mess, or seriously depleted or fallen to bits or something. This is why the Catholics are so reluctant to allow divorce.

So, Oliver, as a Christian I would not want the Old Testament culled from the Bible. It would deprive the Christian understanding of sex of its necessary flavour and heart. I would rather keep that heart, and then wrestle with the problems you point out. By “wrestle”, I mean try my best to understand what they mean, given that they are inspired (somehow) by God just like the nicer and clearer parts. Some parts of the Bible still leave Bible readers, even Bible believers, mystified. But, we love God and God’s word, so we’ll probably persevere with it.

Pax,

Men can't win on this one.

On the one hand we have "After that, women started to become male possesions, marriage being the process." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5805#79785

and then

"So, if this is a problem for society it can only be solved by you blokes fixing up your need for sex without commitment or intimacy." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5805#80067

On the one hand committment is ownership of women and on the other finding an alternative is a problem. Fair go.

Seriously though - I find it difficult to cut through the spin regarding prostitution and understand what is really happening for the participants. Particularly those who use it to get some intimacy (even if a very shallow version) because they can't find it elsewhere.

The moralistic opposition to prositution and the money made by prostitutes and their hangers on is such that everything we hear about it is likely to be loaded with spin.

I'm concerned that some are forced into prostitution because of a need for money to feed drug habits but the issue there would seem to be the way we handle the drug problem rather than prostitution itself.

I don't know a way to make sexual contact available for those unable to be part of a viable relationship and I don't share the view that they should be denied sexual contact with a consenting adult just because the common interest is cash. Possibly a far more honest and less damaging exchange than some of the other ones people go through to get sex, committment or intimacy.

aqvarivs made some good points very early in the thread "http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5805#79560" - worth a reread.

R0bert

Members of the early church were deeply committed to the belief that the second coming was imminent while holding to the principle that sex was primarily for procreation. Paul advocated celibacy in view of the imminent eschaton and the need for Christians to prepare themselves for it. Children would only be a distraction and were not needed in such a short-term view of the world.
Clearly, for all their 'wise' contribution to early Christian theology they just did not really understand what Jesus was on about and regarded sex as a consequence of the fall and therefore essentially sinful. Paul turns out to be a very poor guide/teacher on the subject of sex guided as he appears to have been by his own sexual inadequacy and his flawed eschatology. This was carried on by many of the Early Church Fathers and institutionalised in the celibate priesthood of the Roman Church.
The OT presents a broader and more considered range of views on sexuality. It is more sympathetic and sensible than the NT writings and the cogitations of the Early Church Fathers, though its punishments for certain transgressions were pretty severe.

'The journey down to the abyss
Is prosperous and light,
The palace gates of gloomy Dis
Stand open day and night;
But upward to retrace the way
And pass into the light of day,
There comes the stress of labour; this
May task a hero's might.'

Virgil (~ 50 B.C.)

Morally wrong? As opposed to what? Husbands taking their "rights".

Could someone here please point to where all these morals and sins are held so I can see which ones I haven't committed yet. Might be fun. After all we are allowed to have fun aren't we? Or isn't it on the list of things to do?

Point to the Bible if you wish but do tell us who wrote what bits, and based on what.

Yabby-: "I guess the argument could be made that prostitution is more moral than marrying for money"

I agree,in fact I advised every woman in one of my posts recently to stop this stupid virgin and good wife game, get on the pill and charge every man for sex and enjoy themselves. Play the game the way the men play it, is what I said. I believe the point that Sells is making is that any race that doesnt procreate will become a dying race overrun by the more religious races that do procreate, (only because they hold women captive to motherhood).

The brothel in my city has a big wall around it to protect the identity of the clients. If they are not doing anything wrong why do they need the wall??

Answer;- because they know they are sleeping with other womens husbands and that it's wrong just as the husbands do.

I believed in marriage and having children all my life until recently when the setting up of these brothels by the state and all the sex adds in the paper have really angered me. Its plain to me that marriage is dead in the water. If I was a young woman today Id play the game the way the men do and I wouldnt have children and I intend to advise my granddaughters to do the same.
You can argue the rights and wrongs about religion but in the end it will be the reaction of women in society who may refuse to commit to marriage and having children if they are left holding the baby and twotimed by the men. Hence the walls around the brothels.
Thats what the men are afraid of and well they might be. They want their cake and eat it too they may turn around one day and find the women have done the same. We have the pill today which gives us the same freedom. Maybe thats the end result that Sells is pointing to. I think he's probably right.

sharkfin, you seem to be pushing the line that women get left holding the baby by men that desert the them. That does happen but the stats I've seen suggest that over 70% of marriage breakups are initiated by the women (some may have good reason - my comment is not about who is at fault) and as a single dad I've seen how vigorous womens groups have been in opposing the push for a presumption of equal shared care following seperation.

Some men do desert partners and their kids but others desperately want the care of their kids and a denied it by women and a system which all to often treats kids as a womans possession.

Have a look through the submissions to the enquiry that was run a few years ago into child custody following seperation and see which advocacy groups were supporting "women being left holding the baby" and which were supporting shared care. http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/report.htm

Start with a presumption of shared care and responsibility and then deal with the exceptions and some of your concerns might go away.

R0ber

Sharkfin, I hope my posts above, which present perhaps a conventional view of the subject, don’t seem to support women being mistreated by their husbands.

I’m talking about what I see as the ideal regarding sex. I know there are many wives whose husbands simply don’t/didn’t “love” them – love them in practice, I mean. Too many mistreat their wives to their face or they turn away (whether by sleeping around or not). I think it’s largely ignorance, and not malice, but it’s still destructive. (Robert’s right about the flipside, of course, but I’m not going into that just now.)

Anyhow, for a man to abuse his wife is, if you will excuse the understatement, far from ideal. Not what I’m recommending at all.

I have concentrated on procreation (and, I suppose, marriage) as necessary to an understanding of what sex is, as my comment on promiscuity, including commercial promiscuity. Within marriage, I know that sex should be integral to the pact of love the couple entered into at the start - you know, real affection, respect and eye contact.

You say that women should “get on the pill and charge every man for sex and enjoy themselves”. To me, this sounds like anger (tit for tat). Are you really saying that women will find love this way? Is it, “Well, I lucked out there (my husband didn’t love me), so let’s try this (sleeping with men who don’t even pretend to love me)”? I’d be so surprised if that works.

Robert, a few posts above, makes a plea for “those unable to be part of a viable relationship”. I’m not sure exactly who he has in mind, but I know the community (so-called) includes a lot of very lonely people. People who need love. I also know that loneliness can lead to a terrible hunger for whatever human contact is on offer.

Again, a terrible understatement: this situation is not ideal, and the sex it results in will not be ideal.

I don't think sex is the solution to all the awful woes that afflict people.

Pax,

I think there are no clearcut black and white issues here, all
relationships are different.

What we do know from surveys taken, is that most
clients of prostitutes are in fact married men! That could
be for a myriad of reasons. Lets face it, some women do try
to use sex as a power weapon within marriage. So I don't blame
some guys for getting sick of this and wandering off.

Some marriages have in fact been turned into a business. If we
look at some divorce settlements, few prostitutes could even
earn that kind of money.

Some men are bastards, some women are nitpicking bitches, once
again, its not black and white.

So to understand the world, I look at the laws of nature and
then it all kind of makes sense lol. Pairbonding is an evolved
trait, to assist in providing resources, to feed the offspring
in critical years. Its common in many species, although in
nearly all of them, a quiet quickie on the side is also common :)
as it provides an evolutionary advantage. So we are not much
different in our behaviour then other species in this regard.

Relationships form for all kinds of reasons. Some are lonely,
so pairbond with whoever is available at the time and
circumstance. Some meet their soulmate. Some start with
a sexual attraction. Again no black and whites here.

There are plenty of university students who finance their
degrees by a few highly paid, discreet, financially compensated
affairs. So what? I don't have a moral problem with that as
its just like it happens in nature and has for eons in time.

Yabby, What I'm suggesting is wrong with the practices you're recommending is that they overlook the fact that sex is, by its nature, a procreative act. They're pretending it isn't. This means their behaviour is, so to speak, "false".

I'm not expecting agreement here, of course.

And I don't find looking back down the evolutionary path helpful. I believe we humans - even if we are simply evolved - are higher than any other animal. Because of this, we can aspire higher in the way we live. "Higher" includes our superior ability to understand what we do.

Pax,

goodthief, "I don't think sex is the solution to all the awful woes that afflict people." - agreed. I don't think that paying for intimacy is a good solution to anything but then I've not walked other peoples shoes. Maybe it is the best that some people can get.

I have a perception that some people have very little physical contact with others, that they don't have socially acceptable ways of sharing intimacy (and not just sex). During the period following my marriage breakup until I started dating I rarely touched another adult except for handshakes, there are not a lot of ways that adult males can do so unless they have a good group of friends around them (which they often don't by the time a marriage breaks down).

I had one good friend who would share a hug from time to time but I noticed how much I missed physical contact. I've got a couple of single female friends at the moment who have expressed similar feelings.

There are those who for a variety of reasons find it hard to form viable romantic relationships. Others choose to stay in relationships where they don't feel any intimacy and don't see a workable way out.

I wonder how much of the prostitution business is mostly about people trying to get some kind of intimacy regardless of how much of a poor substitute it is.

I think most of struggle to seperate out touch, intimacy and sex at times. They can be quite different things but they also overlap.

On the other hand it may be that some people are just desperate for sex and using a prostitute is a less complicated way of getting it than by other means (and probably cheaper).

R0bert

"they overlook the fact that sex is, by its nature, a procreative act."

Goodthief, let me ask you a question, which you clearly do not
need to answer in public, but is worth thinking about. How many times have you had sex
and how many times for you was procreation the goal, how many times because you needed intimacy or
simply because it feels good?

I put it to you that sex for most people is about fullfilling deep
evolutionary needs and because it feels good. Procreation is simply
natures way to make sure the species survives. Those who don't enjoy
sex, are less likely to have children. To put it bluntly, if you
wake up with an erection, its not because you want to procreate, that
is on your mind lol.

Sure we humans have a larger neocortex then other species. Others
run faster, are stronger, whatever, our niche to make a living is
a larger brain. Nothing amazing about that, as far as I am concerned.
My dogs are quite capable of going out and catching a rabbit for
dinner. Their dinner is assured. Physically I can't do what they
do, my niche in the world is my brain.

Given that we have a larger neocortex and according to you are
"higher", what makes you think that we are not hugely influenced by
our genes and evolutionary past? What about all those hormones,
peptides, ligands etc, which influence our behaviour?

Robert writes about a "yearning" for intimacy. Women talk about
a yearning for children. Men talk about a yearning for sex.
Do you really think its wise to ignore the huge influence that
your genes have, in shaping whom we are and why we are as we are?

I suggest you check out some basic neuroscience. The neocortex only
makes up a part of the brain, all the rest has a huge influence
in shaping who you are and how you are, even if these things are
at the level of the subconcious and you are not aware of them or have
never thought about them

I wouldn't imagine that there would be any intimacy in the relationship between prostitute and john. A prostitute has reduce their existence to natures plumbing and "space for let". The john can manufacture any fantasy but, essentially that sex act remains a strangers hand. There is no relationship, there is no intimacy, and what is probably the key motivator, loneliness, must still be dealt with come the next morning. And yes. Many many married men are lonely. Much more so than married women. This is not sexist. It is because woman being supported in the role of primary care giver have a opportunity to express their love with their children that men do not, and are encouraged in very subtle ways, to not to express overtly natural love. AS more and more women leave the home for the "higher status" of work, more and more women find themselves estranged from family, love, and increasing loneliness. One of the benefits reported in discussions with stay at home Dads is their reported sense of belonging and familiar satisfaction. They feel more connected and loving. Something not offered by the standing social expectations.

Good post Yabby,

No doubt the brain itself is conditioned for pleasure too, via target-branching of the neurons and neurochemicals. I wonder how many misters and partners would give-up sex, after the wide has passed menapause?

From a gene's perspective, of course, we need to have the species [conduit shell] survive. From our own perspective, we enjoy our hormones and orgasms. Kids are great, but it is not the only fair journey for our sex organs. Enjoying sex is natural, that is the idea.

Post Script: "These feet were made for walkin'", but they can dance too. [metaphorically speaking]

Ya, and you can get athletes foot too. Be careful where and with whom you dance. :-)

Yabby, How many times? Not many (largely due to bad luck!) but enough for you to make your point. But, it was not an ideal thing to do, as it involved me in a pretence that sex is not all that it is.

But, I’m not talking about me here. Neither am I lawmaking.

Yes, I think we are higher than our ancestors. I know we are still beasts – not a put down, I just mean visceral, muscular, bloody, chemical etc. But, we are more as well. While my evolutionary forebears help me to understand myself, I do not regard them as role models. I am capable of more understanding than they. I can do better, so I think I should.

Robert, I have to admire your candour, thank you. My own life enables me to understand a good deal of what you say. (For example, a counsellor revealed to me that one of the reasons I am tactile towards others is that, by touching them, I am incidentally touched myself.) Also, I am conscious that people with strait-laced views like the ones I’m describing have been very hard hearted, even ruthless, when dealing with people they see as having “strayed from the straight and narrow”.

It’s hard for a Christian talking about sex to avoid sounding like a hanging judge. I’ve tried, but I might have failed. I actually believe that God would prefer that we have a great life, and that The Rules are designed to encourage this, not block it.

The only “Jesus episode” that relates directly to sexual ethics is the occasion when he stopped the people stoning the woman who’d committed “adultery”. He was both –

i) extremely tender in his handling of her; and

ii) very clear that what she had done was wrong.

Both.

Many of us are starving for affection and human warmth, and I know it’s tempting to see sex as a shortcut. I’m not trying to throw stones, and I’m really sorry if it seems that I am, I’m just saying sex is not a shortcut to love.

Pax,

goodthief, no offence taken, your approach to discussion is a refreshing change from what I've become used to from some of our more "CHRISTIAN" posters.

I'm largely in agreement with you, I don't think that prostitution is an ideal solution or a genuine substitute for relationships based on love, care etc. My point is that for some people it's the best they can get and I don't consider it appropriate for society to try and deny them that.

If we want to intefere then it should be in the areas of ensuring the transaction is as safe as possible for all concerned, doing our best to ensure that participants have better options available to them and minimising the impacts on those not involved.

R0bert

aqvarivs,

I walked into that one ;-).

Actually, I wasn't promoting frequent trips to the gym. Rather, I was suggesting sex even with an exclusibe partner is more than having children. Both are important. Not promoting promiscuity.

O.

Dancing is just dancing if your not holding the one you love but, should one have to face the possibility of dying for a dance? Should one be beaten or robbed for a chance to dance? Why do we blame the dance for were we as people put our foot wrong? HHHMMMMMM? Dirty Dancing?

Peter always holds to this cloying fantasy of religious taboos/superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy; all the invention of frightened men. In this article he falls back on his pseudo-discipline, "theological truth" (whatever that may mean) as being the only "wisdom" that constitutes the human which is where we see human standards of morality being used to establish a teddy (i.e. god) and indeed teddy's goodness.

Peter's naive assumption is that without a teddyman belief, a person is then without heart or values or morals ... and without humanity. BUT Peter's own "morality" conveniently overlooks the fact that religious belief stamping of babies and the vulnerable is false. It seems that Peter is oblivious to his teddyman belief as a perversion, a systematic control hazard, an emotional blackmail and a crude extortion of an individual's psyche. Isn't he thus in the very act of offering and devoting his talent to an unworthy cause. Isn't he then about exploitation and indeed prostitution?

Of course there is no teddyman. Before concluding that we need something more like a teddyman's magic unveiling, or a transcendence, or a gratuitousness, or a mystery of disclosure, or a need to be loved, then just intentionally study what is already here. Our lives are always about causality and this should be no surprise but be naturally understood as a learning opportunity. We can all exercise some testable implications, intuitions, feelings, analysis and rational functions of the mind unless a teddyman has expunged this ability. We can also avoid any hasty conclusions in the exercise of our moral and ethical responsibility. This realistic attitude simply means you value life and love much more than the teddyman worshipers ever will.

aqvarivs,

"Dancing is just dancing if your not holding the one you love but, should one have to face the possibility of dying for a dance?"

Agree. If directed at me, we are talking at cross purposes. I am not advocating affairs, rather I was saying that not all sexual activity with one's life partner is directed towards child birth.

Oliver, no it wasn't directed [at] you, it was in reference to your analogy, I just took it a step further to include a general happenstance that some times develops where people start referring to sex as "dirty" rather than their mindset. I personally believe sex is a responsibility and if it's done for commerce then it's a social responsibility and as a society it is incumbent upon us all to see those involved safe. No different than we would manage any other business or product. But we don't. We give victim status to the prostitutes and criminalize the men.
We keep the womans name a secret and publish the mans name on the front page as if we just apprehended a crime boss. It's Victorian, and unrelated to how people think today. It's time we dealt publicly with this issue and not continually sweeping it under the proverbial carpet. There is no doubt that prostitution is a moral hazard but, it's one that has dogged society since early days. While we're still just talking about it lets at least protect those involved while we talk. Then we wont be just talking.