(another find from my archives, this i wrote for my sex and ethics class in my senior year for my BA philo course, though my viewpoint has changed a lot, and i no longer agree with the things I wrote...its still interesting to read the opinions of my young self and see the changes I've gone from. )

In the broad perspective, prostitution is defined as commercial or mercenary sex, in other words, sex for money. However, “commercial sex” can not only refer to sexual intercourse for money but can also mean performing services catering to sexual needs of others provided for by money like sex shows, acting in pornographic films or sexual surrogacy. In the narrow perspective, prostitution provides sexual satisfaction to the client through direct physical contact of some sort and may involve full-fledged intercourse.

Despite continuous sexual liberalization, traditional views on this matter have held. The positive morality, defined as the morality prevalent in a society and expressed in its public opinion, its laws and the lives of its members, condemns prostitution in no uncertain terms. The problem with positive morality is that it does not show that prostitution is wrong, only that positive morality of this society and many other societies consider it wrong. This implies that prostitution can both be right in one society and wrong in another. Furthermore, positive morality is that it tends to reflect various conventional prejudices. In the case of prostitution, positive morality is affected by standards of lifestyle and income that, in truth, has no possible moral relevance. Moreover, in view of prostitution, positive morality is inconsistent in condemning the prostitute but not the client although clearly both equally and necessarily take part in the condemned practice.

Paternalist legislation is the most effective kind of interference in a person’s life for reasons that it is for his own good, happiness, needs, interests or values. This works well because interfering through the law is more effective. Paternalistic arguments have been used to debate moral issues. The usual argument against prostitution rail against the STD’s that could be spread, for safety of the prostitute because of probable violence of some clients, likely exploitation of girls by pimps and lastly the lowering of the prostitute’s social status and the ostracism it brings with the work.

This could have been a well-represented argument if not for the outcome that, it is a prudential and not a moral case against prostitution. Even under the label of prudence, the paternalist argument is weak. Hazards stared are occupational, therefore the argument would only be valid if prostitution is defined as an occupation. For there are the secret prostitutes, those who are amateurs and just earn money on the side, since her selling herself is only a sideline. Added to that is the hazard to the sex life of the prostitute when not working. This is just a minor premise not affecting the overall social morality. The strong case of paternalism is meant to protect a person from his voluntary choices. This is viewed as moral or intellectual arrogance

For many, the view that some things are just not for sale (sex as one of them) is probably the best argument against prostitution. But sex, according to Primovarz, unlike love, can, as a matter of fact, be bought and sold, and there is no single, generally accepted conception of sex that prohibits its sale and purchase. Sex can be sold only when it is understood in terms of pleasure and not exclusively in terms of married love. Prostitution makes an important contribution to the stability and the very survival of marriage. This relation between prostitution and marriage has been confirmed by sociological study of human sexual behavior. Sociological research shows that the majority of clients of prostitutes are married men who do not find sexual satisfaction within marriage but are content to stay married, provided they can have extramarital commercial sex as well. Another view that argues for the condemnation of prostitution is the assumption that sex is essentially tied up to love and commercial sex is essentially loveless. However, it is the lovelessness of this kind of sex and NOT its commercial nature that they find objectionable. For Primovarz, it is possible to appreciate sex with love and grant that sex that falls short of this (including commercial sex) need not be wrong, but also allow that it can be positively good without necessarily saying that it is actually better than sex with love. Prostitution is seen as wrong only because it has nothing to do with love and not on the account of its commercial nature. As far as this view of sex is concerned, by acquitting plain sex, one also acquits its commercial variety.

More conservative feminists argue that prostitution is degrading and morally objectionable. Added to that, prostitution is degrading to women because the client views the prostitute merely as an object, she is regarded only as an instrument to bring the client to sexual satisfaction. Sex is private part of our life, why commercialize it. It may appear that the whore is just selling a service in the way a plumber does, but in truth she is selling herself.

In the other feminist objection to prostitution is that it exemplifies and helps maintain the oppression of women. According to Laurie Shrage, prostitution epitomizes and perpetuates certain basic cultural assumptions of men, women and sex that justifies the oppression of women in many domains in their lives, and in this way harms both prostitutes and women in general. These assumptions state that a strong sex drive is a universal human trait. Sexual behavior defines one’s social identity, makes one a particular kind of person: one is a ‘homosexual’, ‘prostitute’, and ‘a loose woman’. And men are “naturally” dominant. Finally, she says sexual contact pollutes and harms women.

But Primovarz argues that not all the cultural assumptions prostitution in our society allegedly epitomizes and reinforces are really generally accepted. This shows that there is no good reason to believe that the society adheres to a single conception of heterosexual sex, Shrage’s cultural assumptions reinforced by prostitution is ascribed to every single case of commercial sex as its “political and social meaning,” whatever the beliefs and values of the individuals concerned. However, it is at odds with what those prostitutes who are getting organized in order to fight for their rights are saying about their work. There is, of course, no single understanding of the nature and the moral status of prostitution that can be ascribed to prostitutes in general. Politically active prostitutes tend to resent the fact that their occupation is necessarily degrading and never freely chosen, and that their work and their lives are but examples of social pathology. In fact, many prostitutes identify with feminist values such as independence, financial autonomy, sexual self-determination, personal strength and female bonding. However they reject support that requires them to leave their occupation, they object to being treated as symbols of oppression and demand recognition as workers. These prostitutes affirm the right of all women to determine their own sexual behavior, including commercial exchange, without stigmatization or punishment. Reality speaking, of this may account to much in the eyes of illiberal feminists; rather they are likely to dismiss such views of prostitutes as just another case of false consciousness.

On a final note, all these arguments have not really found any basis to which they can justify the condemnation of prostitution in its commercial nature. The question of morality on a victimless crime like prostitution has always been debated. As referring to the harm and offense principle, it doesn’t hurt anyone directly. This may be one of those issues that could never be settled.

However, the reality remains that it does end in abuse and it does degrade some of the women, it does result to rape sometimes as it is involuntary for a lot of women, because of poverty or because of mere force, these are instances that are immoral/unethical on their own, by their very nature, but as to its relation with the "occupation" itself, perhaps it is a chicken and egg story, like that argument that women who dress provocatively are "asking for it." Point is, if a prostitute gets raped, it is not a sound argument to say she deserved it, never. These atrocities that have been linked to the commercial sex industry are not the women's fault, rather, they should be viewed as victims not as pariahs of society.