abe smith

Thanks for your reproof, Sojourner. I apologize to the constituents; & I'll try to amend my behaviour. Abe

MOJO-JOJO

Ahh, the Church of Christ creedo! Where is David Mathews to defend his faith's motto?

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

doubtingt

It's not o.k. It's fantastic!!!

doubtingt

On a more serious note, many many philosophies, including many forms of theism would have no problem with such a thing. It is only in anti-human, self-hating, guilt-ridden worldviews such as Christianity (and other monotheisms) that rational adults helping each other acheive their desires would be considered wrong.

Godless Dave

Church of Christ

Assemblies of God

Southern Baptist

Godless Dave

Within the narrow confines of the question as originally posed, yes, I would call that moral.

But in reality, most prostitutes in Thailand are not consenting - they either get into prostitution because they have no other way of surviving, or worse, because their pimps and/or relatives will beat or kill them if they try to escape. Patronizing prostitutes in that reality would be immoral.

And MadMordigan, I bet you'd do it for $50!

RogerLeeCooke

There isn't a unified "secular humanist" morality. We don't subscribe to creeds. All that unites us is the common belief that human beings aren't going to find any oracle to tell them what is right and wrong, nor any Big Brother in the sky to save the human race from its folly. And, if you ask me, it's none of my business on a personal level. On a social level, I think it's terrible public policy to permit such things, and I seriously doubt if many women voluntarily agree to participate in such things. I think economic necessity (the need to support a family) is their motive.

MadMordigan

MadMordigan, I bet you'd do it for $50!

I won't accept anything less than $20.

raistlinjones

That could very well be the case. In which case NOT patronizing them (not giving them business) would decrease money she'd have for the family. That sounds more immoral.

Also, do you really think it worse for someone to sell themselves for sex than for any other labor? Coal mining, for instance, seems much more dangerous.

CuriosityKills

I don't believe that it is immoral to participate in a threesome. I don't believe that it is immoral to pay for sex or choose to sell sex. I believe it is immoral to force someone into sexual contact.

If you hired a couple of prostitutes in Nevada for this "sex slave" thing, you could be reasonably assured that these girls have chosen to be a part of the sex trade. Girls can even discriminate between the tricks they take. If a guy looks too creepy or gross, the brothel will usually support their descision to say no. I think this is a morally nonreprehensible scenario.

When you hire a Thai prostitute the situation is very different. More than likely the girls have been sold by their families to brothels (I have heard that they are often sent at 7 or 8 years of age). The girls then have to work off a lifetime "debt" to the brothel. After all, the brothel provides them with shelter and food.
Lets say by the time you engage in your reasonably priced sex slave scenario the girl is 21 years old. She could have possibly been in the business for 13 or 14 years. Doesn't sound so hot anymore, does it?

Technically, the Thai protitute is not putting up a fight. She will not say no. However, she doesn't have the option to say no because of the "debt" she owes the brothel. does this sound like a "consenting adults" scenario anymore?

I sure as hell hope not.