>

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/FenDy64 (2∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards
/u/Due-Lie-8710 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

There's a song I like that speaks on this fairly poetically, so I'd like to start by just directly quoting it:

So when you bled on the bed as you fed those expectations, as a whore and not a human, you embraced with hesitation the very parameters of all you can be. Not a mother, not an aunt, not a sister who's not subdued. Because dignity's not physical, and your flesh means more than you.

Many (NOT ALL) of the people purchasing sex look at the worker as a commodity and not a human. And many (NOT ALL) of the general public look at the sex worker as undesirable. And many (NOT ALL) of sex workers are coerced into the industry, either by force or by life circumstance. Until we can truly establish a society which views sex work as "just another job," and rid ourselves of all the aforementioned biases, the people purchasing it are feeding into a broken and hurtful system. >


Many (NOT ALL) of the people purchasing sex look at the worker as a commodity and not a human. And many (NOT ALL) of the general public look at the sex worker as undesirable. And many (NOT ALL) of sex workers are coerced into the industry, either by force or by life circumstance. Until we can truly establish a society which views sex work as "just another job," and rid ourselves of all the aforementioned biases, the people purchasing it are feeding into a broken and hurtful system.

First of all if you aren't trafficked it is just like another job, as for you both being seen as human , make sense hey aren't there to befriend to have sex , you are performing a service, it's like you watching football or a movie,  you only see them as footballers ot actors , half of the time they don't care about their personal life,  there are some jobs that prevent you from getting any high paying jobs or jobs that involve care , as for the people purchasing it , if you can't purchase it then why should they sell it , you don't actually support sex work, because that would mean accepting the consumer base ad well as the supplier >

That’s a really big if though, sex work isn’t exactly an industry where you will know for sure if the service you’re getting is consensual. individuals who are victims of sexual trafficking, coercion, or just life circumstance aren’t likely to just tell their “customers” if it isn’t consensual. they could endanger themselves or not be aware that they can say something. 
Seeing someone as an object vs seeing them as an individual with a job aren’t the same though? yes we recognize actors and football players by their career choice and how well they are at it, but they’re still people at the end of the day? that’s why they have fanbases, interviews, paparazzi, popularity on social media, movie adaptions of their life exist—people are interested in more than them just doing their job.
A persons job is no reason to suddenly strip them of their humanity and rights granted them for being such, that kind of mentality is morally skewed and why a lot of people would not support sex work. plus you can’t say it makes sense for sex workers to be see as commodities only and then believe sex work will be consensual. the whole consent part comes from recognizing that this is another person who has their own boundaries and limits beyond just what you want. >

okay, that’s a plumber and not a person you’re having sex with. unlike plumbing which is clean cut, sex can include multiple aspects of different kinks and fetishes. You can’t expect a sex worker to be okay with say participating in rape play, anal, scat, and a mirage of other kinks simply because they agreed to sex. Sex is not clean cut, there is more to it. There has to be a boundary somewhere, this is another person body not a pipe. >

That’s like the point? recognizing the boundary and proceeding from there by RESPECTING the boundary because they are another person and not some masturbatory object. What you just said was a consensual interaction. The initial point was that there is no consensual sex without respecting the party that’s giving as a person. >

So... there's a concept of a moral hazard. 
There's literally no way for an individual to be certain that their prostitute is not being coerced/trafficked. Even if there are some special circumstances where it might be unlikely, certainty is still impossible, and most people frequenting prostitutes are not in those special circumstances.
Someone using their services is therefore extremely likely to be comfortable with risking that they are unknowingly raping someone. 
Generally speaking, people find that disgusting. >

If you eat chocolate (even the stuff with the fair trade sticker) then there's no guarantee that it hasn't come from slave farms which are not uncommon. If you eat chocolate throughout your life then you are almost definitely contributing to slavery. If you visit a prostitute regularly then the chance they're being exploited is anywhere from functioninally 0% to 100%. So why treat the John who might be discerning with scorn and not the chocolate eater who is a much safer bet in having contributed to coerced labour. >

It's worth trying to avoid those situations, but ultimately it's a very false equivalence to hold people responsible for the actions of others, vs. their own personal actions.
When you buy chocolate, you're not actually holding a gun to a slave, someone else is. The right answer to that is to lobby for worker protections for imported goods, and to try to end involuntary servitude within your country as well. 
When you have sex with a trafficked person, you personally literally raped them. If you don't have good evidence to know they aren't trafficked, you're personally ok with the possibility you're going to personally rape them. 
Both might be considered bad. But it's a false equivalence.
And sure... if someone is paying someone for sex when they are personal friends with them, and interact with them outside of prostitution enough to personally know that they aren't being trafficked... and you're sure they aren't lying, scorning them more than at most some light ribbing isn't justified. It's not like "sugar daddies" aren't a thing as well. At the very least much less disapprobation would be appropriate. >

In both cases, there is a customer receiving a service provided by a potentially enslaved person. They are morally equivalent. It makes no sense to say “sure I bought the slavery chocolate, but you can’t hold me responsible for the slavers actions!” >


you can’t hold me responsible for the slavers actions!”

The slavers actions are distinct from the consumers' actions for most things. 
This is an actual important difference when it comes to prostitution. 
Ignoring that fundamental difference doesn't make it go away, and it's entirely reasonable for someone to make that distinction. >

The slaver and consumer are different people who take different actions in the prostitution scenario. The consumer in both scenarios is taking the risk of being immoral. If I force you to be my slave that’s still immoral whether or not I put you to work in my brothel or mine or factory or fishing boat. And if I rent your services out to customers who aren’t aware you’re a slave, it doesn’t matter whether the service is sex or mining or fishing or whatever, it’s equivalent. >


And if I rent your services out to customers who aren’t aware you’re a slave, it doesn’t matter whether the service is sex or mining or fishing or whatever , it’s equivalent.

This is where the false equivalence comes in. 
Someone making products with slave labor is not renting out a slave to the consumer so that they consumer can force them to perform mining for the consumer. They are enslaving the labor to create a product, and selling the product. Products don't have rights to violate. The only person violating the rights of the slave is the slaver.
Someone trafficking a victim is renting out that victim so that the consumer can rape them. >

I don’t see how one is worse than the other. in both cases the customer’s purchase decision enables the coerced labor of another through a “producer”. 
If instead of engaging in direct sexual actions, you simply buy a digital “product” that entails pornography, live talks and whatever, is that significantly morally superior compared to normal prostitution? >

If the sex is only contractual to you? Why not just "hook up." Why pay? You will never be able to guarantee they are not being trafficked. If they are, they are not going to tell you. I think the idea of money exchanging hands for sex is the why most have a problem. The idea that you are giving a woman money for sex has been historically seen as her being a whore. 
I am not saying she is. I am saying that from the time it first exchanged hands, that is what it was. Men who could not find a woman, paid a woman. Why do you want others to see it differently? Yes, there will be outliers that will enjoy the work. But those are going to be ones that, like the escort, chose it, and charge what they want. Not the typical street hookers on the corner with pimps to pay. 
Prove they are not trafficked, they work for themselves, they are clean (of both drugs and diseases - because they are taking care of themselves and being safe), and that they are a sex worker because they enjoy the work or that that chose the work. Then, hey! Pay 'em and get to it! >

I think it is morally unhealthy to normalize it. Even though you have to be an adult to smoke weed, we definitely see weed as a normal thing to do in moderation compared to a few decades ago. This is how we would see prostitution if it was normalized. And I think weed has a lot less complications than legalizing prostitution. A LOT!
Sex work online is a lot safer and requires a lot less mental issues to engage in and promote. But even then, I know some sex workers (online type), and they are scarred by the stuff they have seen when it comes to their job. They have told me stories that are extremely disturbing. These are women who just do stuff by themselves. Not working with a porn company and other people.
Also, sex has a huge reputation for being violent and demoralizing towards women in general. I'd assume those numbers would be much higher in men looking to pay for sex. You'd have to have extremely strict and tight regulations for this sort of thing, which would take the fun out of it for a lot of people. And even then, there would still be many mistakes that would happen before we find out all the regulations that are needed. And I don't think we could ever make it mentally and physically safe for women.
Now, do I think it should be decriminalized for prostitutes? Definitely. I don't see them as disgusting. I feel quite bad for them. Most of them were trafficked at a young age. Do I see men wanting to pay for sex as disgusting? Not necessarily. It depends on the person and the situation. However, this isn't a simple issue where if we just "stop judging people," everything will be fine. >

Decriminalizing prostitution for both those selling and buying is demonstrably safer for prostitutes. If it is criminal for the buyer but not the seller, the buyer is often highly defensive and paranoid about the seller, specifically the possibility that they may be working with law enforcement. The buyer will often push to do it in a highly isolated setting as well. These things increase violence that sex workers face, and the averages go down in places where it is decriminalized to both buy and sell. If you have a designated work place for it and no one needs to be distrustful and worried about being arrested, that is the safest situation for all involved. 
We may disagree with buying it for whatever moral reason, but if we choose to criminalize the purchase of it, we are prioritizing punishing behavior we morally disagree with over prioritizing the safety of those involved, which I can't get behind. >

But there are so many more facets to the safety of legalizing it for the buyer other than them being pushy or wanting to do it in a hidden area. If we legalized it, it still wouldn't really help any of the points I made or is even something that is so overwhelmingly an issue compared to the points I made. >

So long as we have to work to live, all jobs are coercive, even sex work. I’m skeptical that there can ever be a consensual exchange within our current economic context. >

Exactly , I get sex is intimate but if you are willing to view sex work as any other job , you should be willing to treat it as such >

Sex work has certain occupational hazards that cannot be regulated away. OSHA (in the US) dictates that a person cannot be subject to bodily fluids without proper PPE in the workplace, and often johns just need to pay more to not wear a condom. Imagine a construction site paying workers more to not wear a hard hat. The greater potential for bodily harm is intrinsic to the work, and it will always be unsafe. >

True but this doesn't really answer my question >

My point is that treating it like any other job is not ethically possible due to hazardous conditions >

This is a bad take.
I’d wager prostitution doesn’t even rank in the top ten dangerous jobs by capita. >

That really depends. A gas station cashier likely has a higher risk of being killed. But a quick Google shows sex workers are thirty times more likely to get Aids than the general population. They're also at ridiculously high rates of risk to their mental health. Ptsd is common. Also, yes, sitting at a counter in a gas station is technically dangerous. But it is different type of danger compared to someone fucking them in the ass while shoving a sock in their mouth and calling them a dirty whore. When this happens to a prostitute, since she isn't dead, then all good right?! :) Her job isn't dangerous, she's still alive! And they're really not paid much. Average pay for a sex scene in porn for a woman is around $600, for the guy it's like a hundred. For prostitution you're looking at a hundred to two hundred dollars. 
Also, if you're in the us. Good luck affording health insurance as an independent contractor engaged in sex work. >

I’m not exactly impressed with the American system so if you’re criticising Americans health system then fuck yeah more power to you.
You raise fantastic points about there being non lethal dangers in sex work that are worth considering and harder to measure.
That being said, sit for a while and think about whether you think that sex workers are in a job so dangerous that it deserves its own category and shouldn’t even be allowed. (This is what the commenter I was responding to was claiming)
I’m comfortable I’d ban lumberjack as a profession long before I considered banning prostitution based on relative level of danger and conditions.
I don’t have a specific statistic but soldiers at an educated guess would probably be more likely to experience danger and mental issues but the commenter I responded to probably never thought for one second about banning soldiers on that basis.
It’s clear bias, being rationalised as something it isn’t. >

It's decriminalised where I live, which means women can arrange anything themselves. So you can have a strip club with a "hotel" above it. Basically 100% of the workers are foreign, from places like Ukraine. Russia, Moldova, Romania. Etc. It's a strange aspect which isn't often brought up. But"legalizing " almost always results on foreign workers undercutting any local workforce. How can a 26 year old American girl from the burbs compete with an 18 year Thai girl? One is fine doing work at basically the rates of a full time McDonald's employee, while the other isn't. And of course, that breeds the type of people you'd imagine running the business. Even in places like Amsterdam, where there's tons of regulation, you get the same trafficking you see anywhere else.
So morally. I've got zero problem. But I've just never seen a model that can actually ensure safety for everyone involved. >

Well culture is everything isn't it? Of there wasn't so much sex tourism from places that have prostitution illegal there would probably be less demand wouldn't there? Less demand would make the whole industry safer imo due to the loss of money driving the search for foreign market girls
Like imagine the whole world has a brothel just down the block. Does that make it more safe just by sheer volume and normality? >

Firstly, i'm not religious, i'm sex-positive and the sex lives of strangers rarely concerns me. I don't think paying for these services makes you a "bad" person, nor a "disgusting" one.. but for me, it would affect your desirability to me as a partner. To me attraction is a big thing, and i'll be honest, I see it as kind of lame. Not morally corrupt but just ...desperate. 
I would want my partner to be someone that women wanted to have sex with, not the man that they had sex with as a purely profitable transaction. Whilst it's consensual, when you involve money or a benefit other than sex, the line slightly blurs, and I find it becomes icky. 
It's not even that I think my partner should only have had strictly intimate and personable relations... but the question does spring to mind of "is sex that has been paid for truly consensual? can you guarantee that?" Even popular Pornstars who previously agreed to do porn and made careers out of it have stories where they later felt disgusted by what they've had to do but were so enamored by the money, they went through with it. Sex workers will ALWAYS sell a positive image to their clients, part of their job is to make you feel desired, but you never truly know the reality. 
All in all, it can be seen as "bad" or "disgusting" because monetary rewards affects the lines of purely consensual sex. The same way it can be icky for a boss to have sex with the intern, the same way directors have sex with actresses that want to star in their movies, and the same way rockstars have sex with their fans. Doesn't make 'em rapists, but it's why people won't look at it as respectable. >

you aren’t sex positive if you think paying for sex is desperate.
does paying for alcohol mean you’re desperate for happiness? some people want to have fun so they buy drinks, others find more fun in sex. as long as sex work is consensual and not the result of pimping or some other form of coercion then I don’t see any harm or how it would be desperate.
there are tangible benefits to buying sex vs finding it “naturally” that i don’t think you’re considering. 
with sex workers you’re safer and don’t have to worry about pregnancy, theft, psychotic women, and other risks that come from random hookups with strangers or even casual dating. there’s also the whole “i don’t need to put time and effort into finding and flirting with someone” when it can be on demand. yea making food at home is usually cheaper and better tasting than takeout but sometimes you’re lazy and want a pizza delivered. >

I’m generally sex positive to consensual sex between people. However, everything falls on a spectrum and I don’t think you have to have a certain view on every avenue to be as such. Much like you can love your job, your country or your friends but that doesn’t mean you can’t provide any forms of criticism nor must you love EVERY aspect of these things. 
I have no disdain for people who hook up on dating apps, clubs, attend sex parties etc. I will always believe sex workers should have right to practice and do so in a safe environment. I also wouldn’t stop their client base either, it’s not my business, but there are ethical implications and I’ve said my view from the perspective of my partner which naturally i hold to a more personable standard. I wouldn’t want to be with someone who puts their sexual desires above the possible implications involved in sex work. 
I do want to touch on your point that as long as it’s not coerced or forced, it’s okay. The ethical implication behind this is that when you involve money, this is not guaranteed. Not all clients will take the time to research the background and extra people involved behind the scenes. The women with pimps and who are trafficked won’t spill those beans to you. Again, there will always be exceptions to the rule. 
I understand that sex work is convenient to many but my perception is not swayed by the mere idea that paying for sex means you get to avoid having to flirt with women. Much like I can understand why people have no choice to purchase fast fashion and I’ll understand the reasoning but that does not mean I should ignore the child labour and poor conditions that make this possible. 
All in all, I won’t stop you but I’m going to think it’s kinda lame.  You can wear an item of clothing, I’ll defend you to wear that clothing and I won’t make you feel bad for wearing it.. but I may not like it myself. >

Reading your posts made me think of a bird preening it's feathers to attract a mate. I thought it was just you being obtuse untill you brought fashion into this lol
You really are just a pair of eyes arnt you. No complexity attached. "I saw it in the window so I bought it! I didn't even care that it was 500$ I just wanted it because the other girls were eyeing it down and I just HAD to have it💅" >

I genuinely have no idea what you’re trying to convey. The topic of fashion was merely to represent that there are often complexities and nuance. So yes, I can be sex positive but I don’t necessarily have to agree with all the variances within the to topic of sex. 
I assume I’ve hit a nerve for your style of response. >

Not sure about everywhere else but in America being as prostitution is illegal a lot of the situations the workers are in are really sad, depressing and predatory. If you take a look at the book “Pimp” by ice berg slim for example a lot of the industry isn’t the ideal some just wants to make money like any other job and the pimp is just a bodyguard/manger,
A lot of it involves a tone of manipulation and dependency and when you add on the ones where safe sex isn’t a priority and the literal hundreds of partners you engage with in such a short time it all comes off as kinda gross. >

Sex, when a service, is not the same as any other service. There is a difference between driving a person somewhere in a taxi and having your face fucked and ejaculated on by a stranger. As many have stated before and as you can see in 99% of porn is that sex as a service is usually degrading towards women. Just look at the front page of any given porn site. Most of it is not, in any way, esteeming of the women participating. Look at goddamn blowjob videos. The women are not giving a blowjob - they are getting their face fucked. Extra points if they have to gag and be obviously physically uncomfortable and struggling to breathe. Dude it is just not the same as someone operating a forklift or making flower arrangements. Most of it is degrading and the more degrading the more klicks - the more people who frequent porn sites like it. And it's the same with prostitution. Read about what these women have experienced. It is plain awful. Sure if you are talking about a utopia where you can be 100% sure the prostitutes are there on their own terms and if every single customer is a loving, caring, gentle person taking care of the sex workers needs as much as their own - then yes, there would not be anything wrong with it. But that is just not how it is.
How hard is it, even in a healthy loving relationship, to always have both partners perfectly satisfied and met their needs sexually?
Sex is as intimate as human interaction can get and buying that from someone is taking all incentive away to treat the other person as good as you would treat a partner who you love and/or actively want to enjoy the time with you.
And that is what disgusts people about people who frequent prostitutes. The possibility of being a person who, as long as they pay for something or feel like they've done their dues, doesn't give a shit about what the person on the other end is experiencing.
edit: Because of other comments from OP I accused them of debating rather than discussing and suggested if they were seeking moral validation for what they do, which in itself was not part of a discussion really. I deleted that part because it serves no neutral purpose. >

Well in this context not special but very very different, in the way that it is way more intimate, there's actually a part of ones body entering the others. There is exchange of bodily fluids. Those services are different from each other the same way as a massage is different to shoving items across a scanner, just times ten. One is naked, one experiences pleasure (or great pain) and one is not using their body to do something, they are having their body be used by someone else. That can leave physical bruises and mental scars because one is extremely vulnerable in the act. >

My view on it is that the act in itself is not wrong for anybody involved, but the character implication is what causes it to be met with disgust by some.
If you have money and you pay for sex from somebody who is willing, then it's no problem, but the issue comes when you delve  into why they might be paying for sex.
Many people experience sex in a consensual environment with a person who desires sex with them, and no money is involved.  Many would view this as a very normal and important part of life.
The question that comes up subconsciously and/or consciously is "why does this person need to pay for sex?"
It could be that they have undeveloped social skills and this coild be deemed as a negative trait that needs to be worked on.
Another reason could be an atypically high sex drive, which could also be perceived as sex addiction.
These are not unlikely reasons for a person to pay a sex worker for sex and a judgement could be made before understanding more that they possess These sorts of traits that people simply have the desire to avoid. >

This is the correct answer. 
The reason people look down on people who hire hookers has nothing to do with sex trafficking, or what really qualifies as consent, or any of the other comments in this thread. I think a good example is your iPhone. It is basically made with slave labor, but nobody really gives a shit. They just happily use their phone.  If they actually did give a shit, they wouldn't buy iPhones. Also, prostitution has been around basically since the beginning of time. It has always been a part of human relationships and always will be.
For better or worse, the reason people look down on people who hire hookers is that it implies you are deficient in some way. If you were better looking or had better social skills or had more control over your base urges you would not need to hire a hooker. 
Personally, I look at it like a wheelchair. I dont need a wheelchair and I really hope I never need one, but it is not fair (and downright cruel) for me to look down on someone who does use one. Are they deficient in some way? Yes. They can't walk. Do they deserve admonishment or judgement? No. Not at all. >

You're not paying too have sex with a prostitute. You're paying to use her body as a masturbatory aid.
Prostitution reduces women to being commodities, objects, things. Every other job, you're providing a skill to produce or exchange goods and services. Prostitution, the woman is the thing you're purchasing. The women are the commodities, they're not viewed as humen, they're viewed as consumable goods. >

Just like almost every other Job,  and any other form of sex work like strippers,  onlyfans model , some e girl, girls who post theist traps on social media,  so what makes those empowering and not this >

Strippers, only fans, e-girls are not empowering. It's gross. When it comes down to it, they're sluts. And they're no better than their fuck-boy counterparts. >

OK fair so the difference in worldview is what makes argumen unsound to you !delta >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/19jals80 (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

You just can never know for sure whether the sex worker is being trafficked or not.  You can't assume they'd tell you the truth if you asked.  They might endanger themselves by telling you the truth.  The sex worker wants money, and is willing to have some sexual contact with you in order to get the money.  But fundamentally, they're permitting you to do something to their body that they do not want in and of itself.  Therefore, their consent is dubious and conditional upon your payment.  To me, that's not sufficient consent.  I want someone I'm having sex with to genuinely, enthusiastically want to have sex with me for the sole purpose of enjoying sex with me.  I don't want to use people as means to ends, and I don't want to be used as a means to anyone else's ends.
I don't morally disapprove of sex work.  I just wouldn't support it because it doesn't provide a good or service that interests me.  I want actual human connection, which is something money cannot buy.  I do morally disapprove of a system that drives people into sex work to get by or get ahead. >


You just can never know for sure whether the sex worker is being trafficked or not. 

This argument can be made for any form of low-skilled labor.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that sex work uses slavery more often than say construction work or weaving baskets.
Your argument applies just as easily to buying a shoe, because it could have been constructed by slaves. >

Your whataboutism does nothing to resolve the moral question. >

“whataboutism” is the new trendy defence for people who've been shown a reductiō ad absurdum it seems.
I'm showing that your argument can just as easily be used to argue the absurd, and that therefore it can't hold much water. Unless one were to believe in the absurd, and would believe that there is a problem with buying shoes or about any product. >

Again, none of what you've said addresses the moral dilemma in question.  Moral questions can't be hand-waved away with empty rhetorical devices.  This is still a question of how our choices impact the lives and well-being of others.  The fact that we live in a world run by greed does not alleviate the moral burden of making this decision responsibly. >

I don't think there is a solid " yes " or " no " answer to this question. There are so many ( but if's)  that it's hard to give more than just an opinion.


Speaking from a Christian perspective, morally, yeah, it's wrong. Because sex is  seen as something that's sacred that should be shared between 2 consenting married adults. 


But if a woman isn't being forced in any type of way, shape, or form and she simply enjoys cash & realized opening her legs to buyers can get her lots of cash, that's her business. Not anyone else's. >

Trying to justify yourself? >

What is unjustifiable here? >

I recently visited one. Frankly I just sought for intimacy. I asked them to kiss me and just take it slow. Because that’s what I miss in my life: intimacy.
I noticed a lot of people have an opinion on it. I can never tell my parents nor my friends. You can only blame me to be socially maladjusted. I have tried all things I could in dating beforehand and frankly it didn’t work.
So… I think it’s something in my character to seek for a prostitute. I don’t think it should be condemned because everyone seeks what I am seeking. Only difference is some people can find it over Tinder or in their social circles, and I have to pay for it. Sorry, I wish it was different but it isn’t. >

Interesting post.  Thanks.
What would you see that would make you change your mind?

sex is considered intimate and special to some people 

What if sex is objectively intimate and special, as opposed to “some people” finding it subjectively intimate and special?  Would that change your mind? >

I think in context of religion and this kind of view yes but if you lack this,  you are Into causal sex ,and support sex work I don't get it >

Thanks for the response.
Let’s back up…I think we are missing each other.  The sub is called r/changemyview, so I first want to understand your view and then have you tell me what would change it.  Alternatively, if nothing would change it, I would like to know that, too.
I think your argument is the following:
P1:  Moral oppobrium is an appropriate response only to moral failures.
P2:  There is no moral aspect to a consensual sex act.
C1:  Therefore, moral oppobrium is not appropriate for (uncoerced) sex workers and their patrons.
Do I have that right?  If not, please correct me. >

You do >

What about how awfully the punters treat the women who work in prostitution, as this article (and many others) reveals? Would you not look down on these men because of this? >

I would  but not all men who hire sex workers do this , also this is not a specifically sex worker problem , it can happen even in the confines of a relationship , do you also look down on men who enter relationships with women or just the men who are abusive because it also applies in the cases of sex work  porn is part of sex work
Some of the other issues come with the job which like it or not the one who aren't trafficked  consent to it , like the idea that they don't get hired for other jobs , then things like racism , sexual harassment  violence , addiction being a single mom has nothing to do with sex work >

It's seen as a character flaw because people are expected to suppress their need for sex to some extent until they find an actual romantic partner. The fact that they can't do that shows they don't care about the expectation to do so and/or are too focused on getting sex to care. >

paying for sex is paying for consent >

Just like anybody else who works 8 hours for low pay. I didn't know sex was such a horrible thing, or is it just taboo? >

As a sex worker, thank you for this post. A lot of people don't realize that some humans- are incapable of getting laid on their own. Whether it be physical disabilities or emotional /social issues.... Sometimes paying for sex will be the only time certain people ever get touched intimately, and to take that away from...that's really f* up. 
And furthermore; I think it's funny that religious people are totally fine with renting a womb to have a baby- but not my body- which is MINE- for my own reasons (money/pleasure)... >

I am religious, and am definitely NOT okay with renting wombs. In fact, I see it as far more reprehensible than sex work. >

😂 I think you are living a lie/joke so...I think sex work and surrogacy are totally cool >

I don't think people see paying for sex as disgusting so long one be pretty and attractive, to be honest.
People just assume that the people that do so are unattractive, and that's probably something that's often true because why pay a fortune for something that many get obtain for free? >


why pay a fortune for something that many get obtain for free?

Because it's quicker and faster, allows you to fuck 10 great looking chicks at once, puts you in absolute control of what is happening (as they're being hired to pleasure you), and to me it also has a morally iffy and sadistic element which makes it even more enjoyable.
...
But I agree with the first part of your comment though. Besides one single radfem, I've never had a problem with girls judging me for my escort habits, and I'm very open about them. >


Because it's quicker and faster, allows you to fuck 10 great looking chicks at once, puts you in absolute control of what is happening (as they're being hired to pleasure you), and to me it also has a morally iffy and sadistic element which makes it even more enjoyable.

This would also be why visitors of high class prostitutes are not stereotyped to be so unattractive, but simply wealthy, as those prostitutes tend to fit the stereotypes you describe.
But most prostitutes are in fact known to provide exceptionally poor sex, which makes paying for it seem even more desperate. They are not as well trained as the high class ones that cost even more.

But I agree with the first part of your comment though. Besides one single radfem, I've never had a problem with girls judging me for my escort habits, and I'm very open about them.

Then I would assume you are quite good looking, and that you call them “escorts” and your experiences with them also implies you are of considerable monetary means.
However, I will say that if you simply say online “I visit prostitutes regularly.”, that most will assume you are not. >

On one hand, we shouldn't judge people.  On the other hand, it's good to have strong moral beliefs.  One of my beliefs is that sex outside of marriage is very immoral.  Reducing it to a business transaction is even worse. >

What is worse about it being a business transaction? >

Not OP, but perhaps because it is the most brazen reduction of sex/human intimacy to instrumental/transactional term possible. >

And why is that bad? Worse than just sex outside of marriage? >

My comment could not be a more direct response to that question. >

You did not explain how it is bad at all. You mearly claimed that it IS bad. You claimed that it becomes a transaction therefore it is bad. Nowhere at all in your post did you explain why it being a transaction is bad. >

Actually, I did.  I specified what distinguishes it from standard fornication/adultery.
If you want to ask why reducing human interaction to transactional relationships is bad, then feel free to ask that. >

I already asked that. You just failed to answer it.
I asked and why is that bad? You claimed to have already answer that question when you clearly have not.
Hopefully the third time is the charm. >

I’ll give you one answer: consent.  
If people are doing something for money that they wouldn’t have otherwise done, then it’s coercion, not consent.  
I don’t really have a problem with sex workers, it’s their free will and their safety, they can make their own decisions (although saying that, their existence can harm those being trafficked and similar). But again, I’m not here to shame them or anything like that, we all have to work for money. But I do have a problem with people who buy sex. They are knowingly and purposefully engaging in coercion and a form of rape. If that person wouldn’t have slept with you without the money, then I think you should think harder about what you’re doing. Also, doesn’t it feel gross to use someone like that? Doesn’t it feel inauthentic and psychopathic? Doesn’t it feel like you’re taking advantage of someone?  
I just know it gives me a major “ick.”  
To better answer your question, you could frame it with power. As a power dynamic, it’s one person with an economic advantage using a person with a worse economic position. It’s very different from a genuine relationship/encounter (that is based on emotions or connection, rather than finances/transaction). >

>If people are doing something for money that they wouldn’t have otherwise done, then it’s coercion, not consent.
What an utterly absurd statement. By that logic my boss is coercing me to work for him? How in the world is someone CONSENTING to sex for financial gain rape?  What do you mean to use someone like that? That is quite a degrading way of looking at sex.
How have you reached the conclusion that paying someone for their services is taking advantage of them? >

Because men shame women for receiving money for sex, hence words like whore and slut. >

So why are women disagreeing with prostitution as well >

as the top comment mentioned, prostitution is rarely consensual. There is almost always someone forcing/coercing the woman to perform and subsequently taking a large chunk - source DOJ employee who works in this field >

Do you believe this in all forms of sex work >

Yes. The porn industry has a huge problem with this. >

Making brothels legal in the uk (where I'm from) could be a start. Would be so much safer for women >

I agree with this >

I am open for sex work to become legal. I'm not a fan of it myself, but it would cut down on the drama and bs.
As for myself, I can't sleep with one. They burned me and I lashed out. No biggie, though. I realized that I need intimacy as much as sex. At least a conversation and some good laughs first.
You can't pay for intimacy. >

There can be intimate moments with a prostitute. I've already met hundreds of escorts and with a substantial amount of them I've developed at the very least some friendship bond — in other cases we eventually even dated for free.
But if you want to find that sort of thing in prostitution you'll need to know which kind of girl is really your type and also which kind of girl is also likely to see you as THEIR type, so it's reciprocal.
I have more success in bonding with cuter, baby-faced girls, whether they're prostitutes or not. >

NO. Selling your body is a very degrading work that screams your inability to creat value in life. Not only donyou not respect yourself because you are willing to give yourself for a limited anout of time but it is a traumatic job. Prostitutes always sleep very bad at night and develop mental issues on the long run. Your relation eith sex will be very bad amd you can not find a decent partner: no one want to date someone that get spit in the mouth every day.. To continue, you will never be proud of your day and what you accomplished. 
If it is socially unacepted in every civilisation throughout history it is probably for a reason. 
I am not trying to be rude: it is just the arsh truth. If people are looking at the post with the hope to feel better about this job: they are doing the wrong choice. However being an escort is extremely easy for a woman and can get you decent money. The peice for this money however is your self >

- What steps do you take to make sure the sex worker is not being abused or ttraffiqued?
- Personally, I see having to pay for sex as a red flag. Why cannot you just meet someone and have sex? Casual sex happen all the time with no payment involved. I would be very suspicious of a person that pays for sex not only because it demostrates a lack of social skills, but also because the power dynamic is not healthy when payment is involved for sex. >


judgment of one's character

You included consent (a moral belief) and non-trafficking (a moral belief), but ignored in terms of natural monogamy (a biological construct resulting in a moral belief).
Why? You say it's because some people like to separate sex from what society naturally deems to be its place. Consent is separated from sex in other societies. So is trafficking to some degrees. So some people think it's okay. By your own Logic - it would follow that you see neither of those as a flaw or disgusting either. 
You're missing a premise that separates transactional sex from trafficking or consent. >

Please can you elaborate further I don't understand >


You're missing a premise that separates transactional sex from trafficking or consent.

Monogamy is a natural human construct. It's seen numerous different animals - we are not unique in that sense. It's what created our societies. There is an inherent societal reliance on familial progression for stability. We can't ignore that as an foundational aspect of our entire society as a whole (civilization). It's what makes social existence a human practice.
Transactional sex is one of the antithesis features of this system, along with violating consent, and trafficking (among others). Sex is a necessary ingredient of our functional society - but only in the context of progressing our society. We've been afforded the opportunities in recent years to allow this to be far less strict (e.g., birth control, reliable condoms, vasectomies, abortion, etc).
Sex outside of the context of pursuing this ideal is generally seen as less than because it really is less than what we need. It's an entirely selfish exercise - with no benefit to society, only one individual - two at best, and that's only if the sex worker is doing so for fun, not necessary means (which would place it back in the context of being outside of the natural state).
In these terms, transactional sex is no different then trafficking or violating consent - because you're still well outside of the natural system. Maybe some day we will exist in a society where there is no potential of human exploitation - but I highly doubt it. And until that time - our reliance on the structure of nature that made us what we are should not be ignored for $20 rub tugs in the parking lot. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm just saying I'm looking down on it. >

So your view point is that you view monogamy the basis of human interaction , having something outside of it is already deviating but transactional is the direct opposite which is why you are opposed to it !delta >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/StrangerThanGene (2∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Ive paid and will again at some point. I think its great. People should be able to enjoy sex just as easily as a cheeseburger. This idea that it has to be some grand intimate meeting of the souls in love forming a union blah blah blah …fuck that it feels great! >

As someone who has paid for sex LITERALLY hundreds of times and who deeply likes pornography BECAUSE the girls are just doing it for the money, I can perfectly understand why we'd be seen as evil or disgusting — even though I think that this affirmation only holds true because of society's taboos regarding sex.
Modern humans live in a system on which, by design, most people can't live without "selling their lives" to some economically productive activity. And even then, many workers can't make a proper living because of their low education and opportunities.
Therefore, for many women (and also some men), letting their bodies be used for sex becomes a way to live with bettter financial conditions, or, also way too commonly, a way for single mothers to provide for their children. HOWEVER, because sex is seen as something dirty, this ends up taking a mental toll on the person, and can often result in the person feeling regretful or depressed — and often the record the sex worker set can't be left behind.
In this context, while the real blame relies on the economic system, elites, and on humanity as a whole for not being able to overcome such system (as prostitutes usually "choose" to prostitute themselves as a "choice" between the very limited options the system provides), the more direct "profiteers" of the situation of a prostitute (besides eventual pimps) are the clients. They can use another human's body and take pleasure out of it even though the other person is dying inside for doing so.
I personally like the "sex trade" thing BECAUSE of its inherent sadism. TBH, I don't like that much girls who look like they were poor and became prostitutes because of it, but rather girls who seem to have been more spoiled but who ended up in the prostitution world for familiy issues, dumb life choices or something, but that does not change my point.
Given that I already met so many escorts and even took some of them on (non-paid, they actually wanted to be there) dates, I was able to listen a lot of their feelings and stories. Not all prostitutes are dying inside, some seem to really like the thrill, and many of them quite like the fact that men ask them "how much" and are willing to pay to get laid with them, but it's extremely common for an escort to describe crying after starting this job, talking about abuse or other issues, etc.
And, as a sex buyer, I'm taking advantage of that. In my case in particular, consciously enjoying her fake moans and how she needs to lube the hell out of her vagina as it isn't really wanting to take a dick as I'm plowing her.
BUT, OF COURSE...
I think that seeing me as the sole profiteer and the girl as the sole victim of the circumstance is shallow, short-sighted and manacheistic, because sex workers profit from emotional vulnerabilities of the buyers, as well as from addiction-like patterns.
You can often feel ripped off as a sex buyer, sex workers may take advantage of you, and your sex buyer ways can also be a product of some bullying , trauma and oppressions you experienced earlier.
Therefore, the same way that prostitutes' emotional suffering is being used for the buyer's sexual pleasure and some people's monetary gain, the buyer's money and their addictions, insecurities, etc., can also bring a profit to the prostitute and other people involved in the market.
So I think that prostitution isn't exactly an innocent activity like any other... I think that there is a sadistic and morally iffy element inherent to it, but I also think that humans' morality is way too complex for ome to make a good/ bad judgement based on something like that.
I'm not good nor bad, I'm human.
A day I took pleasure in a cute girl telling me about how terrible were her experiences sucking old swallowed dick for money, another day I showed up at her brothel just because she called me to soothe her emotionally (no sex and no money involved) after a though experience with another client.
There are way too many intricacies in human behavior to make binary judgementa and label people in this way. >

I actually do think you are a disgusting person. Enjoying others suffering because of the inherent sadism. Using their emotional suffering for sexual pleasure. And then stating that you are not good or bad, just human. No, that is not human. You are a bad person if you enjoy others suffering and actively seek that. You should be ashamed and look for a therapist. >

The only difference between me and most people, you included, is self-awareness. We all have our perversions, in the psychological sense of the word, the difference only being that some of us are aware of them, while others are näive and rationalize the shit they make to feel better about themselves.
For instance, do you think that the way you just talked to me is good? Do you think that anyone will read this judgemental, patronizing message and think "oh, they're right, I'm gonna change my ways"?
No.
You're just trying to insult and to talk down to other person to feel better about yourself, in a context that your brain can rationalize as "he is a bad person, therefore, it is fair to insult him".
You're not making the world a better place by behaving like this, you are just exercising your own perversions and actually even reinforcing my desire to do stuff like that that I described, so that I can make empty-headed people like you get quite mad about how the world really is and feel like I'm able to act how I want despite an hypocritical society's judgement.
By the way, I do therapy for years now. I'd recommend you did the same, and also that, if you're currently doing it, you changed your therapist. Because this lack of understanding of humans' complexity isn't to be expected from anyone who has a minimum of self-knowledge. >

​
Yes having self awareness is a step in the right direction but just accepting flaws and not even attempting to do something about them bcs. "Well I've done my part, I know I have a problem" is just the lazy route. Having perverted fantasies and role playing them is one thing. Actually enjoying others suffer is different, just doesn't sit right with me.
No, I am just genuinely disgusted by what you said there. I don't think someone is gonna change bcs of what I said but what I read there just sickened me. If you hear someone making racist comments towards someone - of course saying something will not change the racists view but sometimes one just can't help but say something and express their disagreement.
Again - I'm not trying to feel better about myself but had to say something to express my disgust. I'm not saying I'm a great person either but I draw the line at actually liking to know/see others suffer. If it's for sexual pleasure and one can be sure the other one enjoys it, too - then fine, that is none of my business and great for them. But the scenarios you've described are not you enjoying consensual kinky/pervy stuff with someone but liking to know/see/have someone experience (possibly) traumatic events and that is just wrong. 
Yeah humans are complex and I am fine with people taking pleasure in seeing others suffer a bit physically for sexual pleasure if they are on board and ultimately also enjoying it. Enjoying others actual trauma - nah man, that's the line right there. >

The self-awareness I referred to isn't about recognizing that "I have a problem" regarding my sadism, whether it needs or not to be fixed — I have some self-recognized problems and I want to fix them, but enjoying prostitution isn't one of those.
Prostitution existed and will exist for as long as there is social inequality. And it has been seen and will still be seen as something degrading, as long as societal views of sex don't change.
Whether I hire escorts or not and whether I have a power trip watching girls accept dregading stuff for cash or not does not change anything at all. They accept it for they need the cash to live and think prostitution is the "best" choice they have among the options society gives them. Taking away prostitution from them would just leave them in even worse vulnerability, unless there's major economic growth and societal reform, both things which are out of my reach to perform.
What I'm saying is that I don't feel like I should change this at all. My sadism is multifaceted. I used to say that "the world is cruel, so at least let me jerk off to that", and I guess that really explain my views. That does not mean that I'm a terrible person that actively hurt people in situations that I'm in control of, I just don't freak out when what I do isn't relevant.
TBH, sometimes I actively hurt people and felt good for it, so maybe I'm a jerk. But it's not like I feel CONSISTENTLY good about it. I may feel empowered at first but like shit afterwards, as it seems to me that I'd only hurt people to feel better because I don't feel good about myself on my own.
Still, I only ever do real mean things towards people that I do not have empathy for. I'd never mistreat someone I deem as cute. I could, however, enjoy their suffering and for that I wouldn't feel guilty at all. I'm part masochistic as well, and I always take pleasure in my suffering. The debts I acquired when younger thanks to sex purchase, the heartbreak and suicidal thoughts my ex (who was as sadistic as I am) caused me when she ghosted me, etc., all of that motivated me to masturbate a couple times, lol. >

First thing I'd like to adress is I don't think that young girls not having the opportuniy to go into porn or prostitution would leave them more vulnerable, I am certain having to sell ones body is the most vulnerable position one can be in. If there were no prostitution at all (in the past or in the distant future) people would/will work out other ways. Sex work is, as you've stated yourself, inherintly degrading and nobody should have to experience that because they have to make a living. But that's a whole different story.
(edit: one thing that I remembered I forgot - you say you'd never mistreat someone you deem as cute - does that only refer to their exterior or do you mean their character? Because only not mistreating attractive/cute people - not cool in my book. And your definition of suffering is important here, too. Do you mean actual suffering or both way pleasurable suffering? In the sense that the "suffering" person is not inflicted mental pain or physical pain they actually do not want.)
I never said you are a bad person for enjoying prostitution - that is your right and I'm happy you enjoy that. It's the enjoying actual trauma stuff that I find worrysome and that, as stated, just doesn't sit right with me and with the way I view the world. I want everybody to be happy without hurting others and I guess people enjoying suffering just makes me sad and angry because of my utopian wish for eyerybody to be at least remotely happy.. Don't get me wrong, I'm not that good a person either and I have thought about our discussion and found such behaviour in myself, too. When i see a child throw a fit in the supermarket and cry bcs they don't get the toy they want I actually laugh internally bcs. ... I don't even know why. I guess I could excuse it with me viewing such children as behaving like assholes in a way but of course thats no real excuse and my internal reaction to that is still wrong. My own example is just different to yours, at least in my opinion, because a kid crying over a toy is different to the mental scars that years, or even singular incidents, of exposure to humiliating sexual experiences, will have on a human. And if I imagine myself in such situations I think it must be just absolutely terrible, painful and shaming, whereas I as a kid myself have often not gotten toys and I do not suffer because of that, but it was surely for the best.
I think what I actually fear, also in the comment you made, is the "real" sadism. We are social creatures and our biologically programmed answer to the sound of crying, for example, is to know that something is wrong and ultimately try to help. I feel like "real" sadism, not for sexual pleasure, I get that and have that, too, is...just wrong. If it was "normal" for humans to enjoy seeing others suffer - we wouldn't be a civilization, we wouldn't be social animals, right..?
I have to admit though, I get the humiliation for sexual pleasure part. And I'm not trying to kink shame, either. If that was the message I conveyed, I am sorry. The fact, and what you haven't mentioned before, that you actually feel bad afterwards sheds a different light on it. What I still wonder though is: do you feel bad afterwards solely because you realize that you only enjoyed that bcs. you feel bad yourself? Or do you also feel bad because you enjoyed someone elses actual pain? I mean actual in the sense of real pain, which they do not draw any pleasure out of. If it's the ladder then I revoke my statement or implication (I dont remember right now) saying that you are a bad person. If you only feel bad afterwards bcs. you yourself feel bad - that is selfish.
If you feel bad for the other person as well then I get your kink. In that case,  you just happen to enjoy actual pain of others for whatever reason and if that is so and you do not ever cause it yourself, but only "feed" your desires off of things that have already happened and that noone can change - I guess that is fine.
But I stand by my point that causing especially mental, lasting damage in people on purpose and enjoying that, is wrong and I have a problem with that.
If you enjoy that damage in others and can get it without them hurting more - then you can enjoy it. It's not up my alley but it doesn't have to be. Just please, treat other people with the respect and dignity they deserve. Don't be the person they will tell the next customer about. Don't hurt others please. >

I'm at my 9 to 5 right now, so I won't be able to respond you for a few hours, but I think this conversation can be interesting so I'd like to ask you to please check back when I answer this later today. >

Who was it that said that sex work is coercive by default because if you have to pay someone to have sex with you, it means they don't want to have sex with you? >

It is so incredibly difficult to be sure a woman in sex work is not being trafficked. You set this parameter "as long as they are not being trafficked," and that's easy to say in theory. But in reality, how can their client know? A trafficked woman and a non-trafficked woman will say the same things to their client. People who trafficked women will make a lot of effort to give the appearance the women aren't being trafficked.
There's nothing inherently bad about patronizing sex workers in theory. In theory, non-coercive sex work is possible. But in our current society, the conditions for that theoretical scenario exist infrequently, and it is basically impossible to verify them as a client.
Men who pay for sex have to accept they are Schrodinger's rapists. >

Former sex worker here 👋  I actually loved being a sex worker. Don't get me wrong there were times where I didn't realize someone was stinky, rude or too pushy until after the first appointment. BUT then I could just block them! I actually developed a unique relationship with the people I seen. And believe it or not made love to a couple. I however was a renegade which means I did not have a pimp. And I did on and off for like 4 years. It was just a refreshing experience because these men are paying for a service and most don't waste their time lying and saying "I love you, I want to be with you" when they don't mean it. There were definitely a couple that did but for the most part we both had our desires on the table and got to have a fun time! And I met a lot of guys that I would've had sex with for free if I had met them in another setting. Can't be giving the product away now! >

I can see this being a double standard for women. >

WEll the ones that thinking how disgusting those who engage in sex for money are mostly women and as far as those being trafficed are women . so what is the reality of those who oppose sex for money . women dont want to be having to compete with some call girl who indulges their husbands sexual fantasies and thus takes money away from her . oh and the kids as an extra guilt card to play. any guy that has a sexual appetite and doesnt have a wife who has done more sexual kink before getting married . and since being married simply wont do those disgusting things with the husband but come to find out she was an unofficial porn star while dating before that guy who married her came along. this is more accurate than you think . although the trafficking is a very real problem , I think if a senators daughter disappeared we would be seeing a substantial crackdown on this topic . butits too straight forward this tit for tat arrangment . and what wife wants a husband who wont be manipulated by using sex as a weapon. men pay period . its a matter of pride or ego that prevents men to open their eyes and see just how much they are paying . if a man has a call girl over two or three times a week compared to a wife who is just as likely to not be in the mood or just too tired and if things go right he gets a watered down version of what she is really capable of. not to mention the divorce rate and what is he going to lose there . GF s are only gonna last so long before its where is this relationship going chat comes up. meaning if you want me to stick around its time to get married or else im out. now this coming from the same one who lovebombs you and is really happy just a month or two before is now talking business with ultimatums now. and will leave if they dont get that engagement ring and soon . while they swore their undying love it comes with a price. they will be married to somebody in 6 months to a year. its amazing how they are crying their eyes out one minute and met her real love a month later. Seen this plot a few times. >

Gross >

I like this topic, really got the gears turning!
Personally I don’t see it as disgusting unless non consensual, which is a whole other argument, but I do see it as a flaw in character in both participating parties.
For many us, it takes a lot mental,physical, and social harm to drop our personal barriers low enough to put ourselves in such vulnerable situations. Whether it’s serving or being served.
Sex is a part of the human experience, just like many other human interactions. To add monetary value to it just makes it a “thing”.
To buy human interactions discounts the experience because one didn’t have to develop their character qualities to give them selves the opportunity to enjoy sex in its full totality.
To sale human interactions keeps those who haven’t developed those qualities from ever developing. >

I wouldn't go as far as saying it's disgusting but it is a service.. and is one of the oldest trades in history so... No judgement here >

Depends on the person for one sex is meaningless and for another it is sacred. Nothings wrong about it. It comes down to what sex means to you. I see it the same as food. I think food is meant to be fuel for your body and everyone should eat healthy but if someone wants to eat junk food then they can do that as they please >

It generally shows you can't get pussy without paying for it. Which is a turn off for most girls
The exception being you need to fufill some kink that cannot be done with your gf. Like an orgy, scat, etc... >

Sounds like the middle man or pimp would be considered disgusting or coercive. But if two consenting adults having a one night stand is acceptable then why does money change anything? >

It signals desperation and a lack of choices, which signals that one is not desired.
It's sort of like buying a trophy because you can't earn one >

So it’s fine to have sex with a woman who wouldn’t otherwise if she needed money? No one likes people who capitalize on someone’s desperation. >

Yes. I need to pay for sex I just don’t know how to and where at. Lol >

No, but providing it should because it pits the artificial (money) against the organic (body) which is historically ALWAYS the losing decision. >

Agree or disagree: viewing no strings attached sex as morally problematic is morally wrong. 
I think the underlying issue is really the above. >

You can think anything you want in terms of what’s legitimate to ridicule or look down on other people for, but at the end of the day, our reasons for thinking poorly about someone isn’t logical. For example, physical intimacy is nothing I’ve ever had a scarcity of, so maybe I judge people who can’t figure out how to get laid. My wife felt insecure as a kid because a wealthier friend made an offhand comment about my wife’s house only having one door (kids are dumb and this girl thought lots of doors means lots of money because your house is so big you have multiple points of entry). You can’t govern people’s thoughts >

Everybody pays. In some way or another. It may not be a cash transaction, but everybody pays. >

The girl wants sex. You want more than sex. Lets not pretend here apparently most men paying for sex are sad dudes. Its not good for them. Lets say some think goddamn this chick is hot. Its a human being not a fleshlight, the man get there he réalise that its weird im pretty sure. 
Dont think that those women have a sane mind or mife. They get disrespected every day.. they do things they dont enjoy, they cant enjoy getting fucked 10 times a day, they will end up with sickos essing them up. 
Its disgusting because everyone suffer. And if you partage its a flaw of character. Maybe some farfetched therapetic thing for clients i guess.. maybe. >

So you believe both in cases of no trafficking both the supplier and consumer suck as people >

They quck at taking care of themselves yes. And be decent to others theres a good chance. >

Please rephrase you answer I don't understand >

Sure. 
They dont respect themselves or take care of themselves. And theres a good chance they're not good people to be around. >

You see sex work overall  it as morally reprehensible and you consider both parties to be equally as bad !delta