I don't know if this thread is the proper place for reflections of this nature, I believe that I'm staying on topic so everything's copacetic.
Luna raised the issue of how it isn't the sex itself that makes this pastime immoral or not, which got me to thinking (I'm prone to being a deep thinker and sometimes think too much for my own good). If one were to really sit down and reflect as objectively as possible, I have a lot of trouble with categorizing sex work as fundamentally immoral. And keep in mind, this is coming from a self-professed conservative, is not like I'm some flower power proponent of free love and the hippie lifestyle or whatever. Sex in and of itself is NOT fundamentally immoral, people who think along those lines have some deep-seated issues that I'm not professionally qualified to help them with. So why would selling sexual services count as immoral then? It counts as goods/services that are in high demand no matter what society one inhabits, seeing as it's a biological imperative that needs to be addressed one way or another. Some women are highly talented when it comes to satisfying a man's sexual needs, thus they make a career out of it, for to put food on the table and a roof over their heads the same way we all need to do.
The arguments censuring the world's oldest profession have a hard time holding up under scrutiny. One argument is the supposed spreading of STD's. That may have held true in prior decades when unprotected sex among strangers was much more prevalent (especially the 90's and the AIDS scare). The counterargument to that is that casual sex among people who just met at a bar carries similar risk of infection, the monetary factor doesn't play a part (and professionals tend to carry out tests much more regularly than the average citizen, plus BBFS providers are few and far between). Another very common accusation is that escorts facilitate adultery, leading married men into temptation. In all due honesty, I'd have to tell those married men that this counts as more of a "you" problem. If the urge to be unfaithful to your spouse is strong enough, it would be just as easy to pick up a loose woman that you just met at the club and drive her to the no-tell motel. Alcohol is the source of a fuckton of societal ills, and conversely, prevents practically the same number. Because drinking makes some men violent, while simultaneously calming other men down and preventing them from being violent. Will we accuse the bartenders and the brewers of being a source of immorality and social decay? We tried that once already a century ago and the experiment failed miserably (well, the Americans did but what is Canada but America Jr., sometimes we go along with their wacky adventures, sometimes we opt out). Suffice it to say, you don't blame the bottle for driving you to drink, same as you don't blame the courtesan for beguiling you into a tryst. You're just giving up your agency and refusing to take responsibility for your own life decisions.
So on the topic of wishing to quit "the hobby" over "sex addiction" (I place it in quotation marks because I am very skeptical of any addiction to something that is not a substance to be ingested, inhaled or injected; if someone mentions "porn/gambling/video game addiction" to me, I'll reply "No, you knobhead, what you're actually addicted to is the release of dopamine, it's all CHEMICALS"), the burden of guilt is not on the hooker but on the john. The good time girls are not doing anything objectively immoral, you're the one engaging in compulsive behavior that can turn harmful for you. Escorts are not bad people with rotten hearts, in fact I would categorize them as considerably less immoral than married men and women who willingly break their vows and engage in adultery. Those are the true harlots. On a more mystical level, need I point out that Mary Magdalene was not to be stoned to death for practicing the occupation of prostitution, but for the accusation that she was an adulteress (leading married men into sin). And Jesus was sufficiently enlightened to tell the difference, thus the whole episode of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". He did not reject her as filthy and immoral, in fact He went as far as to accept her among his most beloved disciples. Food for thought for those who, like me, are inclined towards ruminations of the metaphysical sort.
(I am both a profoundly sexual man as well as a profoundly spiritual man, I tend to analyze things from a metaphysical lens. I'm just weird like that. I suppose me and Prince Rogers Nelson are cut from the same cloth v0v )
