I find this argument to be singularly unconvincing.  I am sure plenty of people sat around at one point and said 'well, slavery has been "the standard" for a long time now.  Who are we to go against what the majority wants?'.  It didn't make it right.  It is cowardice to me. 

Something about the way you worded that doesn't make sense to me. I'm having trouble following.

It was not a comparison to slavery per sey as much as it is an indictment of it being ok simply because it is 'the standard' and because the majority is ok with it.  I thought that was a pretty simply analogy.  Either I am not being clear or you are intentionally misconstruing my point because it suits your view to do so.  But if you wish to argue about slavery, have at it. 

And as for me being anonymous behind my computer terminal, do you want to know my name and address?  While I fail to see how this would help make your point any more valid, we can be non-anonymous if you desire.  After all, you are just as anonymous behind your computer terminal, and you are arguing against.  So obviously stating who you are is not a requirement for the pious either. 

*sigh*

You are missing the point.  Again. 

I think the 'problem' here is that some people find it hard to think in terms of 'the form' of an argument - they just want to grapple witrh the argument itself.

What is being said is that there were things which were 'the standard' way of thinking about a subject - and these have changed.  In moral terms, there was the idea of 'manifest destiny' which saw the ethnic cleansing of vast tracts of land - the majority accepted it then, the majority don't now.  In medical terms, standard view was that the body was a balance of four humours and one's temperament was determined by which humour was dominant - so I could be sanguine (jolly) because of excess blood, someone else could be choleric, etc - the majority believed it then, the majority don't now, in current particle physics we actually have a Standard View (so named with not a little knowingness - it will almost certainly change).

Whenever we are 'on the cusp' of a change of view, there are always angry voices for and agin the old/new.  Some are so wedded (or even welded) to 'standard' views that the very thought of examining invokes apoplexy.   This is irritating and frustrating for those who wish to see change, but is a fairly essentially human situation:  changing fundamental views is costly in terms of mental energy, and often is for little gain to the individual.  We are 'designed' (by evolution...) to be conservative, but also to be capable of change where it is obviously to 'our' advantage...   Understanding that the 'our' here refers to the whole of humanity rather than just self is another tricky area....

Reasonable people say that behavior that impinges on other people's rights is immoral - otherwise it is simply a matter of personal choice.

It's like I accept to be your friend: it's only $100 per day.
It's wrong because it's much better without money.

--------------------

Because I don't want want this type of answer:
(Sorry I didn't respnd earlier, I was away for 3 weeks.)

Everybody knows or feels that both are not good nor totaly wrong etc
What I want to do is to put back to back the two practices.

If I accept answers in between, there will be no debate. And as a matter of fact I see that it's very difficult to get poeple talking about porn VERSUS prostitution (wether you find both OK or that others finds both wrong doesn't interrest me much).
 
-------------------


Leo, you are too young to know how a man who see his whife getting older and older may feel when he see glamour models still as young as 20 years before.
I'm not yet (Thanks God!!!) in this case but when I see whives of men barely older than me, I'm frightened.
But porn is accelerating this process. IMO many men would honor their whife much longer in their life if they were not distracted or illusioned by porn.
-------------------

I don't think so. In a given society in a given country there is a majority of girls who doesn't go prostitute and a very small minority who does. Obviousely most those who don't, don't all die of starvation.
(At least not in extreme poverty situations.)

The problem is that when a woman start to be a whore, she fall in trap where she doesn't not have choice anymore, mostly because she un-learned how to work normaly. The most difficult for them after years of doing only that, is to stop and get a normal job.

-------------------


I don't think that the guy who buy a porn magazine is to blame for the porn industry abuses (if any). The magazine publisher is.
Why? Because when we buy something like that, we suppose that all models are there by their own will and consent and know what they are doing and earn tons of money doing that.

IMO, the number of men who would enjoy (or even be able to get a hard-on) with a forced prostitute or forced porn while they know or notice it's beeing forced on, is very small. Yet those who enjoy that already feed a large portion of this industry as do pedophiles and other types of clients but they don't represent men in general. IMO, most men want happy and consenting partners.

So when we heard of seminars on sex trafficking etc, few men in the West would feel concerned or guilty because few of tem have made use of it. Even those who made use of prostitution couldn't decide of anything as the sexual intercourse is concerned. The prostitute is dictating everything from A to Z, what clothes she chooses to keep on and to take off, the posititon, the speed, the time, absolutely everything and the guy has obey and be content with that or go fuck himself because dozen of clients are lining up outside. That's the way it is in western countries.

In some areas of the world it may be different, but then, go ask the men there.
And even there, I think most of the men would be naturaly disgusted at forced sex labor.
The image of the terrorized teenage girls almost crying is not very exiting to us, believe me.
--------------------