So, uh... where does the thing about most real-life prostitutes being "very intelligent [and] good" people come from?
Hide / Show Replies
Well, I haven't heard any evidence for prostitutes in particular being "very intelligent and good" as a group. It sounds like someone going out of their way to paint it rose-colored.
So you're disagreeing. Do you have any evidence to the contrary that they're any different from people who aren't?
Do you? I don't think it's fair to label those who take up prostitution as an exceptionally smart, moral group of people.
Edited by Caswin
There's nothing in there that says they're "exceptionally" smart, just that they're no worse than anyone else who isn't.
That's how I read "very intelligent" (and "very good"). Again, it sounds like a sugarcoating of the, ahem, trade.
Edited by Caswin
Ahh, I was hoping you wouldn't call me on that. Actually, that brings me to a question: If we can't take moral "negotiability" (to put it politely) and any problems inherent in selling your body for granted, then where does the part about being tricked or kidnapped come in?
Edited by Caswin
To show that many of them aren't even in the trade by choice, contrary to popular belief. And for the ones that do, so what? That doesn't make you a so-called "bad" person. It just means you like sex. What you consider so-called "moral" isn't the same as what others see as "moral".
Well, I guess I won't be able to change your mind about that, although I suppose that puts me in the same position to make a so-called judgment the people who do so-called "bad" things, like kidnapping or tricking them into it, as the people who "like" sex and decide to start selling it to strangers — which is actually nowhere near the same thing, but I'm getting sidetracked and I'm sure this isn't the place. Moral relativism aside, that actually wasn't my question, though I didn't make it very clear.
Edited by Caswin
Kidnapping/tricking people hurts and harms others. Consensual sex does not, and there is nothing wrong with it, whether paid for or not. The two are nothing alike. I can't believe you even made that comparison...don't take this the wrong way, but I see this as a form of prejudice and discrimination.
Edited by soojinyeh
Sorry, was just going by the last sentence (what I consider so-called "moral"...) there. That said, while I'm not ready to argue about the particulars of what's wrong with having carefree sex regardless of love or commitment — and I'm glad we got that out there — I'm going to have to vigorously deny the charge of prejudice and discrimination. That said (in full awareness of how little this accomplished to begin with), I don't think I can justify using up any more discussion space at this point.
After all this time, should this still be a separate trope?
What "Hooker with a heart of gold" basically amounts to is an unexpected motherly character providing a hope spot in an otherwise crapsack world. I remember seeing several similar characters in fiction that weren't hookers but essentially fulfill the same role, usually in situations of the kind "hero has been captured by <evil overlord> of the <evil tribe>, but meet the compassionate <evil kings daughter/servant/rat that lives in the hole in the wall > .