Prostitution and presumed double standards

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If it's your job then it's not a favor, it's a service.

If they're the same things people in other contexts get paid to do, they may as well be the same thing.

They're not the same thing at all.

No. That isn't the case at all.

I didn't say "exclusively." But yes, that is the reputation bars as a whole have. Why else do you more often see men buy women drinks than the reverse?

You completely misunderstand the point of the drink.

[VoVoDoCo]

That wasn’t what I asked. I said what’s worse about getting money as opposed to getting favors. Maybe I miss read your view on the subject though

Maybe, I wasn't explicit that I don't have a problem with prostitution.

Fair enough

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I didn't say "exclusively." But yes, that is the reputation bars as a whole have. Why else do you more often see men buy women drinks than the reverse?

Is there actual proof of this happening to a degree where it's statistically significant?

Firstly, the popularity of YouTube videos about how to approach a girl to offer her a drink. If this wasn't a thing, who's clicking on these videos?

Secondly, the commonality of rape allegations surrounding specifically one partner's drunkenness and the other's lack thereof. If one's conscience doesn't prevent one from committing the crime, a victim's sobriety won't either. If the allegations are true, does this not point to buying someone a drink and then resorting to rape when the victim doesn't provide sexual favours? If the allegations are false, does this not point to the stigma against "being paid to have sex" being a disproportionate incentive to claim it was unwilling? Either way, does it not point to the need for a more honest outlet for this exchange?

Last but not least, how defensive people get (more so on other sites than here) when this sort of thing is brought up. It's as if I've struck a nerve of some sort...

[The Rurkovich Imperium]

Is there actual proof of this happening to a degree where it's statistically significant?

Firstly, the popularity of YouTube videos about how to approach a girl to offer her a drink. If this wasn't a thing, who's clicking on these videos?

The day we use click-bait Youtube videos as equal in rank to actual scientific studies will be the day I've given up all hope in humanity

Secondly, the commonality of rape allegations surrounding specifically one partner's drunkenness and the other's lack thereof. If one's conscience doesn't prevent one from committing the crime, a victim's sobriety won't either. If the allegations are true, does this not point to buying someone a drink and then resorting to rape when the victim doesn't provide sexual favours? If the allegations are false, does this not point to the stigma against "being paid to have sex" being a disproportionate incentive to claim it was unwilling? Either way, does it not point to the need for a more honest outlet for this exchange?

What are you even going on about?

Last but not least, how defensive people get (more so on other sites than here) when this sort of thing is brought up. It's as if I've struck a nerve of some sort...

Or perhaps annoyed you're making sweeping generalizations based on click bait from Youtube?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The day we use click-bait Youtube videos as equal in rank to actual scientific studies will be the day I've given up all hope in humanity

What sort of "studies" are there on this sort of thing? Has someone compiled CCTV footage of every bar that's under surveillance? Have they been able to distinguish "buying her a drink" from "I'll e-transfer you the money afterwards if you hand the bartender the actual physical cash and bring me the drink"?

What are you even going on about?

You haven't noticed how commonly recurring a theme the involvement of alcohol in alleged rapes has been?

Or perhaps annoyed you're making sweeping generalizations based on click bait from Youtube?

We all encounter reasoning we consider "annoying." Not all of us react angrily. Something else happened.

[Samadhi]

The objections to prostitution generally seem to come in one of two categories.

A: That it's wrong to have casual sex. (Even though casual sex is perfectly legal.)

B: That it's wrong to pay for sex at all. (Even though gold-digging, sugar mamas, sugar daddies, etc... are perfectly legal.) This often comes with "guilt by association" reasoning in the form of naming individual examples of prostitutes who were coerced (which isn't inherent in the job) or were desperate (which applies to many other jobs that are perfectly legal) but even if guilt by association were valid, this still doesn't establish whether the problem is the act itself or the criminalization, and therefore, for the purposes of this thread, it doesn't count.

For context, let's just establish one reality. If you're caught hiring a prostitute, you go straight to jail, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200.

In the United States, this ends in a notoriously brutal prison sentence, likely complete with beatings and rapes from other prisoners, followed swiftly by release into a society that neither hires criminals nor allows them welfare. Indignation to johns must be pretty intense among voters to drive such a response.

Nordic countries' criminalization of prostitution, though I disagree with it, is (relatively) less drastic. It doesn't warrant as high a standard of explanation, as it's more rehabilitation-centric and less deterrence-centric.

So when you consider the full context of the extent of prostitution's criminalization, and the fact that Nordic countries are generally more progressive, it's reasonable to presume it is about B to a greater extent; and A to a lesser extent; in Nordic countries than the United States.

This suggests contempt for casual sex to be an irreplaceable ingredient in the severity of indignation at prostitution. And yet, casual sex won't even net you a community service sentence. So without further ado, I want to present 6 things that I will compare and contrast with prostitution such that you can vote on which you think is more morally analogous to it, or less.

1. In any sexual relationship; monogamous or casual; it is nearly impossible for both partners to be of precisely equal sex drive. If one partner is more horny than the other, and the other is only willing to accommodate them in exchange for other favours, and these favours could in other contexts be exchanged for money, is that analogous to prostitution? (Margaret Cho has made this comparison too.)

2. More specifically, there are dating arrangements where people overtly admit it's about the money. (Sugar mama, sugar daddy, etc.) So this establishes a clearer intent to exchange sex directly for money. Is it the monogamous nature of the relationship that prevents it from being counted as prostitution?

3. Child support law establishes a debt; often an overwhelming one; on whichever of a woman's sex partners happened to be the one to impregnate them. Why wouldn't paying for sex, which pools the resources of everyone who has sex, be more morally defensible than just allowing everyone who took the exact same risk to not have to contribute a dime?

4. At bars, drinks are often offered with the implicit arrangement of having sex with the person who offered them a drink later on. Is this analogous to prostitution as well?

5. Porn is compared to prostitution by Family Guy. Is this loophole about the fact that it's on tape and presumably has less potential for abusive situations, or just the average voter's willingness to let them get away with it if they can watch?

EDIT: I completely forgot to mention a sixth.

6. Sex strikes. In the context of sex strikes, women claim to refuse to have sex with men until certain demands are met. (Presumably, males are not cut out for the reverse.) Is this not essentially logically equivalent to "I will have sex in exchange for these favours"?

I've got something to tell you man.

Windows army a type of high definition television and there's these doors that lead to a place called outside.

Should try exploring it a little. It's an amazing place.

Buy someone a drink at a bar and see if you get laid.

[The Rurkovich Imperium]

The day we use click-bait Youtube videos as equal in rank to actual scientific studies will be the day I've given up all hope in humanity

What sort of "studies" are there on this sort of thing? Has someone compiled CCTV footage of every bar that's under surveillance? Have they been able to distinguish "buying her a drink" from "I'll e-transfer you the money afterwards if you hand the bartender the actual physical cash and bring me the drink"?

The word you are looking for is "survey." Questions both open ended or not would be welcome, although I can't imagine anyone choosing the "I'll e-transfer you the money afterwards if you hand the bartender the actual physical cash and bring me the drink" query.

You haven't noticed how commonly recurring a theme the involvement of alcohol in alleged rapes has been?

I will admit that rape and rape allegations are not something I keep on top of, it's a bit of a depressing topic don't you think? But I'll take your word for it: in these instances of alcohol being used only by one party the victim cannot give consent so even if the victim was "ok with it at the time" it's not a valid defense (so far as I'm aware). If both parties are drunk then neither can consent so (again, so far as a I know) it's also not rape. The woman agreeing to free drinks is not agreeing to anything else, just the drinks. So consent is also not derived from that transaction.

We all encounter reasoning we consider "annoying." Not all of us react angrily. Something else happened.

It would depend on these other forums, and again you're making a generalization based on your personal anecdotal experience and perhaps further basing assumptions on preconceived reasons as to why they are acting the way they are. You don't know why they are being defensive. It could be personal experience or it could be a naturally hostile forum. Unless you were able to actually prove one way or the other maybe don't rely on personal anecdotes too much.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

The most similar thing to prostitution is tax evasion.

(Image)

Wait, what? How?

And what relevance is that image? Do you have to include an image in all your posts?

[Antityranicals]

The objections to prostitution generally seem to come in one of two categories.

A: That it's wrong to have casual sex. (Even though casual sex is perfectly legal.)

B: That it's wrong to pay for sex at all. (Even though gold-digging, sugar mamas, sugar daddies, etc... are perfectly legal.) This often comes with "guilt by association" reasoning in the form of naming individual examples of prostitutes who were coerced (which isn't inherent in the job) or were desperate (which applies to many other jobs that are perfectly legal) but even if guilt by association were valid, this still doesn't establish whether the problem is the act itself or the criminalization, and therefore, for the purposes of this thread, it doesn't count.

For context, let's just establish one reality. If you're caught hiring a prostitute, you go straight to jail, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200.

In the United States, this ends in a notoriously brutal prison sentence, likely complete with beatings and rapes from other prisoners, followed swiftly by release into a society that neither hires criminals nor allows them welfare. Indignation to johns must be pretty intense among voters to drive such a response.

Nordic countries' criminalization of prostitution, though I disagree with it, is (relatively) less drastic. It doesn't warrant as high a standard of explanation, as it's more rehabilitation-centric and less deterrence-centric.

So when you consider the full context of the extent of prostitution's criminalization, and the fact that Nordic countries are generally more progressive, it's reasonable to presume it is about B to a greater extent; and A to a lesser extent; in Nordic countries than the United States.

This suggests contempt for casual sex to be an irreplaceable ingredient in the severity of indignation at prostitution. And yet, casual sex won't even net you a community service sentence. So without further ado, I want to present 6 things that I will compare and contrast with prostitution such that you can vote on which you think is more morally analogous to it, or less.

1. In any sexual relationship; monogamous or casual; it is nearly impossible for both partners to be of precisely equal sex drive. If one partner is more horny than the other, and the other is only willing to accommodate them in exchange for other favours, and these favours could in other contexts be exchanged for money, is that analogous to prostitution? (Margaret Cho has made this comparison too.)

2. More specifically, there are dating arrangements where people overtly admit it's about the money. (Sugar mama, sugar daddy, etc.) So this establishes a clearer intent to exchange sex directly for money. Is it the monogamous nature of the relationship that prevents it from being counted as prostitution?

3. Child support law establishes a debt; often an overwhelming one; on whichever of a woman's sex partners happened to be the one to impregnate them. Why wouldn't paying for sex, which pools the resources of everyone who has sex, be more morally defensible than just allowing everyone who took the exact same risk to not have to contribute a dime?

4. At bars, drinks are often offered with the implicit arrangement of having sex with the person who offered them a drink later on. Is this analogous to prostitution as well?

5. Porn is compared to prostitution by Family Guy. Is this loophole about the fact that it's on tape and presumably has less potential for abusive situations, or just the average voter's willingness to let them get away with it if they can watch?

EDIT: I completely forgot to mention a sixth.

6. Sex strikes. In the context of sex strikes, women claim to refuse to have sex with men until certain demands are met. (Presumably, males are not cut out for the reverse.) Is this not essentially logically equivalent to "I will have sex in exchange for these favours"?

I think the best thing to do is just hold that casual sex, gold-digging, pornography and prostitution are all morally wrong, but that they shouldn't be illegal, because they don't actually violate anyone's rights.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I've got something to tell you man.

Windows army a type of high definition television and there's these doors that lead to a place called outside.

Should try exploring it a little. It's an amazing place.

Buy someone a drink at a bar and see if you get laid.

Personal experience can distort your perception of reality, by masquerading as a more representative sample than it actually is.

Suppose for instance I spent my middle school years actively avoiding girls who wanted me when I thought I had my mind made up about which girl I wanted; which curiously people believe me about in this context; yet when I say "eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap" in the context of evolutionary psychology, people imply I'm speaking from experience?

Who gets to say which one of those counts as "personal experience?" Does my experience from back when I was a middle schooler count as evidence against the "eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap" narrative? Or does my experience with those who disagree with that phrase count as evidence they are more likely, than those who agree with it, to be wrong about me, and therefore, by extension, more likely, than those who disagree with it, to be wrong about that phrase as well, therefore counting as evidence in favour of the "eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap" narrative?

Either could count as personal experience, yet they point in opposite directions. It's almost as if "personal experience" was an internally contradictory pile of noise not to be relied upon or something.

To cap it off, I'm averse to the aforementioned risks of sex, and would not want to reverse-cocktease a woman just to prove a point.

[Antityranicals]

The most similar thing to prostitution is tax evasion.

(Image)

Tax evasion is attempting to resist government theft. Prostitution is paid sex. How are these two things similar?

[The Rurkovich Imperium]

The most similar thing to prostitution is tax evasion.

(Image)

Tax evasion is attempting to resist government theft. Prostitution is paid sex. How are these two things similar?

"""theft"""

[Saranidia]

About the “many other jobs with desperate people are legal”
Forcing someone into intercourse is worse than forcing someone to do all or most other jobs.
In some situations(for example a judge ordering community service) forced labour can be a sentence but never rape.

I oppose pornography as roughly equivalent morally.
Also in monogamous relationships it is generally the case that the less horny partner is free to say no when they are not in the mood without the other one refusing to provide for them.
The “sugar daddy” thing is a bit different if it’s monogamous on the part of the girl.

[Antityranicals]

Tax evasion is attempting to resist government theft. Prostitution is paid sex. How are these two things similar?

"""theft"""

Changing the perpetrator doesn't change the act.

[The Rurkovich Imperium]

"""theft"""

Changing the perpetrator doesn't change the act.

Theft would hardly describe taxation considering you and everyone around you benefits directly from it.

[Saranidia]

Yeah there are plenty of double standards for prostitution. But even if there weren’t, I think the legalization of prostitution is necessary if your concern is the well-being and improvement of society.

Prostitution, even without a licensing system, has been known to lead to less sexual assault and sexually transmitted diseases. If you do Instill a licensing sentence, it even can help curtail drug abuse, although you will have less people out in the open so it may also make some prostitutes less safe.

Cite your sources.
Also how can illegal prostitution lead to less STIs?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The most similar thing to prostitution is tax evasion.

(Image)

Tax evasion is attempting to resist government theft. Prostitution is paid sex. How are these two things similar?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479741

Separate thread created. Please do not derail mine.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Yeah there are plenty of double standards for prostitution. But even if there weren’t, I think the legalization of prostitution is necessary if your concern is the well-being and improvement of society.

Prostitution, even without a licensing system, has been known to lead to less sexual assault and sexually transmitted diseases. If you do Instill a licensing sentence, it even can help curtail drug abuse, although you will have less people out in the open so it may also make some prostitutes less safe.

Cite your sources.
Also how can illegal prostitution lead to less STIs?

I don't know what Vovo's basing this on, but I can see how it'd lead to (fewer) STIs. If you were having sex with a "monogamous" partner and you didn't know them as well as you thought, you might catch STIs off whomever they had sex with between or prior to your own sexual encounters with them.

With a prostitute people know there's no reasonable expectation of monogamy and might be a little more cautious.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

About the “many other jobs with desperate people are legal”
Forcing someone into intercourse is worse than forcing someone to do all or most other jobs.

What about slavemasters who whipped their slaves for not picking cotton fast enough? Is that more acceptable than rape?

In some situations(for example a judge ordering community service) forced labour can be a sentence but never rape.

In theory, yeah. In practice, no. Americans sentence prisoners to get raped by each other every time they sentence someone to prison.

I oppose pornography as roughly equivalent morally.

And yet, a majority of voters do not.

Also in monogamous relationships it is generally the case that the less horny partner is free to say no when they are not in the mood without the other one refusing to provide for them.

Paying for sex =/= requiring someone to always be willing to pay for sex 100% of the time.

The “sugar daddy” thing is a bit different if it’s monogamous on the part of the girl.

So what makes this combination of promiscuity and paid sex somehow worse than the sum of its parts?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Changing the perpetrator doesn't change the act.

Theft would hardly describe taxation considering you and everyone around you benefits directly from it.

Libertarians often forget that taxes actually benefit society.

That or they don't care about society at all.

[Samadhi]

I've got something to tell you man.

Windows army a type of high definition television and there's these doors that lead to a place called outside.

Should try exploring it a little. It's an amazing place.

Buy someone a drink at a bar and see if you get laid.

Personal experience can distort your perception of reality, by masquerading as a more representative sample than it actually is.

Suppose for instance I spent my middle school years actively avoiding girls who wanted me when I thought I had my mind made up about which girl I wanted; which curiously people believe me about in this context; yet when I say "eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap" in the context of evolutionary psychology, people imply I'm speaking from experience?

Who gets to say which one of those counts as "personal experience?" Does my experience from back when I was a middle schooler count as evidence against the "eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap" narrative? Or does my experience with those who disagree with that phrase count as evidence they are more likely, than those who agree with it, to be wrong about me, and therefore, by extension, more likely, than those who disagree with it, to be wrong about that phrase as well, therefore counting as evidence in favour of the "eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap" narrative?

Either could count as personal experience, yet they point in opposite directions. It's almost as if "personal experience" was an internally contradictory pile of noise not to be relied upon or something.

To cap it off, I'm averse to the aforementioned risks of sex, and would not want to reverse-cocktease a woman just to prove a point.

Oh shit, are you an incel?

I've never met one before.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Personal experience can distort your perception of reality, by masquerading as a more representative sample than it actually is.

Suppose for instance I spent my middle school years actively avoiding girls who wanted me when I thought I had my mind made up about which girl I wanted; which curiously people believe me about in this context; yet when I say "eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap" in the context of evolutionary psychology, people imply I'm speaking from experience?

Who gets to say which one of those counts as "personal experience?" Does my experience from back when I was a middle schooler count as evidence against the "eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap" narrative? Or does my experience with those who disagree with that phrase count as evidence they are more likely, than those who agree with it, to be wrong about me, and therefore, by extension, more likely, than those who disagree with it, to be wrong about that phrase as well, therefore counting as evidence in favour of the "eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap" narrative?

Either could count as personal experience, yet they point in opposite directions. It's almost as if "personal experience" was an internally contradictory pile of noise not to be relied upon or something.

To cap it off, I'm averse to the aforementioned risks of sex, and would not want to reverse-cocktease a woman just to prove a point.

Oh shit, are you an incel?

I've never met one before.

Nah, I don't think Luna is quite an Incel just yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up one.

[Samadhi]

Theft would hardly describe taxation considering you and everyone around you benefits directly from it.

Libertarians often forget that taxes actually benefit society.

That or they don't care about society at all.

I counted at least four things wrong with this statement.

[The Rurkovich Imperium]

Theft would hardly describe taxation considering you and everyone around you benefits directly from it.

Libertarians often forget that taxes actually benefit society.

That or they don't care about society at all.

reminds me of this

edit; would like to clarify that this is meant as a meta joke, not enticing an argument

[Elwher]

Prostitution is a job choice whereby the worker uses parts of his or her anatomy to satisfy the needs of the client. So is a secretarial service.

What, precisely, is the difference between a prostitute using her fingers to affect sexual release for the client and a secretary using her fingers to type up a letter for a client. Either is a worker performing a service for a client which the client could do for himself (or herself) but the client chooses to hire out, either due to greater experience or convenience.

Like any job, it is not allowable for the worker to be forced into it but if it is a choice made voluntarily, and I consider it voluntary if the choice is taking a job or starving, no matter what the job is, than there should be no problem with it.