Support NeoGAF

[Metal-Geo]

At least two of my friends have had sex with escorts. I do not look down on them, but I think it's sad that they had to take this path. They're great guys who deserve proper relationships with girls.

Do they want a 'proper relationship with girls' though?

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Desiring sex is the path of the Devil, donchakno, Devo!

/jk

Seriously, I have no idea why people demonize desires so much, specially in this so called modern age.

 

[7threst]

Any parts of the world that do this?

I think they pretty much do this here in Holland, yes. However, even here prostitution is full of shady practices.

 

[Femmeworth]

How do some people think that business men, athletes, soldiers or even politicians (let's be honest) get sex when they're not at home? Are they merely desperate losers? We are so quick to demonize people who seek sex even though a bunch of people obviously want it and go through a bunch of motions just to get it. It pisses me off how we think we're so progressive but when it comes to sex we're all so judgmental and full of shit.

Masturbation? Then again, that is sort of looked down upon too. Sex toys, for men at least, need to be more socially acceptable.

 

[Devolution]

Desiring sex is the path of the Devil, donchakno, Devo!

/jk

Seriously, I have no idea why people demonize desires so much, specially in this so called modern age.

I don't either. Apparently a high sex drive or desiring sex is okay within the confines of a relationship but not outside of one. It's pure hypocrisy.

Masturbation?

Masturbation isn't sex.

 

[Timedog]

What if their clothed dick that has been inside of an icky prostitute accidentally brushes my elbow as they pass by me? Does anyone know how many layers of clothing prostitute cooties can go through?

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

What if their clothed dick that has been inside of an icky prostitute accidentally brushes my elbow as they pass by me? Does anyone know how many layers of clothing prostitute cooties can go through?

Six.

Seven if it's very thin cotton.

 

[YoungHav]

I think non-marital sex should be criminalized.

 

[Metal-Geo]

I think non-marital sex should be criminalized.

And now this thread is complete. Took a while though.

 

[Hylian7]

I think non-marital sex should be criminalized.

Please be trolling.

 

[Hylian7]

Any parts of the world that do this?

Parts of Nevada in the US, Amsterdam, that's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

 

[eudaemonic]

Not unless they're in a relationship where they're not being open with other person. Otherwise, I'd only look down on them if they're not being safe about it.

 

[OttomanScribe]

People are going to sell sex. Would you rather they do it with some forms of protection or not?
Rapists target prostitutes precisely because many simply won't report it for fear of being charged themselves for a crime. Once you remove that catch 22 that means sex workers can come forward and report rapes against their person. That means more rapists off the streets. Many serial rapists/killers started out on prostitutes (or just stayed on them) specifically because they are an unprotected underclass of people.

You seem to be merely reiterating your point rather than responding to mine.

As I said, legalising prostitution does not neccesarily remove impediments to reporting rape. The barriers to reporting sexual assaults on prostitutes are not confined to fear of being prosecuted. The prime barrier is the reality that, as I said, even wearing a red dress can (at least in the public eye) become an excuse for sexual assault. The attitude more generally is that such sex workers are public property.

When the law views a woman's body as a commodity for exchange, the classifcation of rape goes from an assault on the person and dignity of an individual, to mere theft.

Why should we not create a situation in which these people are no longer vilified and are more safe?

As to that, I think that if there is vilification involved, it should go first and foremost to those involved in frequenting sex workers. The role of the state in this should be to limit the occurence of what is a fundamentally dangerous job, which, while not providing anything particular of worth to society, additionally creates sex as an object to be bought and traded.

This of course should not be based in the prosecution of sex workers, but rather the prosecution of those who frequent them.

Back on topic, none of this relates to my prime point, that being that the ready availability of prostitutes does not stop rape through giving rapists women to have sex with. This was, as I said, the main thing that I was arguing against. The other point; whether or not legalising prostitution forms a barrier to rape specifically of prostitutes, is different to this first one.

 

[Izayoi]

How do some people think that business men, athletes, soldiers or even politicians (let's be honest) get sex when they're not at home? Are they merely desperate losers? We are so quick to demonize people who seek sex even though a bunch of people obviously want it and go through a bunch of motions just to get it. It pisses me off how we think we're so progressive but when it comes to sex we're all so judgmental and full of shit.

It really is frustrating. I work in hospitality, and the negative attitude toward prostitutes and their clients in the industry astounds me - especially considering how much business they bring in.

Do they want a 'proper relationship with girls' though?

Therein lies the real question.

Masturbation? Then again, that is sort of looked down upon too. Sex toys, for men at least, need to be more socially acceptable.

Masturbation is not the same as sex. Sex toys are nice, but also not the same as sex.

This of course should not be based in the prosecution of sex workers, but rather the prosecution of those who frequent them.

I'm pretty sure Sweden tried that and it ended up hurting the sex workers instead. Johns would go for the more vulnerable street girls, in an attempt to avoid getting caught visiting an establishment. There was a documentary on it.

 

[Devolution]

You seem to be merely reiterating your point rather than responding to mine.

As I said, legalising prostitution does not neccesarily remove impediments to reporting rape. The barriers to reporting sexual assaults on prostitutes are not confined to fear of being prosecuted. The prime barrier is the reality that, as I said, even wearing a red dress can (at least in the public eye) become an excuse for sexual assault. The attitude more generally is that such sex workers are public property.

When the law views a woman's body as a commodity for exchange, the classifcation of rape goes from an assault on the person and dignity of an individual, to mere theft.

You're set on calling prostitution commodity of a woman's body even though it's commodity of sex. Do you want strip clubs closed?

You're using the current set of societal victim blaming to excuse the catch 22 that happens with prostitutes. If they could report crimes against their person without possibly being charged with a crime themselves, how would this not assist in the capturing and prosecution of rapists?

As to that, I think that if there is vilification involved, it should go first and foremost to those involved in frequenting sex workers. The role of the state in this should be to limit the occurence of what is a fundamentally dangerous job, which, while not providing anything particular of worth to society, additionally creates sex as an object to be bought and traded.

This of course should not be based in the prosecution of sex workers, but rather the prosecution of those who frequent them.

I frankly don't agree. I think you have a sex negative view that's clouding your reasoning.

Back on topic, none of this relates to my prime point, that being that the ready availability of prostitutes does not stop rape through giving rapists women to have sex with. This was, as I said, the main thing that I was arguing against. The other point; whether or not legalising prostitution forms a barrier to rape specifically of prostitutes, is different to this first one.

Access to often and frequent sex is a proven stress reliever. Do you think all prostitutes are merely servicing men or sometimes also servicing themselves? Do you think we should be demonizing their choices?

So far I'll I've seen from you is very sex negative attitudes and quite a bit of shit bordering on white knighting women who choose these careers instead of just accepting their choices.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I'm pretty sure Sweden tried that and it ended up hurting the sex workers instead. Johns would go for the more vulnerable street girls, in an attempt to avoid getting caught visiting an establishment. There was a documentary on it.

Reference?

 

[crimzonflame]

No.

 

[Devolution]

Also Ottoman everyone uses their body in some capacity as a commodity when on the job. Unless your job is basically done through mind control.

 

[Izayoi]

Reference?

A thread on GAF a while ago, it's on YouTube. If I could view YouTube videos at work I'd search for it. It had a very interesting interview with a female sex worker from Sweden.

 

[Devolution]

A thread on GAF a while ago, it's on YouTube. If I could view YouTube videos at work I'd search for it. It had a very interesting interview with a female sex worker from Sweden.

It makes sense how is procuring a service through the black market safer than a regulated system by the government? It never is.

 

[OttomanScribe]

You're set on calling prostitution commodity of a woman's body even though it's commodity of sex. Do you want strip clubs closed?

I think that more generally selling sex as a commodity is an abhorent way for a society to function, but there is surely a destinction between sex work and stripping? If only in severity as opposed to the core of the act.

You're using the current set of societal victim blaming to excuse the catch 22 that happens with prostitutes. If they could report crimes against their person without possibly being charged with a crime themselves, how would this not assist in the capturing and prosecution of rapists?

I am not convinced that state sanction of sex work moves anything to eleviate that reality, and if the assumption is that sex work will increase with legalised prostitution, then any assistance (I'm not convinced it would have any significant impact) would be cancelled out by the increase in sex work itself.

I frankly don't agree. I think you have a sex negative view that's clouding your reasoning.

What is a 'sex negative view'?

I think that commodifying sex creates sex moves sex into a place where it becomes something that is the property of the market, something to be bought and traded. An object. This is something inherently dehumanising.

Access to often and frequent sex is a proven stress reliever. Do you think all prostitutes are merely servicing men or sometimes also servicing themselves? Do you think we should be demonizing their choices?

I think that that doesn't relate to my point.

So far I'll I've seen from you is very sex negative attitudes and quite a bit of shit bordering on white knighting women who choose these careers instead of just accepting their choices.

This discussion began with the assertion that prostitution is good because it stops men raping women. I find this a ridiculous assertion and responded by debating the merits of the argument.

This last point isn't doing that, it is mere ad hominem. You usually do better.

Also Ottoman everyone uses their body in some capacity as a commodity when on the job. Unless your job is basically done through mind control.

My work for Yuri is classified.

I think there is a distinction between labour and the commodification of the body itself.

 

[Devolution]

I think that more generally selling sex as a commodity is an abhorent way for a society to function, but there is surely a destinction between sex work and stripping? If only in severity as opposed to the core of the act.

I am not convinced that state sanction of sex work moves anything to eleviate that reality, and if the assumption is that sex work will increase with legalised prostitution, then any assistance (I'm not convinced it would have any significant impact) would be cancelled out by the increase in sex work itself.

Sex for people who aren't inclined to paint it in some romantic ideal is just a prostitute using her services or genitals on a client. It's no different than a massage. You're deciding to elevate sex, which is fine as a personal view but not grounded in reality.

What is a 'sex negative view'?

I think that commodifying sex creates sex moves sex into a place where it becomes something that is the property of the market, something to be bought and traded. An object. This is something inherently dehumanising.

See above.

This discussion began with the assertion that prostitution is good because it stops men raping women. I find this a ridiculous assertion and responded by debating the merits of the argument.

This last point isn't doing that, it is mere ad hominem. You usually do better.

The assertions and points I'm trying to explain to you are that a well regulated machine where women can perform sex acts for money safely is better than trying to ban people from procuring sex. Every society has had prostitution despite whatever laws or cultural stigmas against it. It is completely asinine to outlaw it and it only hurts sex workers more not less. The argument is that it's not a total panacea against abuse, trafficking and exploitation of minors but it's a hell of a lot better than we are doing now because some people want to impose their prudishness on others. It's fine if you personally hold sex in high esteem, so do others who have it, but you and others seek to demonize the act (while holding it such high regard) if the people engaging it aren't doing it on your terms. It's hypocrisy pure and simple.

 

[Izayoi]

I think that commodifying sex creates sex moves sex into a place where it becomes something that is the property of the market, something to be bought and traded. An object. This is something inherently dehumanising.

Is everyone in a service industry "dehumanized" by it? Prostitutes provide a service, nothing more.

 

[Gaborn]

I think that commodifying sex creates sex moves sex into a place where it becomes something that is the property of the market, something to be bought and traded. An object. This is something inherently dehumanising.

I'll leave that judgment to the experts

In 1907 a group of evangelicals visited Chicago’s Everleigh Club brothel, where they handed out leaflets that said, “No ‘white slave’ need remain in slavery in this State of Abraham Lincoln who made the black slaves free.” According to the Illinois poet Edgar Lee Masters, an Everleigh Club regular, “the girls laughed in their faces.” In Sin in the Second City, the Atlanta-based journalist Karen Abbott recounts how Minna Everleigh, one of the club’s proprietors, “explained graciously, patiently, that the Everleigh Club was free from disease, that [a doctor] examined the girls regularly, that neither she nor Ada [Everleigh, her sister and co-proprietor,] would tolerate anything approaching violence, that drugs were forbidden and drinks tossed out, that guests were never robbed nor rolled, and that there was actually a waiting list of girls, spanning the continental United States, eager to join the house. No captives here, Reverends.”

 

[ScreenSplitter]

I'd worry for their sexual health, but its their life. I don't believe sex always has to be about platonic, romantical feels, so have at them prostitutes friend. But nobody I know entertains the services of sex workers, so I really don't know.

 

[disco]

A little bit.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Sex for people who aren't inclined to paint it in some romantic ideal is just a prostitute using her services or genitals on a client. It's no different than a massage. You're deciding to elevate sex, which is fine as a personal view but not grounded in reality.

I think I certainly do attach value to sex, however I don't know how that is something less grounded in reality than viewing it as something with a value that can be defined by the market.

See above.

I looked it up. Sex negativity is about the Christian tradition's view of sex as the foundation of original sin, something only really redeemable through its relation to procreation.

I don't hold this view. Sex is something of heaven, and most people find it something they are naturally inclined towards, which is initself something very positive. However the reality is that sex is also something with social consequences. There is a reason that rape and assault are distinct, because no human society views sex as an action simply like any other.

You say that some women may view this as not being the case. I don't disbelieve you, but I don't think that that means that that is something that should then be enshrined in law.

The assertions and points I'm trying to explain to you are that a well regulated machine where women can perform sex acts for money safely is better than trying to ban people from procuring sex. Every society has had prostitution despite whatever laws or cultural stigmas against it.

The existance of something negative in every society does not form an argument for the legalisation of it. I understand the idea that 'it is going to happen anyway so we might as well regulate it', but I think that the effects of doing so go beyond simply managing the negative effects and move onto encouraging the kind of attitudes that one sees amongst all the Johns I have ever met.

It is completely asinine to outlaw it and it only hurts sex workers more not less. The argument is that it's not a total panacea against abuse, trafficking and exploitation of minors but it's a hell of a lot better than we are doing now because some people want to impose their prudishness on others. It's fine if you personally hold sex in high esteem, so do others who have it, but you and others seek to demonize the act (while holding it such high regard) if the people engaging it aren't doing it on your terms. It's hypocrisy pure and simple.

What is the hypocrisy present?

The intent is not demonising the sex act, but rather is to view the comodification of it as something of general social significance that goes beyond simply the individual choices of the women doing so.

 

[Etrian Oddity]

Do they want a 'proper relationship with girls' though?

Contrary to common perception, some guys find it nearly impossible to find a girl.

 

[Router]

Never been to one personally but I have no real issues with the whole thing.

From what I understand its only pretty recently that its become "unacceptable".

 

[Oersted]

to be honest? don´t know because i don´t know anyone who does this. I know some ladies working as internet strippers though (not what you are thinking again). I´m fine with that.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I'll leave that judgment to the experts

Which expert are you talking about?

 

[Anticitizen One]

I refuse to pay to have sex with a girl plus shes probably full of diseases

 

[Rentahamster]

As I said, legalising prostitution does not neccesarily remove impediments to reporting rape.

Yes it does.

http://www.economist.com/node/17967028

A new approach is beginning to help. Around five years ago, with five unsolved murders of sex workers on their books, the Merseyside police decided to focus more on preventing harm and less on enforcing anti-soliciting laws. To solve such crimes and forestall more, evidence from prostitutes was vital—and, as Detective Inspector Tim Keelan points out, “people who attack sex workers don't only attack sex workers.” Women had to believe that assaults on them would be taken seriously, and their own minor misdeeds overlooked.

When the law views a woman's body as a commodity for exchange, the classifcation of rape goes from an assault on the person and dignity of an individual, to mere theft.

Exchanging money for sex is no different than me exchanging money to sing a song at a birthday, clean a toilet, or file a client's tax return.

Making prostitution legal does not change the classification of rape in the slightest. Rape is rape is rape.

 

[TimeEffect]

It's not any different than your friends who go to a bar/club, get a girl drunk, and then bang them for a night.
Or getting a girl's number, dating her for a while, and then banging them with the intention of bagging them all along, and then dumping them after you get what you want, or having a friend you have casual sex with. All that hand-holding, park visiting, and all that is sometimes straight up crap from people who would just rather bang and get it over with.

Some people lie to themselves to think that they have some moral decency over people who hire prostitutes, yet prostitution just cuts out all the bullshit. It's the difference between people giving themselves the illusion of being decent people and straight out honesty.

I don't know whether I look down upon it or not, but it's not as different as what others do.

 

[Osiris]

I used to be friends with a prostitute, and because of that I'd not only look down on them, I'd probably knock a few of their teeth out too.

Spoiler

She was kidnapped at 16, forced into Crack & Heroin addiction until she was "theirs" and then forced by them to work the streets for them with severe life-threatening threats should she try to either get clean or get her supply from anyone else.
It took her over 7 years to escape, which she only managed by taking the money from a john and buying a 9mm, Pimp was lucky she had escape in mind and not retribution.

 

[Gaborn]

Which expert are you talking about?

People engaged in the sex trade as voluntary participants. I think it is inherently problematic for an outsider to tell others that their personal behavioral choices are "dehumanizing." Dehumanizing to whom? A sex worker that makes a voluntary choice to enter into this business should be protected under the law, not subject to scorn, derision, and prejudice for doing so. Otherwise it is more difficult and less likely for a sex worker INVOLUNTARILY in this situation to come forward seeking help. Prostitution should be legal and carefully regulated and government should stay out of making moral choices for individuals, the government's role should be limited to the safety and security of the client and service provider.

 

[Devolution]

I think I certainly do attach value to sex, however I don't know how that is something less grounded in reality than viewing it as something with a value that can be defined by the market.

It's not grounded in reality to put forth your personal hang ups into legislation.

I looked it up. Sex negativity is about the Christian tradition's view of sex as the foundation of original sin, something only really redeemable through its relation to procreation.

I don't hold this view. Sex is something of heaven, and most people find it something they are naturally inclined towards, which is initself something very positive. However the reality is that sex is also something with social consequences. There is a reason that rape and assault are distinct, because no human society views sex as an action simply like any other.

You say that some women may view this as not being the case. I don't disbelieve you, but I don't think that that means that that is something that should then be enshrined in law.

So? You're deciding that women cannot choose to have sex under certain circumstances despite the only real requirement anyone should be imposing which is consent between the individuals. Anything else really isn't my or your business. If a woman wants to have sex and a man wants to give her money for it, what's the actual issue here? What requirements do two people have to fulfill in order to have sex for you? 3 dates? Marriage?

The existance of something negative in every society does not form an argument for the legalisation of it. I understand the idea that 'it is going to happen anyway so we might as well regulate it', but I think that the effects of doing so go beyond simply managing the negative effects and move onto encouraging the kind of attitudes that one sees amongst all the Johns I have ever met.

What is the hypocrisy present?

The intent is not demonising the sex act, but rather is to view the comodification of it as something of general social significance that goes beyond simply the individual choices of the women doing so.

Hypocrisy is present because you are saying that sex isn't okay between two consenting individuals unless they follow a set of personal requirements. Tell me what's the actual harm of women having sex with men, or vice versa and money or other things being exchanged other than it just being "taboo" because you have declared sex with some sort of trade as "immoral." You haven't really outlined the actual problem with making sex a commodity other than some vague notion of moral grandstanding about what sex means to you.

I used to be friends with a prostitute, and because of that I'd not only look down on them, I'd probably knock a few of their teeth out too.

Spoiler

She was kidnapped at 16, forced into Crack & Heroin addiction until she was "theirs" and then forced by them to work the streets for them with severe life-threatening threats should she try to either get clean or get her supply from anyone else.
It took her over 7 years to escape, which she only managed by taking the money from a john and buying a 9mm

People who go to legalized brothers are not the same as those who engage with street walkers. In fact your post highlights exactly why there should be legal avenues to procuring sex.

Not all johns are scumbags either.

 

[Kiarushka]

Probably will, because I associate that with diseases related to act.

Not like people always wear protection. The more people, the greater the risk.

Safer to be in an open relationship, even though I don't exactly agree with it but whatever, their thing.

 

[Femmeworth]

Masturbation isn't sex.

Masturbation is not the same as sex. Sex toys are nice, but also not the same as sex.

Masturbation isn't intercourse, but I still think it counts as sex or fulfilling sexual desire.

 

[Devolution]

Masturbation isn't intercourse, but I still think it counts as sex or fulfilling sexual desire.

Now you're just getting into semantics. It's sex with yourself but it's not the same as engaging in sex with another person. That's specifically what I meant. It does not really fulfill desire for plenty of people nor is it comparable to the act of sex if that's what you are after.

 

[Dali]

The only time I look down on them is when they brag like they're lady's men. I've got coworkers that go to thailand a lot and they act like they're the biggest pimps because they pay money for a woman's attention. :

 

[OttomanScribe]

People engaged in the sex trade as voluntary participants.

This may be the case for some, but not all. Coercion in general is something always tied in with sex work, illegal or otherwise.

I think it is inherently problematic for an outsider to tell others that their personal behavioral choices are "dehumanizing." Dehumanizing to whom?

To women in general. All the men I have met who have been Johns have had abhorent views about women. It of course becomes a chicken and egg situation in that respect, trying to figure out if hatred of women led them to become johns or being johns led them to hate women.

I have never denied that there are women out there who enter into sex work with the precise attitudes that people here describe. I follow a few of them on twitter and read interviews that one of my co workers conducted in the course of the project. However the impact of that individual choice is not confined to the individual themselves.

A sex worker that makes a voluntary choice to enter into this business should be protected under the law, not subject to scorn, derision, and prejudice for doing so.

I am not advocating scorn, derision or prejudice. I merely recognise that that is the reality of the way the profession is popularly viewed, legal or otherwise. I haven't got the impression that the legality of it has changed this in any significant way.

Otherwise it is more difficult and less likely for a sex worker INVOLUNTARILY in this situation to come forward seeking help.

That is the reality whether it is legal or not.

It's not grounded in reality to put forth your personal hang ups into legislation.

Do you believe that rape and assault are distinct? If you do, it arguably shows that you have the same 'hang up' as me. The idea that sex isn't just like any other act isn't a hang up, it is a social norm, and laws, which are generally understood to be a creation of societies, reflect this reality.

If a woman views sex as just like massage, then if she is raped, is it merely assault, or armed robbery?

So? You're deciding that women cannot choose to have sex under certain circumstances despite the only real requirement anyone should be imposing which is consent between the individuals. Anything else really isn't my or your business. If a woman wants to have sex and a man wants to give her money for it, what's the actual issue here?

The issue is the already elaborated commodification of sexual relations as something enshrined in law.

What requirements do two people have to fulfill in order to have sex for you? 3 dates? Marriage?

This is a different issue entirely, here I am talking about general themes across societies. When you are asking about me specifically, we are talking about something with specific applicability.

Hypocrisy is present because you are saying that sex isn't okay between two consenting individuals unless they follow a set of personal requirements.

That simultaneously isn't what I'm doing, and isn't hypocrisy.

Tell me what's the actual harm of women having sex with men, or vice versa and money or other things being exchanged other than it just being "taboo" because you have declared sex with some sort of trade as "immoral." You haven't really outlined the actual problem with making sex a commodity other than some vague notion of moral grandstanding about what sex means to you.

I talked about what sex means to me because you were telling me what it meant to me and I was correcting you.

The commodification of sex is the objectification of the body in general. It is a mechanism for mysogyny. Even if in the mind of the woman doing it this is not the case, for the man this must neccesarily occur, or at least this seems to be the case. It is the creation/product of men with such attitudes. Furthermore it represents the unrestrained spread of market relations to all aspects of human experience.

 

[Femmeworth]

Now you're just getting into semantics. It's sex with yourself but it's not the same as engaging in sex with another person. That's specifically what I meant. It does not really fulfill desire for plenty of people nor is it comparable to the act of sex if that's what you are after.

I think that's more of a result of so many people lacking proper companionship in general.

 

[Xero]

Probably will, because I associate that with diseases related to act.

Not like people always wear protection. The more people, the greater the risk.

Safer to be in an open relationship, even though I don't exactly agree with it but whatever, their thing.

Their are brothels and women in Vegas that get checked out regularly and require you to get checked out and screened prior to any transaction. I'd much prefer that to a random fling at a bar. I wouldn't hooking up with some craigslist girl for money, for fear of disease though.


Here's a good example http://abcnews.go.com/Business/shad...ale-prostitutes/story?id=9493257#.UE1BvY1lSew

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Ottoman, your definition is very broad and idealistic, though? I dont disagree that commoditification of sex trades have a lot of inherent mysoginistic problems in it, but what do you propose to do, in terms of actual and current societal views of prostitution?

Basically, where are you at: Legalize or criminalize prostitution trade?

 

[Devolution]

Do you believe that rape and assault are distinct? If you do, it arguably shows that you have the same 'hang up' as me. The idea that sex isn't just like any other act isn't a hang up, it is a social norm, and laws, which are generally understood to be a creation of societies, reflect this reality.

If a woman views sex as just like massage, then if she is raped, is it merely assault, or armed robbery?

The issue is the already elaborated commodification of sexual relations as something enshrined in law.

This is a complete strawman. You're using the establishment of rape as a separate distinct act in law from other violence to justify your ideas that "sex is special and should not be commoditized like messages, porn and other services."

This is a different issue entirely, here I am talking about general themes across societies. When you are asking about me specifically, we are talking about something with specific applicability.

That simultaneously isn't what I'm doing, and isn't hypocrisy.

It is hypocrisy. When is sex between two consenting individuals okay for you? Where's the line? When something is traded? Why? You still haven't given me an answer.

I talked about what sex means to me because you were telling me what it meant to me and I was correcting you.

The commodification of sex is the objectification of the body in general. It is a mechanism for mysogyny. Even if in the mind of the woman doing it this is not the case, for the man this must neccesarily occur, or at least this seems to be the case. It is the creation/product of men with such attitudes. Furthermore it represents the unrestrained spread of market relations to all aspects of human experience.

The mechanism for misogyny is the very idea that women cannot choose for themselves. You are pretty much displaying the exact same patriarchal problem but in different rhetoric. If someone wants to trade sex for a sandwich, for dinner, for drinks, for direct funds what exactly is the issue at hand here?

The very act of stigmatizing prostitution/prostitutes and keeping it illegal is what is harming those in the occupation more than anything else. You are essentially creating a black market with no regulations, no testing, no tracking of individuals. I also resent the implication that men who trade money for sex are all scumbags. Plenty of them respect the women they are doing transactions with and are plenty concerned with consent. Once again people seem to be conflating getting sex from a legalized brothel (which would better serve everyone) with hitting up streetwalkers who could be involved in various means of exploited work or drugged up.

If prostitution and procuring sex is always a constant reality the only logical step is to provide legal and safe means of providing and receiving this service.

I think that's more of a result of so many people lacking proper companionship in general.

I mentioned athletes, international businessmen, soldiers for a reason. Extended stays away from home. And some people do not want to enter into relationships. Why are we so hellbent on demonizing that choice? If they don't want a partner, we should not tell them that's the only proper way to get sex. How many people need to enter into dysfunctional relationships just to obtain it? Or stay in them? Or go to a bar just to dance the dance? Sex is a natural desire. If people want it and others are willing to give it at a price I do not see the problem.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

Say you discover your friend has no interests in romance and instead seeks out sex workers for the occasional slap and tickle. Not in a addictive way.

Supplementary, if people do look down on those who frequent a sex worker; do you also look down on persons who cannot prepare a home cooked meal for themselves?

 

[OttomanScribe]

Ottoman, your definition is very broad and idealistic, though? I dont disagree that commoditification of sex trades have a lot of inherent mysoginistic problems in it, but what do you propose to do, in terms of actual and current societal views of prostitution?

Basically, where are you at: Legalize or criminalize prostitution trade?

Hmm...

I honestly don't know. I can't really present an ideal solution. I have a lot of objections and not many real solutions if I'm honest.

I don't think that legalisation is any more ideal than trying to stop the trade. It is not clear cut. Of course I am making a strong case against it because people are arguing with me. I would probably argue just as strongly the other way if there were a bunch of people going that way.

 

[Nuklear]

You'll never stop prostitution. It will happen everywhere regardless. The proper way of handling the situation is making sure it is as safe and disease free as possible. Right now none of that is occurring and is a waste of our police department resources. It's a lot like the "War on Drugs" which is a losing proposition and another way of dealing with it needs to occur. I feel that way of dealing it is to make rehabilitation the focus and not make all drug addicts felons which makes it 100% harder to rehabilitate these people.

 

[OttomanScribe]

This is a complete strawman. You're using the establishment of rape as a separate distinct act in law from other violence to justify your ideas that "sex is special and should not be commoditized like messages, porn and other services."

Your argument is based on the idea that sex is like any other act, and thus can be commodified. I am saying that sex isn't like any other act, which is why rape is a crime distinct from both assault and theft.

This isn't a strawman, a strawman is where you misrepresent someone's argument and then demolish it. I don't know how I have misrepresented your argument.

It is hypocrisy. When is sex between two consenting individuals okay for you? Where's the line? When something is traded? Why? You still haven't given me an answer.

Like I said, this isn't about what I believe to be morally okay. It is about what should be enshrined in law. You are working on a strawman here, because you seem intent to make this about me putting my morality on others. The line is, when we come to legislation, the buying and selling of sex as a commodity like any other.

The mechanism for misogyny is the very idea that women cannot choose for themselves. You are pretty much displaying the exact same patriarchal problem but in different rhetoric. If someone wants to trade sex for a sandwich, for dinner, for drinks, for direct funds what exactly is the issue at hand here?

You have two principles in conflict here, one is that the commodification of sex is a mechanism for mysogyny, as is, arguably, the idea that women should not be able to do what they like with their bodies.

These are not contradictory ideas, but they do create a conflict in this case as to which one is prime. Do you believe that women cannot engage in behaviour that becomes a mechanism for mysogyny?

The very act of stigmatizing prostitution/prostitutes and keeping it illegal is what is harming those in the occupation more than anything else. You are essentially creating a black market with no regulations, no testing, no tracking of individuals.

Again we have the conflation between illegality and stigmatising. The stigmatising already exists, with or without legality. I live in a state where it is pretty much legal, the stigma is still in full force.

I also resent the implication that men who trade money for sex are all scumbags. Plenty of them respect the women they are doing transactions with and are plenty concerned with consent. Once again people seem to be conflating getting sex from a legalized brothel (which would better serve everyone) with hitting up streetwalkers who could be involved in various means of exploited work or drugged up.

There are certainly exceptions, I have read about them, but I have not come across them in my own experience, or have any reason to believe they constitute anything more than a very small minority. I have to go on anecdotes because neither of us have much else to go on.

If prostitution and procuring sex is always a constant reality the only logical step is to provide legal and safe means of providing and receiving this service.

Why?