Sex for Personal Gain

The Corinthian

An interesting story got me thinking this morning, with regards to the exchange of sexual favours for personal gain and how it is viewed by society. On one side, what this woman (allegedly) did is considered illegal and arguably immoral, as is the clear cut "sex for money" scenario of prostitution, yet it appears acceptable in other cases.

Marriage is one example of where this is accepted - as the old adage goes "the price men pay for sex is marriage, the price women pay for marriage is sex". One could argue that this differs because it involves love, except that love has never been essential to marriage and the idea that one would marry for money is not new (e.g. Kubrick's Barry Lyndon).

Then one should consider the grey area of practices such as sleeping with someone to get a promotion/sale, or even dating (which traditionally has a man "wining and dining" a woman so that she will sleep with him), not to mention areas of the adult industry that arguably fall into this category (Sex phone lines, Web cam girls, etc) where while they do not have actual sex, do exchange non-contact sexual favours.

Why is the exchange of sexual favours for personal gain immoral (and illegal) in some cases and not in others? From what I can make out the only dividing line is that we don't like the idea of it being too direct, too open, and allow it only if we can justify it under some other pretext, however feeble - and ultimately false.

And why do we consider sex for personal gain to be immoral in the first place? Is it to protect people from exploitation (but then is that exploitation only there because it is practised in an illegal framework?) or a throwback of patriarchy that wanted to limit women's ability to exercise power? Or does it all come down to how the Abrahamic religions view sex in the first place?

Ickle Magoo

Certainly in the UK prostitution itself is not illegal, it's the soliciting - brothels and kerb crawling, etc, and the public order issues they cause that is illegal. Presumably most wives/gf's don't have a pimp and haven't been illegally trafficked into the country for the purposes of making someone else money?

Gurgle

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or does it all come down to how the Abrahamic religions view sex in the first place?

I think that there would be a well whacked nail.

The Corinthian

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Presumably most wives/gf's don't have a pimp and haven't been illegally trafficked into the country for the purposes of making someone else money?

No idea what the statistics are, however it is fair to say that, outside of economic necessity, some people (men and women) do enter the adult industry voluntarily.

In countries such as the US, the "stripping to put yourself through college" is a long established cliché. Additionally, I remember reading an article some time ago that showed a boom in the adult Webcam industry, as women in the UK (either without work or in relationships where both were unemployed) were turning to this and operating from home.

Exploitation is a reason, however, that is often cited, but I don't take it too seriously when it is. By this I do not mean that it may not be a valid argument (I think it is), only that those who tend to use it are working inductively - that is, they are against X and then go about finding reasons to support this 'gut feeling', without really objectively testing them.

Gurgle wrote: »

I think that there would be a well whacked nail.

Well partially. Pagan societies had their own sexual taboos too. Roman prostitutes were considered the lowest of the low, or infames, for example.

The Abrahamic religions have a particularly negative view of sex, in comparison to most other religions, with both Christianity and Islam inheriting this from Judaism. Oddly, this was a problem during the early Christian conversions in that successfully proselytizing the wife of a prominent Roman, who would then withhold sex from her husband as sinful, would result in a lot of very irate people in positions of power.

So I'd imagine it is a significant factor, but I would also be loathed to rule out others.

AARRRGH

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Certainly in the UK prostitution itself is not illegal, it's the soliciting - brothels and kerb crawling, etc, and the public order issues they cause that is illegal.

Same in Ireland. The only things illegal here are advertising prostitution, managing a brothel, and soliciting on the street.

Working as a prostitute from an apartment on your own, and advertising on UK based websites such as escortireland.com and escort-ireland.com is legal in Ireland.

I think the reason people have such issues with prostitution is similar to the reasons why people believe - despite all evidence to the contrary - that spiking people's drinks is common, and that steroids are bad for you.

Most people are unable or unwilling to question things (especially their own opinions), and are only too willing to accept the majority (moral) opinion on things. And of course, if you say something (no matter how incorrect) to someone enough times, they will start to believe it.

We also know most people like to be victims, and things like prostitution are idols of the victim mentality, so anything which threatens those idols will be dismissed as it threatens their nice little victim comfort zone.

Ickle Magoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

No idea what the statistics are, however it is fair to say that, outside of economic necessity, some people (men and women) do enter the adult industry voluntarily.

In countries such as the US, the "stripping to put yourself through college" is a long established cliché. Additionally, I remember reading an article some time ago that showed a boom in the adult Webcam industry, as women in the UK (either without work or in relationships where both were unemployed) were turning to this and operating from home.

Exploitation is a reason, however, that is often cited, but I don't take it too seriously when it is. By this I do not mean that it may not be a valid argument (I think it is), only that those who tend to use it are working inductively - that is, they are against X and then go about finding reasons to support this 'gut feeling', without really objectively testing them.

I think for the most part the "immorality" of sex goes back the historic & religious view of sex being viewed as a sacred act in which to create children. Many people still view sex for fun as sinful, women who actively enjoying sex as much as their partners as the minority, etc - I'm sure some of the legislation we have that prevents people using sex as a commodity to buy & sell is still entrenched in that archaic mindset.

AARRRGH

Related:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Gurgle

The Corinthian wrote: »

Roman prostitutes were considered the lowest of the low, or infames, for example.

Wasn't that a class thing though...
The prostitutes available to the lowest classes were the lowest of the low, but those courtesans who 'served' the nobility were close to nobility themselves.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The Abrahamic religions have a particularly negative view of sex, in comparison to most other religions, with both Christianity and Islam inheriting this from Judaism....
So I'd imagine it is a significant factor, but I would also be loathed to rule out others.

Yes... but religion is such a dominant factor in any consideration of morality so its hard to exclude it and look for lesser factors.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

And why do we consider sex for personal gain to be immoral in the first place? Is it to protect people from exploitation (but then is that exploitation only there because it is practised in an illegal framework?) or a throwback of patriarchy that wanted to limit women's ability to exercise power? Or does it all come down to how the Abrahamic religions view sex in the first place?

Sex can induce very strong emotional feelings. It's statistically likely that in Sex once person wants something more than the other. Therefore someone can get hurt very easily.

In situations where there's no duplicity i.e. both parties are up front with each other or situations where it's impossible for there to be an asymmetry of extra emotions (for example at an orge or a threesome) there's not as much chance as someone getting hurt.

Yes, the Abrahamic religions have influenced our views on sex. But the Abrahamic religions are just derivation of the human condition and would never have caught on if they did't resonate with people in some way.

Slideshowbob

AARRRGH wrote: »

Same in Ireland. The only things illegal here are advertising prostitution, managing a brothel, and soliciting on the street.

Working as a prostitute from an apartment on your own, and advertising on UK based websites such as escortireland.com and escort-ireland.com is legal in Ireland.
quote]

How come this is the case? advertising is illegal in Ireland, Advertising on website is not illegal!?!?

philologos

The Corinthian wrote: »

Marriage is one example of where this is accepted - as the old adage goes "the price men pay for sex is marriage, the price women pay for marriage is sex". One could argue that this differs because it involves love, except that love has never been essential to marriage and the idea that one would marry for money is not new (e.g. Kubrick's Barry Lyndon).

That's quite frankly a load of tosh.

Love is crucial to a lasting marriage, I would have thought. Even if it wasn't, it is still very much the primary focus of why the vast majority of people get married.

Given that, marriage doesn't really cut it as "Sex for personal gain".

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then one should consider the grey area of practices such as sleeping with someone to get a promotion/sale, or even dating (which traditionally has a man "wining and dining" a woman so that she will sleep with him), not to mention areas of the adult industry that arguably fall into this category (Sex phone lines, Web cam girls, etc) where while they do not have actual sex, do exchange non-contact sexual favours.

Why is the exchange of sexual favours for personal gain immoral (and illegal) in some cases and not in others? From what I can make out the only dividing line is that we don't like the idea of it being too direct, too open, and allow it only if we can justify it under some other pretext, however feeble - and ultimately false.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And why do we consider sex for personal gain to be immoral in the first place? Is it to protect people from exploitation (but then is that exploitation only there because it is practised in an illegal framework?) or a throwback of patriarchy that wanted to limit women's ability to exercise power? Or does it all come down to how the Abrahamic religions view sex in the first place?

Sounds all a bit wishy washy to me. In the case of Abrahamic faith, sex outside of marriage is forbidden so that a man and a woman can commit themselves to eachother, be secure in their relationship before making as big a step as to give all that they can give to their partner.

Then we have the idea of marriage forming the basis of the family. This is still very much the case despite the shift towards more unorthodox family structures in recent decades.

IMO, ultimately sex for personal gain is immoral because it is selfish, it isn't considerate of the needs of others. It isn't out of genuine love or compassion. Ultimately it's meaningless. No doubt such "sex for personal gain" situations also motivate adultery.

EDIT:

The Corinthian wrote:

The Abrahamic religions have a particularly negative view of sex, in comparison to most other religions, with both Christianity and Islam inheriting this from Judaism. Oddly, this was a problem during the early Christian conversions in that successfully proselytizing the wife of a prominent Roman, who would then withhold sex from her husband as sinful, would result in a lot of very irate people in positions of power.

I disagree that it is negative, rather the aim is for positive relationships to be strengthened by sexuality rather than giving it to anyone off the street. That to me is nothing but positive. Judaism, Christianity and Islam (correct me if I am wrong) regard sex as a gift from God to be shared at the right time in the right place and with the right person. Nothing more nothing less.

As for withholding sex from ones spouse, that in the Christian scriptures could also be regarded as sinful:

1 Corinthians 7:3-5 wrote:

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

metrovelvet

Men don't need marriage for sex anymore. Women don't need to withhold sex to secure the ring anymore. That premise is bunkem.

The reason using sex to get a promotion is immoral is because they are not getting the promotion based on their intrinsic worth as an employee, based on their talents, skills, and performance as related to the job, but how they services the employers sexual needs.

As for the sex industry, what is moral and not moral is too hard to say, as the pracitises vary so widely.

Needless to say the selling and commodification of your body, the renting it out to be no more than the same as a urinal basically, does not sit well with most people.

miec

I largely setting aside the prostitution arguement and the historical view of marriage, although love in marriage is a fairly modern concept, it wasn't always there, but, neither was marriage made for sexual gratification only either. It occurred for financial and practical reasons such as acquiring more land and money or resolving issues between families, etc.

Having read the story of the woman who traded sex for tickets, I personally felt disgust because she cheapened her marriage and herself. The way I see sex is that it is an intimate act between two people who love each other. I suppose you could say it is an exchange, in my case, love, intimacy and affection. However, I know in this age of choice that not everyone views sex in that light, for some people the exchange is based on sexual gratification, monetary exchange, tickets in this case or a promotion, but there is nothing enobling in this in my opinion. See the other thing is I believe in God and I feel very strongly that God is connected with love and sex and there is something holy about the sex act. I think God gave us sexual pleasure and joy but that we had to use it wisely. So if a person has sex based on gratification, it removes the holy aspect of sex, it becomes empty and meaningless. It is just a shag. Sadly, I think sex has been very distorted by many of the big religions but equally it is also distorted by secular minded people as well. Most opinions swing between repression and hedonism, with the religious repressives condemning all sex and the hedonists advocating all types of sex, and both do this irrespective of the emotional cost to the individual, I personally feel the immorality lies in that aspect.

AARRRGH

Slideshowbob wrote: »

How come this is the case? advertising is illegal in Ireland, Advertising on website is not illegal!?!?

If the website is in the UK, it's not covered by Irish law.

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

Love is crucial to a lasting marriage, I would have thought. Even if it wasn't, it is still very much the primary focus of why the vast majority of people get married.

Love is not crucial to a lasting marriage and you don't have to look far in history to find plenty of examples of this - in fact love in marriage is a historically modern concept. Additionally, even if it is the primary focus of the vast majority of people get married, it does not explain why it is still accepted when it is not - indeed, rather than legally punish such people, they are protected by law.

Nonetheless, the reasoning that "it must be about love" does appear to justify it morally in Society's eyes - whether is justification is valid is another matter.

Sounds all a bit wishy washy to me. In the case of Abrahamic faith, sex outside of marriage is forbidden so that a man and a woman can commit themselves to eachother, be secure in their relationship before making as big a step as to give all that they can give to their partner.

Hence my, and others, putting forward the idea that these attitudes originate from the Abrahamic religions.

Then we have the idea of marriage forming the basis of the family. This is still very much the case despite the shift towards more unorthodox family structures in recent decades.

That's a fair point - from an anthropological level, given the connection between sex and procreation, laws and morals that protect the family make sense.

IMO, ultimately sex for personal gain is immoral because it is selfish, it isn't considerate of the needs of others.

Well yes, but there's a lot of things that are selfish that we do not consider immoral or illegal. I actually raised an example of something selfish that was not considered immoral, but you drifted out of the discussion.

As for withholding sex from ones spouse, that in the Christian scriptures could also be regarded as sinful

In fairness, you could be right - I was simply recounting from memory something I read some time ago. If I come across the source on-line, I'll post it up.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Men don't need marriage for sex anymore. Women don't need to withhold sex to secure the ring anymore. That premise is bunkem.

As with many moral outlooks in society, it may be outdated, but not necessarily bumpkin, in that we still hold onto them.

As a species we do hold on to values and traditions that are no longer relevant in practical terms. Many of the things that were banned in Leviticus were done so for practical reasons - but as technology and societies progressed, the original rational became less relevant.

The reason using sex to get a promotion is immoral is because they are not getting the promotion based on their intrinsic worth as an employee, based on their talents, skills, and performance as related to the job, but how they services the employers sexual needs.

Granted, yet it is not illegal.

miec wrote: »

Most opinions swing between repression and hedonism, with the religious repressives condemning all sex and the hedonists advocating all types of sex, and both do this irrespective of the emotional cost to the individual, I personally feel the immorality lies in that aspect.

True, which is kind of the reason for this thread. On one side it does not make sense that acts that are, in principle, very similar or identical are treated differently. At the same time, simply whipping the moral slate clean, based upon such inconsistencies, and having a free-for-all does not make sense either.

Thus what I am exploring is why these inconsistencies exist? Or are they really inconsistencies in the first place? And from that come to a more informed opinion.

philologos

The Corinthian wrote: »

Love is not crucial to a lasting marriage and you don't have to look far in history to find plenty of examples of this - in fact love in marriage is a historically modern concept. Additionally, even if it is the primary focus of the vast majority of people get married, it does not explain why it is still accepted when it is not - indeed, rather than legally punish such people, they are protected by law.

Please re-read my post again. I am fully aware that you are a marriage sceptic if you will, but I think it is reasonable to say that the vast majority of marriages that do last nowadays, last because there is a deep love involved. It's disingenuous to say otherwise. It's pretty much for this reason people like me can still believe in marriage.

Of course one can always find exceptions, but in issues like these the most pragmatic thing to do is to deal with what is generally the case.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nonetheless, the reasoning that "it must be about love" does appear to justify it morally in Society's eyes - whether is justification is valid is another matter.

Thankfully society does have such an awareness, because life wouldn't be any way near as good as it is now otherwise.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hence my, and others, putting forward the idea that these attitudes originate from the Abrahamic religions.

The Abrahamic point isn't the issue. The extension of this point to suggest that Abrahamic faith is anti-sex is disingenuous though to say the least. It may be opposed to the type of liberalism of our day concerning sexual ethics, but by and large it still regards sexual intimacy as a positive thing.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well yes, but there's a lot of things that are selfish that we do not consider immoral or illegal. I actually raised an example of something selfish that was not considered immoral, but you drifted out of the discussion.

The law doesn't always define what is morals. For me morals transcend the law by far. It's impossible for the State to legislate or be a moral authority in a lot of matters. In the West we have regarded sexual matters as one of those difficult to legislate matters.

The Corinthian wrote: »

In fairness, you could be right - I was simply recounting from memory something I read some time ago. If I come across the source on-line, I'll post it up.

Please do.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As a species we do hold on to values and traditions that are no longer relevant in practical terms. Many of the things that were banned in Leviticus were done so for practical reasons - but as technology and societies progressed, the original rational became less relevant.

Hm, much of Leviticus is still relevant in terms of moral law, but in respect to cultural laws and judicial laws these changed as the context did. This accounts for many of the differences between the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian ones.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

As with many moral outlooks in society, it may be outdated, but not necessarily bumpkin, in that we still hold onto them.

As a species we do hold on to values and traditions that are no longer relevant in practical terms. Many of the things that were banned in Leviticus were done so for practical reasons - but as technology and societies progressed, the original rational became less relevant.

No. You claimed in your premise that sex is used for personal gain and cited women using sex in order to gain a marriage. I was saying this is bunkum as women no longer need to do this. I was not disputing that customs remain once the pracicalities behind them fade. And as a side note, it is debateable as the whether women [historically] withheld sex for personal gain or withheld it to avoid personal catastrophe for her or her children should a child be conceived out of wedlock.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Granted, yet it is not illegal.

Morality and the law do not always embrace. Best to save the legally right and wrong for another discussion and keep this one for the philosophical morality.

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

Please re-read my post again. I am fully aware that you are a marriage sceptic if you will, but I think it is reasonable to say that the vast majority of marriages that do last nowadays, last because there is a deep love involved. It's disingenuous to say otherwise.

I never said otherwise though and am quite aware of what you wrote. I did reject the notion that it is crucial or essential to a lasting marriage, given that historically love was not important until quite recently. Additionally, I pointed out that even without love it is accepted.

Of course one can always find exceptions, but in issues like these the most pragmatic thing to do is to deal with what is generally the case.

Morality by Lowest Common Denominator? Don't you think that such an approach is a bit short-sighted?

The Abrahamic point isn't the issue. The extension of this point to suggest that Abrahamic faith is anti-sex is disingenuous though to say the least. It may be opposed to the type of liberalism of our day concerning sexual ethics, but by and large it still regards sexual intimacy as a positive thing.

Actually, not just in our day, but when compared to other religions and in other times, it is pretty sexually restrictive - a case in point being sexual attitudes in the Hellenistic World.

The law doesn't always define what is morals. For me morals transcend the law by far. It's impossible for the State to legislate or be a moral authority in a lot of matters. In the West we have regarded sexual matters as one of those difficult to legislate matters.

That's touching, but ignored my point, which is that selfish acts are not always viewed as illegal or immoral. I even gave an example that you seem determined to avoid addressing.

Hm, much of Leviticus is still relevant in terms of moral law, but in respect to cultural laws and judicial laws these changed as the context did. This accounts for many of the differences between the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian ones.

Does not invalidate my point though, given that even you seem to accept that some of Leviticus is irrelevant, yet still observed in Judaism.

I'm sure they might argue that those moral laws are still relevant, BTW.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. You claimed in your premise that sex is used for personal gain and cited women using sex in order to gain a marriage.

I was simply citing the exchange of personal gain for sex as part of the institution of marriage - I did not mean to imply using sex in order to gain marriage in the first place, although that can also occur. Nonetheless, I also tried not to single out women in this by including the example of the story of Barry Lyndon, which had a man marrying for money and position.

I was saying this is bunkum as women no longer need to do this. I was not disputing that customs remain once the pracicalities behind them fade.

Which is what I said.

Morality and the law do not always embrace. Best to save the legally right and wrong for another discussion and keep this one for the philosophical morality.

True, although given that there is a relationship between the two, is it not fair to cite law as an indicator of morality?

philologos

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said otherwise though and am quite aware of what you wrote. I did reject the notion that it is crucial or essential to a lasting marriage, given that historically love was not important until quite recently. Additionally, I pointed out that even without love it is accepted.

What is accepted? Do you seriously not think the quality of a relationship ensures lengthier marriages? I would have thought that was mere common sense, but apparently not.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Morality by Lowest Common Denominator? Don't you think that such an approach is a bit short-sighted?

Morality should offer a way to deal with situations in a realistic manner. If morality is merely confined to a situation that we cannot relate to in reality then it isn't particularly relevant to our lives.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, not just in our day, but when compared to other religions and in other times, it is pretty sexually restrictive - a case in point being sexual attitudes in the Hellenistic World.

Have you ever thought that restrictions can actually be beneficial in some contexts? Mind you I don't view it as a "restriction" or "restrictive" but rather I see these things as guidelines on how to live a fuller life.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's touching, but ignored my point, which is that selfish acts are not always viewed as illegal or immoral. I even gave an example that you seem determined to avoid addressing.

Your example involved abortion, and a mother who risked dying because of a pregnancy. In that case I suggested that it is better overall to save one life than to lose two. Sometimes utilitarianism serves a purpose. You then brought up the case of someone who is to go through chemotherapy.

My response would be simply if it is possible for both to survive, then I would believe it to be moral to ensure both survive. If it is not, I believe it to be moral to save the life of the mother.

How is that selfish in the slightest?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Does not invalidate my point though, given that even you seem to accept that some of Leviticus is irrelevant, yet still observed in Judaism.

I come from a Christian point of view on the matter. I believe that the moral laws of the Jewish scriptures are to be retained, but the cultural laws have been fulfilled through the life of Jesus Christ. Of course a Jew is going to disagree with my viewpoint on the Jewish scriptures, that's precisely why they are Jewish and I am Christian.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sure they might argue that those moral laws are still relevant, BTW.

I argue that the moral laws are relevant. I do not argue that the cultural laws, and the judicial laws (state laws, such as penalties of death) are applicable in a Christian mindset. They can debate all they wish about the Jewish law if they want.

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

What is accepted? Do you seriously not think the quality of a relationship ensures lengthier marriages? I would have thought that was mere common sense, but apparently not.

So you are saying that 'love' is the only determinant in the quality of a relationship?

Morality should offer a way to deal with situations in a realistic manner. If morality is merely confined to a situation that we cannot relate to in reality then it isn't particularly relevant to our lives.

How realistic is moral low by generalizations then?

Have you ever thought that restrictions can actually be beneficial in some contexts? Mind you I don't view it as a "restriction" or "restrictive" but rather I see these things as guidelines on how to live a fuller life.

That's a different debate, TBH. We're discussing only what has influenced this, seemingly inconsistent, moral approach for sex for personal gain.

Your example involved abortion, and a mother who risked dying because of a pregnancy. In that case I suggested that it is better overall to save one life than to lose two. Sometimes utilitarianism serves a purpose. You then brought up the case of someone who is to go through chemotherapy.

My response would be simply if it is possible for both to survive, then I would believe it to be moral to ensure both survive. If it is not, I believe it to be moral to save the life of the mother.

How is that selfish in the slightest?

Self preservation at the expense of another is 'selfish', like it or not.

I come from a Christian point of view on the matter. I believe that the moral laws of the Jewish scriptures are to be retained, but the cultural laws have been fulfilled through the life of Jesus Christ. Of course a Jew is going to disagree with my viewpoint on the Jewish scriptures, that's precisely why they are Jewish and I am Christian.

I appreciate that, but it is irrelevant to the point I made which is that sometimes morals based on no longer valid reasons are still retained.

I argue that the moral laws are relevant. I do not argue that the cultural laws, and the judicial laws (state laws, such as penalties of death) are applicable in a Christian mindset. They can debate all they wish about the Jewish law if they want.

I think you will find that they, or at least orthodox Jews, consider the matter a religious and not a cultural matter. Nonetheless, OT.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I was simply citing the exchange of personal gain for sex as part of the institution of marriage - I did not mean to imply using sex in order to gain marriage in the first place, although that can also occur. Nonetheless, I also tried not to single out women in this by including the example of the story of Barry Lyndon, which had a man marrying for money and position.

Oh I get it. You mean within the marriage, to use sex to get the OH to buy you a new car or to stop nagging you about some trifle or to buy more time before facing something ugly.

The Corinthian wrote: »

True, although given that there is a relationship between the two, is it not fair to cite law as an indicator of morality?

I don't know if it is unfair, but it maybe not germane or useful. The law is about other things besides morality, like preserving order and deciding which unethical or immoral acts warrant a criminal charge.

I want to but into the other argument and remind you both that not all selfishness is bad. There is good selfishness.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Oh I get it. You mean within the marriage, to use sex to get the OH to buy you a new car or to stop nagging you about some trifle or to buy more time before facing something ugly.

Not exactly, although that opens up another possible example.

My point was that marriage involves sex. If one marries solely or principally for personal gain - knowing that the trade-off is sex, then that is sex for personal gain. Either gender can do this.

I don't know if it is unfair, but it maybe not germane or useful. The law is about other things besides morality, like preserving order and deciding which unethical or immoral acts warrant a criminal charge.

Of course, in moral relativism, morality is all about preserving order in a community - law is simply humanity's ham-fisted attempt to codify it.

I want to but into the other argument and remind you both that not all selfishness is bad. There is good selfishness.

I don't know if there is 'good' selfishness per say. I think we accept some selfish acts as simply not immoral, rather than argue they are 'good'.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

And why do we consider sex for personal gain to be immoral in the first place?

There are a lot of people who view the “purpose” of sex as being for reproduction and take this to mean any engagement in it for non-reproductive ends is “unnatural” or “immoral”. The same argument is usually taken up in conversations about homosexuality for obvious reasons.

Personally I find this lacking. Firstly, nowhere is it written that the primary “purpose” for an item or attribute is therefore the only “purpose” for which that item or attribute should be used. I recently used a screw driver as a hammer. I guess I am guilty of some highly immoral act in the eyes of these people.

Secondly, given the practise:conception ratio that we have naturally evolved where more often than not one must perform the sex act many times over before conceiving, it would appear the primary “purpose” is not exclusively for reproduction in the first place, but also for social cohesion and bonding before, during and after the event of conception.

I think this conversation gets mixed up a little too easily with that of marriage however. The majority of people getting married do so in the understanding that this involves a promise of being monogamous. Prostitution clearly breaks that, unless the couple in question made no such promise to each other or are more liberal in their views of it.

If we clear marriage from the table and look for any arguments for why prostitution is wrong in and of itself… in other words the consensual act of sex between two consenting adults and the consensual exchange of payment… I have to say I have yet to be shown any reason ever to suggest prostitution is immoral or should be illegal, let alone that it should even be any of our business what these people want to do.

The best I have ever been offered are “guilt by association” type arguments which I will not even bother to adumbrate as it is only a matter of time I feel before someone on this thread makes one and I get to go “There’s one, I told you so! That's exactly what I was talking about!”

What I do find instead is the practise of labeling it immoral, making it illegal, or making sex workers into some kind of social pariahs tends to lend to more human suffering and unnecessary harm than the actual product or industry itself.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not exactly, although that opens up another possible example.

My point was that marriage involves sex. If one marries solely or principally for personal gain - knowing that the trade-off is sex, then that is sex for personal gain. Either gender can do this.

Anyone who does that is in for a very big surprise.

And not all marriages involve sex. There are people who marry later in life for the companionship.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course, in moral relativism, morality is all about preserving order in a community - law is simply humanity's ham-fisted attempt to codify it.

Not all of it. We cant legislate over everything. We cant call the cops every time someone lies or misleads us [for example adultery or even milder forms of deceit] but we can when it becomes fraudulant, when it hits a point that the law makers decide can be criminalised and punished through fine or incarceration. A lot of the time this is just, and alot of the time it is not. [For example the tv license when you dont receive RTE1 or@ on the TV but still have to pay it].

UOTE=The Corinthian;62770867]
I don't know if there is 'good' selfishness per say. I think we accept some selfish acts as simply not immoral, rather than argue they are 'good'.[/QUOTE]

Even the phrase "love thy neighbor as thyself" implies that you should love yourself too.

Just because something is selfish does not mean automatically that it is bad. There is an awful lot of moral projection placed on the word itself, which makes it a minefield to even discuss.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

As for withholding sex from ones spouse, that in the Christian scriptures could also be regarded as sinful:

Indeed, and it should be noted that there are some people who will even take this idea further than you do here. For example a recent attempt to pass a bill in the Bahamas to outlaw the act of marital rape faced stiff opposition. Some of the quote I read are exampled below:

It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don't think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one - one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?

Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can't be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said 'I do,' so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn't rape

I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man's body is his wife's and her body is his. How could he rape her?

(Source: http://www.jonesbahamas.com/news/45/ARTICLE/20194/2009-08-06.html)

The idea that marriage is a mutual bond I can live with and support. The idea that one gives up ones right to their own autonomy and freedom by engaging in it is abhorrent to me. Whether one does so by outright saying raping their wife is ok, or if one is more subtle by trying to guilt the spouse into it by suggesting it is a "sin" I do not care. It is all the same to me. Here I am on a thread advocating the womans right to do what she wants consensually with her own body, while there are people in this world simultaneously trying to advocate and justify rape and the idea like that quoted from Corinthians that they do not have authority over their own body.

miec

True, which is kind of the reason for this thread. On one side it does not make sense that acts that are, in principle, very similar or identical are treated differently. At the same time, simply whipping the moral slate clean, based upon such inconsistencies, and having a free-for-all does not make sense either.

Thus what I am exploring is why these inconsistencies exist? Or are they really inconsistencies in the first place? And from that come to a more informed opinion.

Excellent questions and excellent points. To start with I don't see a difference between the two viewpoints other than one abstains from sex and the other is voracious in its appetites. Both are driven by it and obsessed with sex.

As to why one is deemed better than the other, well to be sexually voracious reminds us of how animalistic we are, that we are driven by base desires. I find it amusing how screamish we are of our animal sides so the person who abstains from sex is seen as one who denies their animal side, in other words they are rising above it and therefore, they can be seen as morally superior. The reality is very different, we need to accept that we have both an animal side and a consciousness. Both co-exist. For example a sexually aware woman may see a hunky man who is appealing, may react to him physically, thinking yes I wouldn't mind shagging him, however, her consciousness kicks in and she'll realise that she is only seeing him as a sex object rather than a person. This requires awareness, effort and thinking to act in this way, to be aware of one's desire but to act from a place of personal responsibility and genuine love for the other person. My theory as to why most of us swing (excuse the pun) from one extreme to another is in a nutshell, laziness.

What I mean by that is that most of us want to use a 'one answer fits all' response to life's complexities. We want simple yes and no answers to govern our behaviour so that we don't have to think about things too hard. Also we tend to hand the responsibility of our lives to an outside authority. Most of the time we look for rules and regulations, in a sense it is easier, we don't have to think or question, we just do.

In order to have sex freely without repressing oneself or shagging everything that moves, a person has to develop an awareness of what their motives are. Can you imagine the majority of religious leaders, teachers or political leaders tell people to weigh each situation as it comes on a case by case basis? I would say no they wouldn't or couldn't because most of the time people demand answers there and then. They want to be told what to think or do. It is why dictators usually gain so much power so rapidly and gurus (genuine ones who advocate freedom of thought) tend not to have the same success. It is amazing how much personal power we hand over to others just to avoid taking the time and effort to consider our motives in response to lifes complexities, and even in this very brief thread we can see that sex is probably one of the most complex because it is linked to our survival and spirituality.

metrovelvet

^ Absolutely. This thread, these ideas, what is posited in the OP could not exist without the cartesian body mind split.

Furthmore, to use sex in this way would require of the person a frightening ability to dissociate.

Latchy

If Marilyn Monroe had never used her sexuality to become the sex godess /icon she became she would have being just Norma Jean .But she used (and was also used herself ) it to become something,somebody .She would have had to 'put out ' and dissociate so to speak , to get her foot in the door .

Yet once she achieved that fame and fortune it didn't give her the happiness she most wanted in life .The demons of reject from her childhood (and adult life ) would always haunt her right up to her death .

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Anyone who does that is in for a very big surprise.

Not anyone - certainly the ability to use marriage for financial gain has decreased, but it still exists. Consider someone with no career, no money, no assets marrying someone who has lots of all three - so it still happens.

Not all of it. We cant legislate over everything.

Indeed - hence my use of the term 'ham fisted'.

Even the phrase "love thy neighbor as thyself" implies that you should love yourself too.

LOL. Certainly would not be my reading of that expression.

Just because something is selfish does not mean automatically that it is bad. There is an awful lot of moral projection placed on the word itself, which makes it a minefield to even discuss.

No, I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that because something is selfish means it is automatically bad, only that it is not 'good' - that is, it is morally neutral. If you go out and treat yourself to a chocolate ice cream, that is not a 'bad' act, but neither is it bringing you closer to sainthood.

metrovelvet

[/QUOTE]
Not anyone - certainly the ability to use marriage for financial gain has decreased, but it still exists. Consider someone with no career, no money, no assets marrying someone who has lots of all three - so it still happens.[/QUOTE]

OK but its not really de riguer. You cant talk about marriage with these motives as the underlying assumptions.

[/QUOTE]


LOL. Certainly would not be my reading of that expression.

No, I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that because something is selfish means it is automatically bad, only that it is not 'good' - that is, it is morally neutral. If you go out and treat yourself to a chocolate ice cream, that is not a 'bad' act, but neither is it bringing you closer to sainthood.[/QUOTE]

I think you and jackass have really walked into an impossible argument over the love word, because everyone talks about it but everyone has a different idea in their head about what that means.

Treating yourself to an ice cream is not what I classify as good selfishness. But that is for another thread.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

OK but its not really de riguer. You cant talk about marriage with these motives as the underlying assumptions.

No, but they do exist in some cases, but are not treated in the same way as, say, prostitution, even though it is in all intents and purposes prostitution in those cases.

I think you and jackass have really walked into an impossible argument over the love word, because everyone talks about it but everyone has a different idea in their head about what that means.

More Jackass than me, TBH - after all, he is the one who requires love to defend his position.

Treating yourself to an ice cream is not what I classify as good selfishness. But that is for another thread.

Well, it only benefits the self (and perhaps the ice cream vendor/supplier), ergo is selfish. But I suppose it is something for another thread.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, but they do exist in some cases, but are not treated in the same way as, say, prostitution, even though it is in all intents and purposes prostitution in those cases.

I dont know. I think a lot of people would look at someone who did that as no different than a prostitute to stay in a loveless marriage just for the goods.

Although a marriage is a little more full time than a prostitute. And there's housework on top of all that, as well as inlaws.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, it only benefits the self (and perhaps the ice cream vendor/supplier), ergo is selfish. But I suppose it is something for another thread.

But not all selfishness is bad. Getting enough sleep, food, education etc, also only benefits the self, but it is GOOD selfishness. Taking care of yourself is GOOD. Obviosly, excessively so is not so good, then its self destruction.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

But not all selfishness is bad.

Arrrgh! For the last time I never said it was!

AARRRGH

The Corinthian wrote: »

Arrrgh! For the last time I never said it was!

I never said you were! :pac: :pac:

Joey the lips

The Corinthian wrote: »

An interesting story got me thinking this morning, with regards to the exchange of sexual favours for personal gain and how it is viewed by society. On one side, what this woman (allegedly) did is considered illegal and arguably immoral, as is the clear cut "sex for money" scenario of prostitution, yet it appears acceptable in other cases.

Marriage is one example of where this is accepted - as the old adage goes "the price men pay for sex is marriage, the price women pay for marriage is sex". One could argue that this differs because it involves love, except that love has never been essential to marriage and the idea that one would marry for money is not new (e.g. Kubrick's Barry Lyndon).

Then one should consider the grey area of practices such as sleeping with someone to get a promotion/sale, or even dating (which traditionally has a man "wining and dining" a woman so that she will sleep with him), not to mention areas of the adult industry that arguably fall into this category (Sex phone lines, Web cam girls, etc) where while they do not have actual sex, do exchange non-contact sexual favours.

Why is the exchange of sexual favours for personal gain immoral (and illegal) in some cases and not in others? From what I can make out the only dividing line is that we don't like the idea of it being too direct, too open, and allow it only if we can justify it under some other pretext, however feeble - and ultimately false.

And why do we consider sex for personal gain to be immoral in the first place? Is it to protect people from exploitation (but then is that exploitation only there because it is practised in an illegal framework?) or a throwback of patriarchy that wanted to limit women's ability to exercise power? Or does it all come down to how the Abrahamic religions view sex in the first place?

I have read the whole thread a couple of times and this is the jist. Granted i feel your gist is lost as the thread progresses I think this is the opening jist.....

Why is it we accept sex to be wrong if we pay for it in the form of prostitution.....

and yet we do not in the form of marriage.

Is this the jist....

As the poster further on says we do not need marriage to have sex so I dont see your arguement.

Futhermore i see all these examples as being mad. For example forget about the marriage aspect. Would you be happy for your girlfried to go off and have sex with the neighbour to fund her new pair of shoes and handbag? While to earn money you get the principle I dont think you would be happy. Sim if you are twenty years in a relationship with a women who you have cooked and cleaned for while she is out all day earning money dont you think it would be fair if she gave you "Pocket" money to get buy.

I think the quoted articles are daft and this is where the problem lies, I think your real question boils down to another form of prostitution and while someone discussed biasas for some strange reason I dont think there is any bias

I just think there is a slat that would make a great novel perhaps but has no basis on reality.

The Corinthian

Joey the lips wrote: »

Why is it we accept sex to be wrong if we pay for it in the form of prostitution.....

and yet we do not in the form of marriage.

Is this the jist....

No. I gave a number of examples, it's just that most here appear to have focused on marriage. I also expanded the concept of sex for personal gain to include non-contact sex.

As the poster further on says we do not need marriage to have sex so I dont see your arguement.

But the argument is not about having sex, but the motivation for it. Of course you do not need marriage for sex, or for that matter personal gain is not going to be the motive in most cases, but it is in some - and then the question is asked, why is sex for personal gain acceptable in some cases and not in others?

Futhermore i see all these examples as being mad. For example forget about the marriage aspect. Would you be happy for your girlfried to go off and have sex with the neighbour to fund her new pair of shoes and handbag?

I think you are getting confused. This discussion is an abstract, philosophical debate on why we see (in this particular area) some things as moral and others as immoral. It is not the Personal Issues forum.

Joey the lips

so the discussion is we see it moral to get married have sex but we see it as immoral to pay for sex yes! Even though by getting married we are paying for sex so to speak is this correct.

The Corinthian

Joey the lips wrote: »

so the discussion is we see it moral to get married have sex but we see it as immoral to pay for sex yes! Even though by getting married we are paying for sex so to speak is this correct.

Indeed, however I do think that the example of marriage has kind of hijacked the discussion.

Joey the lips

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, however I do think that the example of marriage has kind of hijacked the discussion.

But what other example can you use but marriage. Marriage is the only legally binding contract you enter into where there is no financial incentive necessary, even though society always assumes one is present. There is either a financial incentive or a benefit in kid so to speak ie you give up work to raise your kids where as prostitution is soley for personel gain. ie you pay for self gratification end of story

So unless you can give another example this is simply about sex in marriage and sex in prostitution and if i were a women I would be offened if someone though i married him to prostitute himself.

metrovelvet

Sex for personal gain is not acceptable in some cases and not in others. It is criminalised in some cases and not in others. A difference.

As for the lady who offerred up sex for baseball tickets. There is an ick factor that can cloud one's processing of the morality of this. However,why cant she pay for them the way everybody else has too? Imagine offering up sex for your NCT certificate and getting it? Not fair. Pay for it the way everyone else has to and get your car fixed. Secondly, she offered it to anyone -so the person hood does not matter - there is no discrimination there- the person is treated as a means to the baseball tickets., she could care less if the person is a man, woman, obese,a killer, who knows. Also ick. As for the person with the tickets who does take her up on the deal, that is just very very sad.

You know what, I just dont believe that story. I think she did that for attention or some other BS. There are many ways to get tickets.

metrovelvet

Joey the lips wrote: »

But what other example can you use but marriage. Marriage is the only legally binding contract you enter into where there is no financial incentive necessary, even though society always assumes one is present. There is either a financial incentive or a benefit in kid so to speak ie you give up work to raise your kids where as prostitution is soley for personel gain. ie you pay for self gratification end of story

So unless you can give another example this is simply about sex in marriage and sex in prostitution and if i were a women I would be offened if someone though i married him to prostitute himself.

Marriage is about give and take. It is misleading to translate this into the language of economics and exchange. It then creates a false reality if you look at it through that prism.

The Corinthian

Joey the lips wrote: »

But what other example can you use but marriage. Marriage is the only legally binding contract you enter into where there is no financial incentive necessary, even though society always assumes one is present.

I actually gave a number of examples that have nothing to do with marriage in my first post.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Marriage is about give and take. It is misleading to translate this into the language of economics and exchange. It then creates a false reality if you look at it through that prism.

Give and take does not mean that there is a balance between the two, and one party can 'take' a lot more than they 'give' - it doesn't matter if it is a minority of the time for the purposes of this discussion, only that it does happen and is still considered acceptable while a more 'direct' transaction is not.

Or in the words of Brendan Behan; "the difference between sex for money and sex for free is that the former usually costs less".

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or in the words of Brendan Behan; "the difference between sex for money and sex for free is that the former usually costs less".

I wrote a response to this quote which I have since erased because looking at it again, I have no idea what Brendan meant by that.

Ickle Magoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

.....it does happen and is still considered acceptable while a more 'direct' transaction is not.

Or in the words of Brendan Behan; "the difference between sex for money and sex for free is that the former usually costs less".

There is a lot of truth in that statement.

I'm not sure if there really is such a huge difference between the moral status of your average street hooker & the stereotypical unattractive old/middle-agers having relationships with poor but beautiful young women - & I think a lot of people do think "prostitute", high class perhaps but still the oldest trade in the book. On the other hand I don't think you can lump that in with your average marriage in which the aesthetic and socio-economic differences of the parties are much of a muchness and the differences the two assume are often done within the term of the relationship or as a result there of...

metrovelvet

Can someone explain the statement please? What does he mean by "usually" and in what circumstances - the unusual ones- does it cost less than using a whore?

I don't get it.

Joey the lips

The Corinthian wrote: »

I actually gave a number of examples that have nothing to do with marriage in my first post.

Yes but the examples make no sense. You just have to follow the thread to realise it has taken on another life from the one you envisage.

The Corinthian

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

On the other hand I don't think you can lump that in with your average marriage in which the aesthetic and socio-economic differences of the parties are much of a muchness and the differences the two assume are often done within the term of the relationship or as a result there of...

I'm not suggesting that you can lump that in with your average marriage - I'm not even suggesting that it is a significant minority. However, it does happen and is treated differently to other, more 'direct', sex for personal gain scenarios.

The question with this why the distinction? Protection of the family unit has been raised and was a very good point, in my mind.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can someone explain the statement please? What does he mean by "usually" and in what circumstances - the unusual ones- does it cost less than using a whore?

I don't get it.

When I read it, I was thinking of Hugh Grant & what his dalliance cost him - not just in monetary terms.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that you can lump that in with your average marriage - I'm not even suggesting that it is a significant minority. However, it does happen and is treated differently to other, more 'direct', sex for personal gain scenarios.

The question with this why the distinction? Protection of the family unit has been raised and was a very good point, in my mind.

I don't get the point you are making, tbh...obviously marriage is about more than sex, even in the most uneven marriages I'm sure there is more to the relationship than it having a greater moral acceptance than regularly visiting a hooker.

The Corinthian

Joey the lips wrote: »

Yes but the examples make no sense.

I disagree, let me expand:

• Sleeping with someone to get a promotion/sale - frowned upon by most, considered as 'part of the game' by others, but ultimately not considered 'prostitution' either in the eyes of people or the law.
• Sex phone lines, Web cam girls, etc - non-contact sex, but sex nonetheless. Is assisting sexual 'relief' not prostitution if there is not intercourse or physical contact? If so, why is it not treated as such?
• Traditional Dating - Dinners, expensive gifts, etc. are really a form of payment when you come down to it - if they were not designed to 'seal the deal' would they even be included. Does the fact that there is no 'fixed price' or that it is culturally accepted to the point of ritual, make this different?

You just have to follow the thread to realise it has taken on another life from the one you envisage.

Yes, I sort of regret mentioning marriage now, because of this.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can someone explain the statement please? What does he mean by "usually" and in what circumstances - the unusual ones- does it cost less than using a whore?

I recounted the quote from memory, so it may not be accurate. Also I have seen variations of it in the past, both including and omitting the word "usually".

I think the meaning is that there is always a cost to sex, even when it is supposedly 'free', and when added up 'paid' sex works out cheaper. If one looks at a traditional model for dating; dinner for two, plus drinks, plus a taxi to 'my place or yours' costs money - probably more than you'd pay for a prostitute, for example.

Ickle Magoo

Are you suggesting ALL sex is prostitution? I mean, there is personal gain in pretty much every sexual liaison - even if that is just an orgasm...but only the kind where money directly exchanges hands is referred to as such?