Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sex for Personal Gain

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    But not all selfishness is bad.
    Arrrgh! For the last time I never said it was!


  • Options
    #35
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Arrrgh! For the last time I never said it was!

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


  • Options
    #36
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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".


  • Options
    #44
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #46
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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. :o
    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. :confused:


  • Options
    #50
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    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?

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

    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.

    Well if you are doing the wining and dining with an aim to sex, rather than for the sake of getting to know the person, and sex maybe a bi product or extention of that, yadda yadda, and it's all about getting them to service your needs then you are treating and viewing them like they are a whore. And if you are putting out for a free meal and wine, when you have no interest in the personhood of the person who is taking you out to dinner, then yes you are a whore or at least behaving like one.

    The thing about the word "usually"- and this is important- is that it underscores a not very good mask at coming out and calling people whores, and I suspect specifically women. And makes this whole thread stink of a blanket statement that underneath it "usually" women are whores.

    As for the phones lines, webcames,etc the law has to draw a line somewhere, so it does at contact. Much like assault. Someone can yell and shout at you, but it's still not assault until they touch you.

    There is also a difference between full on sex and masturbatory assistance. Maybe some people dont know the difference. Too bad for them.

    This thread is degrading to mankind. It really is.


  • Options
    #53
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    • 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. But its not prostitution. You sleep with someone in the hope of getting a promotion so there is techanically no contract there for no prostitution further more this can actually lead to blackmail which is an additional "risk" you take
    • 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? There is no obligation for you to discuss sex so again it is not prostitution in the legal sense. You can actually discuss the washing if you want. You are calling to chat not to have sex. Believe it or not you can actually pick up a prostitute and chat to her and there is nothing illegal. The police have to prove you solicted her/him. This is usually proven by the hand over of money. When you ring the phone line you are paying for the call. Prostitution would be seen here if the call was free but you had to had over your credit card details for the conversation. Thats why this option has never been included
    • 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? The society of purchasing managers actually deal with these transactions with there rules. The discuss it as persenal gain. They say you should not receive without giving. As a child my mother always told me if you were offered diner in someones house its maners to return the favor. Business argues that dinner is a way of saying thanks for the business and nothing else. If Independent news and media brought Denis o brien to dinner to make up for there differences this would be fine. If the Quinn group brought the minister for industry and trade to dinner this would be unethical unless s/he returned the favour. On a personel level if you buy an expensive watch for your girlfriend and bring her to dinner then jump on her on the way home. She is entitled to cry rape. If it can be proven that she accepted the watch for sex its prostitution. Sex in this case was consentual not contractural.
    So i can only conclude you are confusing consentual and contractural sex. IMO of course.

    For example I am contract bound to arrive at work at 9am every morning but if i had a choice i would arrive by my consent at 11.

    Equally I consent to having sex with you because of my feelings but if you pay me money i am contract bound to have sex with you. This type of contract is illegal just like a contract to shoot someone is illegal.

    I am sorry to say I am still lost as to your point.


  • Options
    #54
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    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?
    Not simply where money directly exchanges hands, but where one personally gains (outside of the sexual act, such as an orgasm) as a result of offering sex. Be that money, assets, promotions, etc. that they would not have gained from had they not offered sex.
    metrovelvet wrote: »
    And if you are putting out for a free meal and wine, when you have no interest in the personhood of the person who is taking you out to dinner, then yes you are a whore or at least behaving like one.
    Fair enough, but they would likely disagree.
    The thing about the word "usually"- and this is important- is that it underscores a not very good mask at coming out and calling people whores, and I suspect specifically women. And makes this whole thread stink of a blanket statement that underneath it "usually" women are whores.
    Certainly the emphasis in traditional courtship has been towards men 'buying' the affection of women, however, as I have already pointed out this works both ways and also gave an example of this. You also seem to ignore homosexual dating. Let's try to avoid the easy option of turning this into a gender based issue, as frankly it is not.
    As for the phones lines, webcames,etc the law has to draw a line somewhere, so it does at contact. Much like assault. Someone can yell and shout at you, but it's still not assault until they touch you.
    Absolutely - that is the entire point of my original question - where do we draw these lines? Why is case A OK and case B not OK?
    There is also a difference between full on sex and masturbatory assistance. Maybe some people dont know the difference. Too bad for them.
    Naturally, as there is between oral sex and sexual intercourse, or lap-dancing and a hand-job. Again, is it that we draw a line and don't 'count' some sexual behaviour?
    This thread is degrading to mankind. It really is.
    Whenever someone says something like that, calls for censorship are often not too far behind. Not asking questions is what is really degrading to mankind, IMHO.
    Joey the lips wrote: »
    So i can only conclude you are confusing consentual and contractural sex. IMO of course.
    I don't know if consensual is the correct term - people consent to enter contracts, after all.

    Where you seem to be differentiating between the two is that one is a clear cut transaction (with obligation), while the other one is a transaction with no guaranteed return (with no obligation). The former is prostitution, the latter is not. Fair point.


  • Options
    #55
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Not simply where money directly exchanges hands, but where one personally gains (outside of the sexual act, such as an orgasm) as a result of offering sex. Be that money, assets, promotions, etc. that they would not have gained from had they not offered sex.

    If someone is offering sex for payment, then I'd class that as prostitution. Dinner dates, porn stars, sex phone line workers, etc, do not offer their body for sex.

    If someone is gaining money/assets/promotion solely as a payment exchange for sex then it is prostitution - you seem to be pushing the idea that that exchange is exactly the same as a date or relationship tho. If someone exchanges a shag for money, a flat screen TV or a promotion then it's a simple transaction, no emotion, no relationship, just the physical act & sexual gratification for one and the "payment" item for the other - no different to a cash exchange with a hooker.

    Within a relationship surely both want the sex, its not just one pays for dinner & bingo! the date is obliged to give out - the date can take dinner & walk, the date can suggest they skip dinner & go straight to sex...there is no obligation, implied or agreed to do anything other than have dinner.

    Porn stars have sex for a living but they aren't offering their body to the general public, or to one person for a particular item of payment - they have sex with other porn stars, they are paid for allowing filming of them having sex rather than for the act itself. Even the home video type of porn is usually a chosen partner, not a stranger making an on the spot transaction for sex - there isn't the general offer of sex and anyone who can pay can have the sex.

    Sex phone lines are much the same, it's not offering a physical intimacy with anyone, it's paying for someone to speak - albeit speak dirty but again it's not someone offering their body to the general public.


  • Options
    #56
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    The Corinthian wrote: »

    Fair enough, but they would likely disagree.

    What does that mean?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Certainly the emphasis in traditional courtship has been towards men 'buying' the affection of women, however, as I have already pointed out this works both ways and also gave an example of this. You also seem to ignore homosexual dating. Let's try to avoid the easy option of turning this into a gender based issue, as frankly it is not.

    But you are talking about traditional courtship.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Absolutely - that is the entire point of my original question - where do we draw these lines? Why is case A OK and case B not OK?.

    At contact with the body.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Naturally, as there is between oral sex and sexual intercourse, or lap-dancing and a hand-job. Again, is it that we draw a line and don't 'count' some sexual behaviour?

    At contact with the body.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Whenever someone says something like that, calls for censorship are often not too far behind. Not asking questions is what is really degrading to mankind, IMHO.

    Now that is such a big leap I fear your tutu might drop.


  • Options
    #57
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    If someone is gaining money/assets/promotion solely as a payment exchange for sex then it is prostitution - you seem to be pushing the idea that that exchange is exactly the same as a date or relationship tho. If someone exchanges a shag for money, a flat screen TV or a promotion then it's a simple transaction, no emotion, no relationship, just the physical act & sexual gratification for one and the "payment" item for the other - no different to a cash exchange with a hooker.
    Sleeping with someone for a promotion, for example, is not a straight forward transaction normally. It's not as if there is an open agreement that one action will result with the other - it is more often implied as a likely consequence, although not guaranteed - just like a date.
    Porn stars have sex for a living but they aren't offering their body to the general public, or to one person for a particular item of payment - they have sex with other porn stars, they are paid for allowing filming of them having sex rather than for the act itself. Even the home video type of porn is usually a chosen partner, not a stranger making an on the spot transaction for sex - there isn't the general offer of sex and anyone who can pay can have the sex.
    However they are still having sex for payment, not for fun, relationship reasons or whatever. Additionally, they are still exposing an intimate sexual act to whoever pays.
    metrovelvet wrote: »
    What does that mean?
    That someone in that situation would likely disagree with you - it's not a relevant point, TBH.
    But you are talking about traditional courtship.
    Yes.
    Now that is such a big leap I fear your tutu might drop.
    But should I accept payment for the exposure that would result from that?

    Just piecing together some of the points made, the criteria that have been put forward for the dividing line that defines unacceptable sex for personal gain seem to be:
    • Physical sexual contact
    • Outside of marriage (which is an exception as the family unit requires protection)
    • A binding contract - both parties need to know what the transaction obligates them to and will definitely result in, as opposed to a non-binding understanding of what the transaction could likely result in.
    Does it come down to this?


  • Options
    #58
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    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:

    (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.

    Obviously I regard that as wrong. The Scriptures command men to love their wives as they do themselves.


  • Options
    #59
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I am glad to hear you say it, but it is not SO obvious as you think. You did after all quote scripture which said they do "not have authority over her own body". While quoting it you did not distance yourself from it expressly. I am glad to see you do that here and we agree the Scriptures are certainly not an authority in this matter. Any notion that anyone does "not have authority over her own body" when it comes to sex is abhorrent to me, and I hope to you too.

    The question remains open then, if they ARE an authority over their own body and the act of prostitution is an entirely private and consensual one... what issue could we have with prostitution? Why consider it immoral or even make it illegal? Hell, why is it even any of our business aside from the fact that their income, like all income, should be taxed in our society.


  • Options
    #60
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Obviously I regard that as wrong. The Scriptures command men to love their wives as they do themselves.
    What if you're a masochist?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    What if you're a masochist?

    In context:
    Ephesians 5:25-28 wrote:
    Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

    The bold is particularly worthy of note.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement