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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Sex for Personal Gain

2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.
    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.
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet



    Fair enough, but they would likely disagree.

    What does that mean?
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.
    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭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.


  • 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
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    What if you're a masochist?

    In context:
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Doesn't really answer my question (which was not all that serious, I'll admit, but now it's getting interesting). Indeed, how exactly you think masochists "love their own bodies"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    They dont.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 856 ✭✭✭miec


    Indeed, how exactly you think masochists "love their own bodies"?

    The danger of taking every word from the bible as the literal truth is that it creates black and white thinking. Therefore the above question is relevant, what does a wife do in the situation whereby her husband is a masochists? In reality she will have to walk away if he is brutal towards her but some religions forbid this. One can maybe look to the bible for guidance but to take each word as the literal truth is dangerous.

    Similarly, the law criminalises prostitution but one can parade naked on a web cam. Lap dances are okay, porn is okay but I see them all as selling sex whether there is contact or not. Our biggest sex organ is not our genitals but our heads, it is where attraction, desire, machoism, lust, etc begins and then it spreads elsewhere, our body responds to what is in our head and a person stimulating another person via virtual methods is the same as a prostitute in my opinion. Sex sells and it is everywhere such as advertising, pop stars, film stars etc, most of them use their sexuality to increase sales or popularity. Are they really that different to a prostitute? They are selling their bodies, albeit via a different platform, to gain financially.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Doesn't really answer my question (which was not all that serious, I'll admit, but now it's getting interesting). Indeed, how exactly you think masochists "love their own bodies"?

    I don't think Jesus was a masochist, rather He was selfless for us. By extension I think a husband should care and have compassion for his wife.

    It would be out of context to think that is what the Christian context is encouraging people to beat their wives because they like doing it to themselves.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.

    I believe the Scriptures do have authority. It's because I believe this that I believe that husbands shouldn't rape or abuse their wives.
    Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately.

    What I don't agree with is people abusing Scripture. Unfortunately it happens.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It would be out of context to think that is what the Christian context is encouraging people to beat their wives because they like doing it to themselves.
    Why? I only based my question on what was written in scripture and it certainly looked as if it kept the door open to that sort of thing. What did I miss?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I bolded the lines for you. A man is to love his wife, as Christ has loved the church. We would have to conclude that Christ was a masochist for one to be able to justify beating their wives. If people beat their wives in the name of the Gospel (which is about freedom) I can only say that it is misguided to say the least, a perversion of the message to say the most.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I bolded the lines for you.
    Why should I accept your interpretation though? I can read for myself. Perhaps you are the one abusing scripture.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Admittedly I could be. What do you think the passage is arguing? More particularly what is the importance in Paul's comparison between the relationship between Jesus and the Christian community, and a man and his wife?

    Reason with me if you object to my interpretation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭spoutwell


    'Sex for personal gain'. Eh, why else do we do it? It's not a chore, a pain or a drag - if its any of these you're either a masochist or an idiot.
    Still can't understand 'Go get f***ed'. It could be a blessing to someone who is just longing for the joy of sexual intercourse.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I believe the Scriptures do have authority. It's because I believe this that I believe that husbands shouldn't rape or abuse their wives.

    What I don't agree with is people abusing Scripture. Unfortunately it happens.

    Just because you believe it does not make it true, thankfully. I am glad you have offered no reason to think that these scriptures ARE an authority on anything at all, except that you BELIEVE they are.

    You are the one, not me, that quotes scripture that says a married man, or a woman does "not have authority over her own body". If this is what you believe then so be it. It is disgusting to me and I am glad you have not shown any reason to think it is true.

    Thankfully, since you have shown no evidence there is a god or that scripture holds any authority on anything, I do not have to answer the call you made to another user above of "Reason with me if you object to my interpretation." as I do not care what your interpretation of a meaningless authorityless text is.

    We DO have authority over our body. Our laws and society are built on this which is why we have laws on murder, rape, violence and more. And, to get back on the topic of this thread, if we have authority over our own body and we decide to have sex for money, then what grounds have we to call it immoral, make it illegal, or even to stick our nose into anyone else's business in the first place?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    spoutwell wrote: »
    'Sex for personal gain'. Eh, why else do we do it? It's not a chore, a pain or a drag - if its any of these you're either a masochist or an idiot.
    Still can't understand 'Go get f***ed'. It could be a blessing to someone who is just longing for the joy of sexual intercourse.
    You didn't bother to read the thread, did you?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Admittedly I could be. What do you think the passage is arguing? More particularly what is the importance in Paul's comparison between the relationship between Jesus and the Christian community, and a man and his wife?
    The phrase "husbands should love their wives as their own bodies" can easily be interpreted to mean that if you love your own body in a certain way, you should do the same for your wife, even if that way is masochistic. I see nothing in the text that would suggest otherwise.

    This is the problem with scripture - it is open to interpretation. If it were not, there would only be one unified Christian (or Islamic, or Judean or whatever) doctrine.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It's more to do with general reading of texts and contextualisation. I mean why give the example of the compassion Christ had for the Christian community, and then with the phrase "In the same way" surely it's rather clear a connection is to be drawn.

    You're right in saying that numerous groups can interpret things in different ways, however I feel that it's definitely out of context to say that it is masochistic. I mean you have ignored a major part of the passage by leaving out "In the same way".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Just because you believe it does not make it true, thankfully. I am glad you have offered no reason to think that these scriptures ARE an authority on anything at all, except that you BELIEVE they are?

    Absolute nonsense. Follow the discussion.

    1) I quote 1 Corinthians 7 about sharing sexuality between a man and his wife.
    2) You find extremists / distortionists that have taken this passage out of context.
    3) You claim because I do not have the same interpretation as these extremists / distortionists that I do not hold the Scriptures as having authority.
    4) I explain that I do hold the Scriptures as having authority, and it is because I hold these scriptures as having authority that I expect a man to love his wife, not to abuse them.

    This is perfectly in context. Then you bring in the whole nonsense that I've only said I believe in it. However, my answer was perfectly straight in terms of reasoning as I've described above.

    My intention isn't to prove the truth of Christianity, but rather to prove that:
    1) It doesn't encourage withholding sex from ones partner as The Corinthian stated.
    2) It doesn't encourage rape in marital situations like you have suggested.


    Be a bit reasonable, if you want to discuss the truth of the Scriptures do it somewhere else. However, please don't twist the line of discussion. The intention was not to prove the truth of the Scriptures but rather to refute the two strawman arguments above against Christianity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The phrase the devil quoting scripture to his own end comes to mind tbh.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's more to do with general reading of texts and contextualisation. I mean why give the example of the compassion Christ had for the Christian community, and then with the phrase "In the same way" surely it's rather clear a connection is to be drawn.
    Not at all. "In the same way" simply means that as Christ honoured the Church, a man should honour his wife. It then goes on to explain how this should be done (seeing as dying on a cross may be a bit much to ask of husbands), which is simply to do so the same way as they "love their own bodies" - some do this with pain. In my case, it would probably mean she'll drink, smoke and eat lots of Italian food.
    I mean you have ignored a major part of the passage by leaving out "In the same way".
    I didn't ignore it, I simply did not interpret it as you did. After all, it does not mention compassion at all, all that is mentioned is sanctification and cleansing. You brought compassion into the mix.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Right, but where is the masochism involved in the first relationship that's described? I'm still fairly confused about how that could be drawn in :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Right, but where is the masochism involved in the first relationship that's described? I'm still fairly confused about how that could be drawn in :confused:
    How do you 'love your own body'? How does a masochist?

    Ultimately the instructions are very clear; it does not say that you should love your wife according to the "average sexual practices"? It says clearly that you should do so in the same manner as you would for yourself.

    Of course, this is probably a good thing if your husband is a shopaholic. But if he's a masochist, then realistically I see how it could cause problems.

    But hey, I didn't make the rules, did I?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    ^ Rubbish. Since when is masochism and shopaholicism and act of love.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    ^ Rubbish. Since when is masochism and shopaholicism and act of love.
    As I said, I don't make the rules - that's how the passage tells us we should show our love - as we would to ourselves - and if that is pain, then it is pain.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The Corinthian: You're missing the point though.

    If 1) Christ's relationship to the church is meant to be the same way that 2) a man loves his wife as himself. Where does the masochism fit in?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    As I said, I don't make the rules - that's how the passage tells us we should show our love - as we would to ourselves - and if that is pain, then it is pain.

    Self flagillation, or self flaggilaation by proxy is not showing love to yourself, it is showing pain to yourself.

    This is basic stuff. Surprising from a usually subtle thinker.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The Corinthian: You're missing the point though.

    If 1) Christ's relationship to the church is meant to be the same way that 2) a man loves his wife as himself. Where does the masochism fit in?
    Sorry, but you are incorrect. The passage explains how a man should show love for his wife, which differs to how Christ showed his love. I have already explained where masochism could fit in that context.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Self flagillation, or self flaggilaation by proxy is not showing love to yourself
    It is if you like it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sorry, but you are incorrect. The passage explains how a man should show love for his wife, which differs to how Christ showed his love. I have already explained where masochism could fit in that context.

    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless you could argue that Christ's relationship with the church was masochistic that is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    It is if you like it.

    No it isnt. Its gratifying something else.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless you could argue that Christ's relationship with the church was masochistic that is.

    The problem is that masochistic images of Christ dominate our image repetoir thanks to the homo erotic legacy church art has left us and so its hard for some to discuss Christ and the church without having these images float through their imaginations.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless you could argue that Christ's relationship with the church was masochistic that is.
    Christ's relationship with the church does not need to be masochistic. I don't think you understand the argument.
    No it isnt. Its gratifying something else.
    The same can be said for sex.
    The problem is that masochistic images of Christ dominate our image repetoir thanks to the homo erotic legacy church art has left us and so its hard for some to discuss Christ and the church without having these images float through their imaginations.
    Actually what I argued is completely confined to what was written. Suggesting it was influenced my Michelangelo, would be a rather feeble dismissal.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The argument in Ephesians seems two fold. The phrase "In the same way" links the first relationship to the second. That would seem to be reasonable semantically. It's also suitably ironic when the passage says that part of this relationship is to keep the church & the husbands wife without blemish.

    If you want to take that out of it though, there's not really much I can say.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The argument in Ephesians seems two fold. The phrase "In the same way" links the first relationship to the second. That would seem to be reasonable semantically. It's also suitably ironic when the passage says that part of this relationship is to keep the church & the husbands wife without blemish.
    Not really, as I already pointed out. "In the same way" refers to the duty to 'love', but not that the means should be in the same way, otherwise crucifixion would be a rite of marriage. The passage plainly goes on to explain how this should be done.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    As I said, I don't make the rules - that's how the passage tells us we should show our love - as we would to ourselves - and if that is pain, then it is pain.

    Only if your wife likes that. :pac:

    The passage does not say physically treat your partner as you physically treat yourself. The word "love" in that passage in the original Greek is agapao, which means love in the moral emotional caring sense, not in the physical act of sex or "love making".

    Therefore it is very difficult to get a meaning from the text that the author is saying physically perform acts of love making on your wife that you would like performed on yourself.

    Another translation of that passage could easily be

    So husbands ought also to care for their own wives as they care for their own bodies. He who cares for his own wife cares for himself


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Jakass,

    I love how you call it nonsense and then turn it into nonsense. What you claim I was doing is not anything I espoused. Let me clarify:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    1) I quote 1 Corinthians 7 about sharing sexuality between a man and his wife.

    Yes and that quote said in it, perfectly clearly, that “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”
    Jakkass wrote: »
    2) You find extremists / distortionists that have taken this passage out of context.

    False. This is not something just interpreed wrong. It is there, in black and white, that a person does not have authority over their own body.

    These are the exact words and they have only one meaning. You either do, or do not, have authority over your own body. It can not be both. And the text clearly says it is “not”.

    I found people who have one interpretation and you have another. Fine. They would call you wrong, you call them wrong. So I have not found “extremists / distortionists” as you claim. I have found people who, given they have no more evidence for the authority of this text than you, have come to an interpretation that is just as valid as yours.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    3) You claim because I do not have the same interpretation as these extremists / distortionists that I do not hold the Scriptures as having authority.

    Entire, wholly, fabricated lie. That you would sit there and tell me not to twist things when I in fact have not, while wholesale inventing a position I never espoused is just comical to me in the extreme.

    I never said that YOU do not hold the Scriptures as having authority EVER. Not once. In fact I said the polar opposite.

    What I said is that you have offered us no evidence to consider the scriptures as an authority on this subject, except that you believe they are. So you have wholesale invented words and put them into my mouth. Take your words out of my mouth sir as I have enough of my own.

    In short I quite clearly said you believe they are and you reply by saying I claimed you believe they are NOT? Laughable.

    Let me repeat myself so you do not misrepresent me wholly again. YOU have given Us no reason to think the scriptures are an authority AT ALL. Therefore *I* do not consider them as such. Furthermore to this I am relieved to find there is no reason to consider them an authority as ANYONE who would espouse the view that someone has not authority over their OWN body is abhorrent to me.

    You can hold the scriptures to be anything you want. More power to you. This is your right. However until you show some reason to think they are an authority, then their authority exists solely in your head where I hope to whatever god you believe in that they stay.

    However, yet again in an attempt to get back on topic I must point out that unless you can show these scriptures to be an authority on the subject, it simply is not data useable in this discussion so I repeat once more the question I asked before which you totally ignored:

    We DO have authority over our body. Our laws and society are built on this which is why we have laws on murder, rape, violence and more. And, to get back on the topic of this thread, if we have authority over our own body and we decide to have sex for money, then what grounds have we to call it immoral, make it illegal, or even to stick our nose into anyone else's business in the first place?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Yes and that quote said in it, perfectly clearly, that “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”

    This is the logical conclusion from a man and a woman being joined together in one flesh (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5-6).

    I do genuinely believe that it is a sin for married couples not to share themselves sexually with one another.

    What is a sin? A sin is a falling short of God's standard (Romans 3:23, Isaiah 59:2)

    What is God's standard to Christians. The ideal! I.E It is ideal that a married couple who love one another share themselves sexually with one another.

    What is so offensive about that?
    False. This is not something just interpreed wrong. It is there, in black and white, that a person does not have authority over their own body.

    Read above.
    These are the exact words and they have only one meaning. You either do, or do not, have authority over your own body. It can not be both. And the text clearly says it is “not”.

    I believe that people should share with each other sexually. I do not believe that this encourages rape. Believe it or not (despite atheist objections to the Bible) rape is condemned explicitly in several passages. So yes, both are valid.

    I find it ironic that you feel that I should be more black and white about my faith coming from a position of lacking it yourself.
    I found people who have one interpretation and you have another. Fine. They would call you wrong, you call them wrong. So I have not found “extremists / distortionists” as you claim. I have found people who, given they have no more evidence for the authority of this text than you, have come to an interpretation that is just as valid as yours.

    Right. I differ with them. I would like them to explain to me Biblically where they come from. I regard them currently as distortionists based on what Biblical knowledge I have.

    I take the general view of the Scriptures, one passage shouldn't be isolated, but it should be considered in the grand scheme of divine revelation.
    Entire, wholly, fabricated lie. That you would sit there and tell me not to twist things when I in fact have not, while wholesale inventing a position I never espoused is just comical to me in the extreme.

    I have no intention of twisting anything. I have given you my truthful assessment of what has happened from my point of view.

    I personally don't want to get into petty semantics however.
    I never said that YOU do not hold the Scriptures as having authority EVER. Not once. In fact I said the polar opposite.

    It was implied in this quote:
    I am glad to see you do that here and we agree the Scriptures are certainly not an authority in this matter.

    I do believe that the Scriptures are an authority on this and every matter as a Christian.
    What I said is that you have offered us no evidence to consider the scriptures as an authority on this subject, except that you believe they are. So you have wholesale invented words and put them into my mouth. Take your words out of my mouth sir as I have enough of my own.

    The point of this thread wasn't about evidence. It was the two strawman assertions:
    1) The Bible encourages depriving ones partner of sex. I demonstrated this is not true by using 1 Corinthians 7.
    2) The Bible encourages rape. I have also dealt with this using Ephesians 5.

    If you want to start a thread asking Christians to demonstrate why God has authority that's something else altogether. That was certainly not my intention in quoting 1 Corinthians 7. Rather it was to clear up a misconception.
    Let me repeat myself so you do not misrepresent me wholly again. YOU have given Us no reason to think the scriptures are an authority AT ALL. Therefore *I* do not consider them as such. Furthermore to this I am relieved to find there is no reason to consider them an authority as ANYONE who would espouse the view that someone has not authority over their OWN body is abhorrent to me.

    See above. The thread was never about "proving". It was about clearing up misconceptions about the Christian texts.
    You can hold the scriptures to be anything you want. More power to you. This is your right. However until you show some reason to think they are an authority, then their authority exists solely in your head where I hope to whatever god you believe in that they stay.

    See above.
    However, yet again in an attempt to get back on topic I must point out that unless you can show these scriptures to be an authority on the subject, it simply is not data useable in this discussion so I repeat once more the question I asked before which you totally ignored:

    You're missing the point again!
    We DO have authority over our body. Our laws and society are built on this which is why we have laws on murder, rape, violence and more. And, to get back on the topic of this thread, if we have authority over our own body and we decide to have sex for money, then what grounds have we to call it immoral, make it illegal, or even to stick our nose into anyone else's business in the first place?

    That's fine. I never said you couldn't debate the notion. I was merely clearing up based on this quote. You then sidetracked the main point:
    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.

    This is what is on topic. Not proving that God has authority, but demonstrating that Christianity does not encourage withholding sex from ones spouse.

    By the by, please tone down the temper :), this isn't your Atheist Ireland blog (which I found quite interesting) . I have no interest of discussing in any other context apart from a calm one. I think mutual calmness in replying to other peoples posts isn't too much to ask!


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Jakass,

    Any impression of temper you get from my words exists solely in your head. You have not the ability to anger me, a comment which is about me not about you, as I know what is required to anger me and it simply is not present here. Suffice to say however, that angry or not, you do not get to dictate to me what tone I reply in so you waste your time even trying.

    Again you have not shown evidence that there is a god, so your standard of sin is purely arbitrary, in your head and off topic. If you think the “logical conclusion” of anything is that someone does not have authority over their own body or they are admonished to provide sex against their will then so be it. That’s the person you are and it says more about you then I ever could or would. Needless to say I find it abhorrent and I see no evidence for it, and I am further relieved to see no evidence for it.

    The “ideal” for me, since you use this word, is that a married couple who love each other respect the fact that the other person is no slave that you own, but are autonomous people with full authority over their own self. If the partners choice of when to have sex does not please you then you are in the wrong marriage and you are more than welcome to leave it.

    However I note again you did not answer my question. I asked you that, given we DO have authority over our own body, do you or do you not see any reason on the subject of prostitution to call it immoral, make it illegal, or even to stick our nose into anyone else's business in the first place on the matter? If no, then say it. If yes then adumbrate why.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Again you have not shown evidence that there is a god, so your standard of sin is purely arbitrary, in your head and off topic. If you think the “logical conclusion” of anything is that someone does not have authority over their own body or they are admonished to provide sex against their will then so be it. That’s the person you are and it says more about you then I ever could or would. Needless to say I find it abhorrent and I see no evidence for it, and I am further relieved to see no evidence for it.

    That wasn't the intention of why I quoted it. Hence you would be taking the thread off topic. It's up to you whether or not God exists, it is another matter to claim the Christian texts say something they do not though.

    I thought that would be simple to understand.
    The “ideal” for me, since you use this word, is that a married couple who love each other respect the fact that the other person is no slave that you own, but are autonomous people with full authority over their own self. If the partners choice of when to have sex does not please you then you are in the wrong marriage and you are more than welcome to leave it.

    I don't think the Christian scriptures encourage us to view wives as slaves. Hence why I included Ephesians chapter 5 in discussing it further. I agree with you on this. In an ideal marriage though, I think people will share love with each other sexually.
    However I note again you did not answer my question. I asked you that, given we DO have authority over our own body, do you or do you not see any reason on the subject of prostitution to call it immoral, make it illegal, or even to stick our nose into anyone else's business in the first place on the matter? If no, then say it. If yes then adumbrate why.

    I think prostitution should be illegal because it involves the sexual exploitation of people in vulnerable situations.

    It's quite clear that I regard sex inside of marriage to be the best and most pragmatic situation for sexual intimacy.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Jakkass,

    Again I did not say what the texts say. I gave you examples of others who do. What the Christian texts say is about as useful to me on this topic as what the Lord of the Rings says. Until such time as you show there is a god, then any “text” based on that assumption is about as useful to me as you coming into this conversation and saying “My imaginary friend says X so I want to use X as data in this conversation”.

    Also you accredit me with more power than I wield with the words “It's up to you whether or not God exists”. It really is not. It either exists, or it does not. I have no power over this. It is not up to me to believe it exists either. I simply have not been shown any evidence at ALL that it does, therefore I have no other option available to me other than to proceed without that assumption. Nothing is “up to me” if I am given only one possible course.

    So, since you can not show Christian Scripture to have ANY authority in this matter, let us return to the real world on topic shall we? In this real world you say you think prostitution should be illegal but you give no evidence or argument for this. The one thing you do say is that “it involves the sexual exploitation of people in vulnerable situations”

    This is a problem for 2 reasons:

    1) It does not do so exclusively. There are people who are perfectly willing to go into such lines of work and are not vulnerable at all. Therefore you are extrapolating a generalisation for all out of an anecdotal fraction.
    2) The argument is too general. There are many industries which exploit workers with low pay, bad working conditions and no worker rights. This is an indictment of the employer in each industry, not of the product or service. For example children were found in poor countries to be used in sweat shops to produce a certain brand of clothing. This was clearly exploitation of the workers and people moved against that particular trade name and its management. At no point did any one stand up and say “Ah this means clothes are immoral!” It would have been ludicrous to do so, yet you do it here. This is a “guilt by association” fallacy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Again, for the third time. The reason why Christianity is even involved in this discussion is due to the OP, and The Corinthian bringing it up. The point of quotation was to clarify how a strawman had been made. That's all.

    I'm quite aware of your position on the Bible being like the Lord of the Rings, or God being an imaginary friend (All unsubstantiated positions in comparison to defences commonly made by apologists). It would be futile to even discuss how it rings true unless people are willing to consider that it is a possibility. That's why it was never my intention to get into such a discussion.
    1) It does not do so exclusively. There are people who are perfectly willing to go into such lines of work and are not vulnerable at all. Therefore you are extrapolating a generalisation for all out of an anecdotal fraction.

    In the majority of situations it is due to vulnerability, it also fuels illegal trafficking. It is essentially rape in a lot of cases as people are doing it through financial coercion and the inability to find a job. In most cases those involved are not from Ireland.

    The law is there to protect people from harm. It is difficult if not impossible to reflect these situations in the law, therefore it should be exclusively illegal.

    On a moral level, it also depends on what you think of sexuality. I don't consider it something like eating or drinking, it has more meaning than that.
    The argument is too general. There are many industries which exploit workers with low pay, bad working conditions and no worker rights. This is an indictment of the employer in each industry, not of the product or service. For example children were found in poor countries to be used in sweat shops to produce a certain brand of clothing. This was clearly exploitation of the workers and people moved against that particular trade name and its management. At no point did any one stand up and say “Ah this means clothes are immoral!” It would have been ludicrous to do so, yet you do it here. This is a “guilt by association” fallacy.

    Most industries do not. It is far easier to discern exploitation at work where it does not involve a private matter such as sexuality. I thought that was fairly straight forward.

    The reasons for why I support clamping down on prostitution are two fold:
    1) Safety for the women involved,
    2) Moral reasons that are the result of my understanding of sexuality.

    I don't believe in an excessively permissive society. Restrictions are needed to ensure general safety and human rights.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Jakkass,

    I think you miss my point. I do not care WHY Christianity was involved in this thread. I am giving you my reasons why I think it is off topic and not useable as data in this thread. Until the base assumption of it, that there is a god, is shown to be true it just is not pertinent to this conversation. Going on about WHY it is on this thread is irrelevant to my point there.

    If you can translate a Christian influenced concern into real world argument I would of course listen to it at length. Just saying “Its relevant because it is in scripture” is not enough however.

    Given that you have not offered a shred of a scarp of evidence for this entity, the only assumption left open to us to choose from is that it exists purely in the heads of those who think it exists. As such it is not admissible here as actual data no matter how many times you call my position “unsubstantiated” as if that changes anything.

    Back on topic again.

    You say in the “majority” of situations. What studies of figures are you citing here? Also you are still committing “guilt by association” fallacy. If someone is raped then this is a crime of rape, not of prostitution. If someone is trafficked then this is a crime of trafficking, not of prostitution. These are crimes and I would stand shoulder to shoulder to you fighting against them.

    However if someone chooses, of their own free will for whatever reason to enter into Prostitution, THIS is what I am asking about and you have given no argument against it yet. Instead you argue against crimes that are committed in parallel to it, and try and indict prostitution by association.

    Similarly cigarettes and alcohol are illegally imported and sold on the black market. You might think these products are immoral and if you do then so be it. But they are not made immoral by someone illegally importing them. The illegal import is a separate crime in itself and C&A products are not indicted by the actions of these people. Just the same as prostitution is not indicted by the fact that people illegally traffic people to engage in it.

    Or to put it even shorter: You are fighting the right battle but against the wrong target.

    If you want the “safety” of women in the industry then stop forcing them underground by first making them illegal and secondly making them social pariahs that you call immoral. Legitimise their industry, make them tax payers on their income into their own tax, pension and medical insurance, and grant them all the transparent rights of worker safety and protection that we all enjoy in our industry of choice. Why not? … given that you have offered no argument to make the practise immoral or illegal other than that it does not conform to your personal measurement of what makes sexuality meaningful. Or put another way, if a product or service is not meaningful or useful to you then…. Simply do not purchase the product or service. Simple as that. However saying someone else can not sell or buy a product or service merely because you have a personal dislike or distaste for it, is really forcing your personal unsubstantiated views on others.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    You say in the “majority” of situations. What studies of figures are you citing here? Also you are still committing “guilt by association” fallacy. If someone is raped then this is a crime of rape, not of prostitution. If someone is trafficked then this is a crime of trafficking, not of prostitution. These are crimes and I would stand shoulder to shoulder to you fighting against them.

    I'm fairly sure the figures will back me up. I'll do some research when I get some time.

    Carrying on though, if a rape is facilitated by prostitution, then prostitution is to blame for that
    However if someone chooses, of their own free will for whatever reason to enter into Prostitution, THIS is what I am asking about and you have given no argument against it yet. Instead you argue against crimes that are committed in parallel to it, and try and indict prostitution by association.

    If it is impossible or unviable to legislate specifically for situations where the former is not the case then simply it should be completely illegal so as to minimise the risk to the general public.
    Similarly cigarettes and alcohol are illegally imported and sold on the black market. You might think these products are immoral and if you do then so be it. But they are not made immoral by someone illegally importing them. The illegal import is a separate crime in itself and C&A products are not indicted by the actions of these people. Just the same as prostitution is not indicted by the fact that people illegally traffic people to engage in it.

    I believe it is immoral for people to lie to the State concerning taxation in any form.

    I believe the crime, and the facilitator are linked. You do not. There is such a thing as causation to be considered instead of separation of mere convenience.

    Or to put it even shorter: You are fighting the right battle but against the wrong target.
    If you want the “safety” of women in the industry then stop forcing them underground by first making them illegal and secondly making them social pariahs that you call immoral. Legitimise their industry, make them tax payers on their income into their own tax, pension and medical insurance, and grant them all the transparent rights of worker safety and protection that we all enjoy in our industry of choice. Why not? … given that you have offered no argument to make the practise immoral or illegal other than that it does not conform to your personal measurement of what makes sexuality meaningful.

    Nonsense. In Sweden they've had quite a lot of success in clamping down the prostitution industry. Clamping down has decreased the Swedish level of human trafficking to levels far far below the Dutch levels.

    I don't think excessive permissiveness is the way forward.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I see now what your main error is. Rape is not facilitated by prostitution any more than DVDs facilitate piracy.

    You can not indict a service of industry by the fact people are able to use it to break a law.

    To have a consistent position, based on what you just said, you would have to call for DVDs to be considered immoral and illegal because their presence allows people to break copyright laws.

    So again you are fighting the right battle but against the wrong target. We should stand up against rapists and infringers of copyright law. This however does not indict prostitution or the DVD industry like you are attempting to make it using this guilt by association fallacy.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement