16
   

Prostitution, or good sense?

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 01:49 pm
Existing laws in the U.S. taken aside, this is not likely to be a lucrative career choice for a middle-aged woman.
chai2
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 01:56 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Existing laws in the U.S. taken aside, this is not likely to be a lucrative career choice for a middle-aged woman.


Not hardly Laughing

Anyway, I wasn't talking, as I've said, about a career in this.

It just occured to me, after seeing the self employed prostitute in Hong Kong who used her earning for real estate, why it's ok for her.

If, as is often said, a womans body is her own, why can't she, if she was going to have sex with a guy anyway, make her preference known of what she expects in return?

Hey, you're a nice enough guy, and the sex is nice, but we both know we're not gonna go anywhere relationship wise together. Why not just be honest, and you spend your date money upfront, instead of all night long?

Because.....because....it's just not done!

I think this goes on, it's just not talked about.
Rockhead
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 01:59 pm
@chai2,
"I think this goes on, it's just not talked about."

I agree.

I used to have a maid a lot like Jerry's...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:03 pm
@chai2,
I think Thomas' point is pertinent too, though.

There are three basic scenarios when dating:

1.) No sex is gonna happen, no way, no how.

2.) Sex would be acceptable, but needs to be worth someone's while (money or goods).

3.) Sex is strongly desired by both parties equally.


Nobody wants to be in scenario #1. But nobody wants to be the less-valuable person in scenario #2, either, and any sort of explicit conversation will point that out.

If sex is on the table, either it's #3, or person A is paying person B for the privilege of having sex with him/ her. That's the rough part for person A.

If it's #3, there's no reason for payment of any kind -- the sex itself is the payoff.

When it's all codified then the harsh reality of "I wouldn't have sex with you unless I get some sort of compensation" is obscured.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:06 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Well, that's pretty bad economics. In a free transaction, the presumption is that both sides benefit. But they don't necessarily benefit equally, and if party A is offering a good that is in short supply and high demand, it makes sense to charge party B more than just a straight-up swap to get it. That's standard lunch-room economics. I'm not going to trade my pastrami and Swiss on rye for a PB&J without getting at least a bag of chips in the deal.

The difference is that from the viewpoint of economics, sex is not just an instance of trade, it is also an instance of production. Giving a woman a pastrami with swiss on rye reduces the quantity of pastrami-with-swiss-on-rye sandwiches you have. But by "giving it" to that woman, "it" being sexual intercourse, you increase the quantity of sex you have. Your analogy breaks down because of this crucial detail. Even as a matter of cold, economic calculation, sex is way better than pastrami with swiss on rye.
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:20 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Well, that's pretty bad economics. In a free transaction, the presumption is that both sides benefit. But they don't necessarily benefit equally, and if party A is offering a good that is in short supply and high demand, it makes sense to charge party B more than just a straight-up swap to get it. That's standard lunch-room economics. I'm not going to trade my pastrami and Swiss on rye for a PB&J without getting at least a bag of chips in the deal.

The difference is that from the viewpoint of economics, sex is not just an instance of trade, it is also an instance of production. Giving a woman a pastrami with swiss on rye reduces the quantity of pastrami-with-swiss-on-rye sandwiches you have. But by giving it to that woman, "it" being sexual intercourse, you increase the quantity of sex you have. Your analogy breaks down because of this crucial detail. Even as a matter of cold, economic calculation, sex is way better than pastrami with swiss on rye.


Economic calculation is actually a bad fit for the situation Chai is describing. Chai seems to be talking about paying for sex under social circumstances. I do not see how the business model for prostitution can be transferred to social encounters.

Edit: This is not simply because "It is not done!" People would be less inclined to pay for sex in a social relationship. Prostitution is strictly a business relationship.
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:26 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

When it's all codified then the harsh reality of "I wouldn't have sex with you unless I get some sort of compensation" is obscured.


First off, something intangible, like sex, I don't there there is a totally equal worth to both parties. I think it comes down to it's worth enough to each party, period.

What I'm saying is not "I wouldn't have sex with you unless...." It's I'm going to have sex with you, because that in itself has worth....BUT I recognize you're going ahead and voluntarily putting out some of your assets, not so I'll have sex with you, but because it's just part of how it's done.
With most women, that might be exactly what I expect, and the sex is going to happen in any event.
Why not just give me in a form I appreciate more, and saves you having to get all dressed up, and just go ahead, sit around awhile talking (or not) then do what we were gonna do anyway?

Because nice girls don't?

I can't get past the problem of "I was willing to put out $100 to take you out, so I could have sex with you, when we don't love each other, don't want to love each other, and we both wanted, or were willing to do this, BUT, if we don't go out, and just have the sex, I get to save a hundred bucks."

Wouldn't that be mercenary of the guy, to think he get to keep the money, and get laid too? Would you want to spend time with someone like that?

A person can go out to a restaurant to eat good food, but will have to get dressed to an extent appropriate to the establishment.
OR the person can order take out from the same place, spend the same amount, and gets to eat it in their underwear.

The foods just as good either way, and the person didn't care about the atmosphere in the first place, but he wanted it served by a particular server.
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:34 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
What I'm saying is not "I wouldn't have sex with you unless...."


But then why bring money into it at all? Why not just have a regular hookup? (Lots of opportunities for that.) By that I mean, no pretense of dinner movie etc. -- just meet somewhere, have sex, and go separate ways.

Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:43 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
Economic calculation is actually a bad fit for the situation Chai is describing.

To rebut this point diligently would require an entire thread in its own right. I don't want to blight a perfectly enjoyable sex thread with economic theory. Briefly though, economics is at its core a science of human choices. Having sex (or not, or just under certain conditions) is very much a human choice . I emphatically do believe that economic reasoning applies to the matter.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:43 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Chai is describing. Chai seems to be talking about paying for sex under social circumstances. I do not see how the business model for prostitution can be transferred to social encounters.

Edit: This is not simply because "It is not done!" People would be less inclined to pay for sex in a social relationship. Prostitution is strictly a business relationship.


Sure we pay for social encounters.
We join gyms when we could afford to buy the equipment for our home.
We join, let's say bike clubs when we could just as well pedal around ourselves. We pay to join other types of clubs, take classes to not only learn, but interact with others, etc.
We even joint dining clubs, when we could go eat at the same restaurant alone.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:44 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Edit: This is not simply because "It is not done!" People would be less inclined to pay for sex in a social relationship. Prostitution is strictly a business relationship.


Some people, pay and pay and pay to get sex in their social/romantic relationships.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:46 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Quote:
What I'm saying is not "I wouldn't have sex with you unless...."


But then why bring money into it at all? Why not just have a regular hookup? (Lots of opportunities for that.) By that I mean, no pretense of dinner movie etc. -- just meet somewhere, have sex, and go separate ways.




Because of what I said immediatley after that....

It's I'm going to have sex with you, because that in itself has worth....BUT I recognize you're going ahead and voluntarily putting out some of your assets, not so I'll have sex with you, but because it's just part of how it's done.
With most women, that might be exactly what I expect, and the sex is going to happen in any event.
Why not just give me in a form I appreciate more, and saves you having to get all dressed up, and just go ahead, sit around awhile talking (or not) then do what we were gonna do anyway?
I can't get past the problem of "I was willing to put out $100 to take you out, so I could have sex with you, when we don't love each other, don't want to love each other, and we both wanted, or were willing to do this, BUT, if we don't go out, and just have the sex, I get to save a hundred bucks."

Wouldn't that be mercenary of the guy, to think he get to keep the money, and get laid too? Would you want to spend time with someone like that?
A person can go out to a restaurant to eat good food, but will have to get dressed to an extent appropriate to the establishment.
OR the person can order take out from the same place, spend the same amount, and gets to eat it in their underwear.

The foods just as good either way, and the person didn't care about the atmosphere in the first place, but he wanted it served by a particular server.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:50 pm
Men tend to want sex more than women, so paying for it makes sense even if we get rid of the outdated expectation that the man pays for the date. The problem with Chai's scheme is that it eliminates the hunt, the game, which is rewarding to both parties. Neither men nor women are going to be thrilled to cut out the gaming and getting right to the sex most of the time, though I have known men who look at the dinner/bar part of the night as the torture required to get to what is wanted. I believe most of those guys go to CL or ashleymadison type sites to get their sex now though and would not be dating.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:50 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
What I'm saying is not "I wouldn't have sex with you unless...." It's I'm going to have sex with you, because that in itself has worth....BUT I recognize you're going ahead and voluntarily putting out some of your assets, not so I'll have sex with you, but because it's just part of how it's done.

1) Is it, though? It seems to me that emancipation has pretty much done away with the business of men paying, men giving flowers, and what not. My experience is that everyone pays their own bills at first. After that, if mutual attraction strikes, both sides follow up with some kind of mutual gift exchange.

2) Here's something I don't understand: If you're going to sleep with him anyway, why would he give you anything besides the sex itself? What's his incentive to give you cash, or flowers, or anything at all?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:52 pm
@chai2,
So, you'd be OK, then, with a woman dropping a couple of hundred bucks on dinner and a show, before going home for some wild monkey sex? Or is it just the guy who has to pay?
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:53 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
I can't get past the problem of "I was willing to put out $100 to take you out, so I could have sex with you, when we don't love each other, don't want to love each other, and we both wanted, or were willing to do this, BUT, if we don't go out, and just have the sex, I get to save a hundred bucks."

Wouldn't that be mercenary of the guy, to think he get to keep the money, and get laid too? Would you want to spend time with someone like that?

If the sex itself is enjoyable, why not? It's not a crime against you that he's better off for himself because he didn't buy dinner.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:55 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

2) Here's something I don't understand: If you're going to sleep with him anyway, why would he give you anything besides the sex itself? What's his incentive to give you cash, or flowers, or anything at all?


To rephrase:
If he was going to spend the money on someone anyway, why wouldn't he spend it in the way the other person wanted?
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:57 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

So, you'd be OK, then, with a woman dropping a couple of hundred bucks on dinner and a show, before going home for some wild monkey sex? Or is it just the guy who has to pay?


I'd be absolutley ok with that!

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 02:57 pm
This reads as a justification for men buying sex, whether up front, or with the dinner and a show method, on no other basis than that that's the way it's done.

That is bullshit.

Edit: OK, i saw your response. The trend of the thread seemed to me to justify making the man pay for sex, directly or indirectly. I also don't see how we got here from an opening description of an independent hooker.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 03:08 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

So, you'd be OK, then, with a woman dropping a couple of hundred bucks on dinner and a show, before going home for some wild monkey sex? Or is it just the guy who has to pay?


I'd be absolutley ok with that!




ok, seriously, I'm not crawfishing, I honestly did not phase this through completely.... Let me be more thourough....

It would be ok with the woman dropping money on a guy, then going home for monkey sex.
However, it would be just as ok if the guy said "why not just give me the money, you were going to spend it anyway."

I'm not saying this in the case of people who ARE developing a relationship.

I'm talking about those who don't have hangups about meeting someone they think is an ok person, but aren't gonna fall in love, but having sex sounds like fun.
If Both the people are aware this aint going nowhere permanent, but One of them, the man or women, says "Let me spend this money on you, then we'll have the sex" Why shouldn't the other say "Sure, spend the money on me if you want to. But don't bother with all that other stuff, hand me what you were going to put out willingly anyway."

Better off if both people said "let's not spend any money and have sex", but if one has offered to spend it in some form and doesn't mind putting out the cash, why not take it in the form you want?"

It would save time have to go to the pawn shop later, or have some geegaw sitting in a drawer.
 

Related Topics

I think prostitution is hot - Discussion by tony5732
The Good Life in Europe - Discussion by gungasnake
Guys asking for discounts - Discussion by JessieSweetz
Religious hypocracy - Discussion by JessieSweetz
Is lying better than hurting - Question by JessieSweetz
Do True Bisexuals Exist? - Question by FoxEmerson
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/17/2019 at 11:22:27