16
   

Prostitution, or good sense?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 03:16 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
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.


You might consider the possibility that maintaining an iron wall between personal relationships and sexual financial transactions is beneficial. How many women could emotionally deal with blurring the line the way you want to do it?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 03:22 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
If he was going to spend the money on someone anyway, why wouldn't he spend it in the way the other person wanted?

Because he might turn out not to like her after all --- not even enough to be fuckbuddies. And he might prefer to find that out during the main course rather than during intercourse.
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 03:34 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

chai2 wrote:
If he was going to spend the money on someone anyway, why wouldn't he spend it in the way the other person wanted?

Because he might turn out not to like her after all --- not even enough to be fuckbuddies. And he might prefer to find that out during the main course rather than during intercourse.


And she might like him at all either.

But if you decide during the main course you don't like the meal, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the food, preparation etc. You still pay for it, or at least tip the waiter.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 03:36 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Because he might turn out not to like her after all --- not even enough to be fuckbuddies


How many men would care beyond what she looks like, and also how well she fucks which you dont know till you get her into bed??? Men now need to "like" the woman too? Since when?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 03:43 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
But if you decide during the main course you don't like the meal, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the food, preparation etc. You still pay for it, or at least tip the waiter.

That's because the work of cooking and serving food is intrinsically undesirable, whereas the pleasure of eating food is intrinsically desirable, even if the food is just good rather than great.

Sex is different. As a rule, it's desirable to both parties, in which case there's no role for money. As an exception, it's desirable to party A but undesirable to party B, in which case A pays B and we're in Sozobe's I'm-not-sleeping-with-you-unless scenario. Social routines are made for the most common case, with the exceptions tucked away behind denial and hypocrisy.
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 03:57 pm
@Thomas,
I don't think sex is all that different. I don't know any rules as far as desire. That depends on so many factors.

People in other cultures, and some today didn't/don't marry for sexual desire or even love.

Sex is sex, love is love. It's nice when they are together, but this notion it's the rule is a recent invention.

Sex in a marriage was important to have to children, but I can't say it was had because both people actively desired it at the same time, same place, or at all.

Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 04:17 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
Sex is sex, love is love. It's nice when they are together, but this notion it's the rule is a recent invention.

Oh, I totally agree.

chai2 wrote:
Sex in a marriage was important to have to children, but I can't say it was had because both people actively desired it at the same time, same place, or at all.

It was also important because our sexual mores developed mostly in a time when humans were ignorant of bacteria, viruses, and how to deal with them. Back then, everybody sleeping with everyone they enjoyed sleeping with would have been lethal. Any society that allowed it would have rendered itself extinct from sexually-transmitted diseases.

It is only in our modern world that society-wide sleeping-around is even a medical option. I believe our social mores are still catching up with these medical and scientific changes. That's why they're so messed up, and why there's so much contention over them.

PS: All this sex talk makes me think of True Blood. Is season 5 starting today or next week? I forget.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 04:27 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
It was also important because our sexual mores developed mostly in a time when humans were ignorant of bacteria, viruses, and how to deal with them.

More importantly were ignorant of how to safely prevent babies. The pill changed everything till AIDS came along....I would have loved sex in the seventies.

Quote:
It is only in our modern world that sleeping with everyone we desire to sleep with is even a medical option. I believe our social mores are still catching up with these medical changes.

Between AIDS and untreatable std superbugs we are moving backwards in that area. Given that there appear to be no next generation bug killing drugs anywhere in the pipeline we know that we will go far in reverse.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 04:40 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
This isn't an argument for or against your proposal, it's really its own thing. Why are the social dating norms in 2012 still set for the man to pay for the date?

Are they, though? I'm a little confused on that point.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 04:41 pm
@Thomas,
I am now too. I think I'm going to go ahead and open a new thread about those two questions (have they changed? and if not, why not?)
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 04:45 pm
@sozobe,
Here 'tis:

http://able2know.org/topic/191939-1
0 Replies
 
mismi
 
  4  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 04:59 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
If I was in debt, I'd rather have the money a guy would spend on me for a dinner, and buy a whole weeks worth of food. Not romantic maybe, but the money would be out of his pocket either way, so what difference does it make?


Don't you think the guy's feelings would be hurt? I mean - if you are going to prostitute yourself - just put it out there honest like. Set up a shop like the lady in Hong Kong. I think a guy is prepared for it to be impersonal when he goes that route. I think his ego would be wounded if the gal he liked enough to spend money on going out for the evening said, "Look - you are okay - this is going nowhere though - so why don't you give me the money and I will hook up with you."

I know my feelings would be hurt if someone did that to me. But I think I am much too much of a romantic to ever go out with a guy I knew I didn't want to spend time with. If I wasn't interested in him enough to date him - I probably just wouldn't waste his or my time.

Nah...It is just not in me. I did the whole scenario in my head and I was horrified.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 05:18 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
The difference is that from the viewpoint of economics, sex is not just an instance of trade, it is also an instance of production.

That's not only a distinction without a difference, it's also not much of a distinction. All goods are produced at some point. Some goods are produced prior to the transaction, some are produced as part of the transaction. How that makes any material difference when the focus is on the transaction escapes me. All transactions are subject to the law of supply and demand.

Thomas wrote:
Even as a matter of cold, economic calculation, sex is way better than pastrami with swiss on rye.

Not in all cases.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 06:10 pm
@joefromchicago,
I need to come to Chicago and try your sandwiches.
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 06:16 pm
@mismi,
mismi wrote:

Quote:
If I was in debt, I'd rather have the money a guy would spend on me for a dinner, and buy a whole weeks worth of food. Not romantic maybe, but the money would be out of his pocket either way, so what difference does it make?


Don't you think the guy's feelings would be hurt? I mean - if you are going to prostitute yourself - just put it out there honest like. Set up a shop like the lady in Hong Kong. I think a guy is prepared for it to be impersonal when he goes that route. I think his ego would be wounded if the gal he liked enough to spend money on going out for the evening said, "Look - you are okay - this is going nowhere though - so why don't you give me the money and I will hook up with you."

I know my feelings would be hurt if someone did that to me. But I think I am much too much of a romantic to ever go out with a guy I knew I didn't want to spend time with. If I wasn't interested in him enough to date him - I probably just wouldn't waste his or my time.

Nah...It is just not in me. I did the whole scenario in my head and I was horrified.


Again, I'm not talking about this as a career, and I'm definately not talking about it involving someone you feel there could be a relationship in the offing.

Maybe you've never had this happen to you, but people do have sex with each other, and don't really have that much in common otherwise. They just like what the other person is like in bed.

I'd have to think about it to remember if I've had that happen to me, I'm sure I have to one extent or another. I can say that there was one man I'd lived with, loved, he loved me, but in the end it didn't work out. We weren't good for each other, which is another story. However, we were extremely comfortable with each other, and after the initial getting over not being a couple anymore, would get together basically for sex. We were good together that way, we had nothing the other didn't already know about, sexually and otherwise. It was, quite simply, just easy. There was no "oh why am I doing this?" Neither one of us were cheated on someone else. We didn't have to make a big deal about it, we could spend time together before and/or after, or not. It was just an easy thing.
We didn't need the romance part of it. We liked and respected each other.

What I'm (again) saying is that if 2 people are in Agreement about this...maybe the guy is relieved he doesn't have to prep himself for an evening out. I don't myself particularly get off, and never have, on having to put on makeup, dress, figure out what to do, where to go...too much work.

If the 2 of us figured out early on that he wanted sex with someone he didn't have to try to, to put it bluntly, listen to all her girl talking and relationship building, and I said "yeah, I like you in bed, but I'm not into you either as a boyfriend, AND he had been willing to go through the rigamarole of spending money on an evening, and put up with all the girl stuff guys have to listen to all night on a date, and he's confident enough that he doesn't hurt his feelings , why not?
If 2 people are ok with it, then they're ok with it.

Me?
My love is more of the "we've been through hell and high water together, and I'll continue to stand by you" variety, and not the "oooooo....what pretty earrings that I'll never wear, but you're giving them to me, so I have to act happy" type.
Nah, I'm not much sentimental.
Sometimes I am, meaning once in a great while, but it really doesn't count for much for me.

My husband is quite sentimental, and I know that's a big part of who he is. I would never want to hurt his feelings over this, but quite honestly, I can't remember what one card, or lovey dovey something or other that he's given me is/was.
It doesn't really register in my brain, but I thank him because it's something that gives me pleasure.

The thing I'm talking about wouldn't work between me and him per say, because we both desired more than sex when we met.
But, if it were some other person, for either of us, who's to say it wouldn't work?

BTW, how do you know you'd like to spend further time with someone unless you date them?
I mean of course you might meet someone and think, what a jerk. But what if you met someone, hadn't been able to formulate an opinion, and a date was suggested. Would you go to determine if this was someone worthy?
I thought that's what dates were about.
Thomas
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 06:17 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
All goods are produced at some point. Some goods are produced prior to the transaction, some are produced as part of the transaction. How that makes any material difference when the focus is on the transaction escapes me.

Since the transaction is what we're comparing, the difference is huge. One transaction increases the total supply of the desired good (or service, whatever you want to call it). Foregoing the transaction (because no money changes hands) would make both participants worse off. The other transaction doesn't produce anything; it only reallocates goods that are already here. Foregoing this transaction generates no loss for the two of them taken together.
mismi
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 06:55 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
Again, I'm not talking about this as a career, and I'm definately not talking about it involving someone you feel there could be a relationship in the offing


Neither was I. I am saying...I think if you are asking for money you might as well set up shop. Same thing. Either you like the guy enough to go out with him on a date and let him spend money on you...or you respect him enough to say, "I'm not going to waste your time...and your feelings mean more to me than just asking you to spend the money on me - whether it is for gratuitous sex or having to endure your company when I really see this going nowhere."

Not trying to be mean. I know some folks enjoy that kind of relationship. Kind of like the "friends with benefits" but just give me the cash instead of dinner, buddy. That is just kind of mean to me. If I want to have sex with him - then I would just say, "Come on up and lets just stay in tonight".

Unless I wanted to put on the red light. Wink
0 Replies
 
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 07:10 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
More of someone taking advantage of an opportunity, figuring "I was gonna have sex with him anyway, why not just take what he was going to spend on me anyway, in the form of cash?"


Intentions...


Quote:
Question for the guys. Would you appreciate the candor of a nice woman saying "don't waste your money on flowers and dinner, just give it to me in cash. Then, give it to me."

Na, I've had a one experience with a manipulating man eater like that, but I dumped her quickly. It's just not my taste, because that is not my intention of dating women, for "give it" type thing, I'm in it to find if the lady is someone who truly appreciates for who I am, and is committed, and not just a fling type of thing, and mutually if the same applies towards her.
Although, desperate men who have had no luck or "players" who likes to brag, may say yes to that type of question.

It's all a matter of your intentions.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 07:18 pm
@Thomas,
Speaking of economy, I wonder if the proliferation of effective birth control pills severed the close relationship between the sex market and the marriage market?

In the past a man who desired sex with a particular woman usually had to give her something of high value in exchange such as marriage or at the least a marriage proposal.

But today, from what I've heard, sex is cheap...
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 07:19 pm
@Thomas,
C'mon, I saw you two at a lunch in Chicago.. I guess it wasn't a deli though.

<reading along>
 

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 07/20/2019 at 11:53:45