That argument relies for validity on the idea that there is no essential ethical difference between asking someone to sit at a computer terminal or operate a lathe for money and asking them to suck your cock for money. I would suggest that is a somewhat naive view.Originally Posted by Ash
Last edited by Burney; 07-21-2017 at 10:21 AM.
I used to know (in a non-commercial sense) a lady of negotiable affection who enjoyed her job and made tons of money from it. If a woman who was not unattractive offered you substantial readies in return for certain sexual services that it would not bother you to provide, would it come down to a matter of principle or price? (Your personal relationship commitments notwithstanding)
The principle is that you are taking something to which as humans we give real emotional weight and value, are stripping it of all emotion and turning it into a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. The level of emotional disconnection that requires and the damage it must do to other parts of your life and view of the world seems to me a high price in and of itself.
How much emotional weight and value would you say the average casual sex encounter carries and how much damage would you say it does to other parts of your life and view of the world?
Maybe, but should the woman be stigmatised? I can't help feeling that there is some humbug going around from men who feel that they are entitled to promiscuity but women aren't.
The one-night-stand is not supposed to be about 'real emotional weight and value', yet consenting adults may participate.
It's not a question of 'should they be stigmatised'. They will be stigmatised regardless because of how society works. And, more to the point, they will feel that stigma whether they want to or not because they are conditioned to do so.
One-night stands freely entered into are - or should be - genuine exchanges of pleasure between equal partners and do involve what one might term 'short-term emotions'. They are not a commercial exchange where one party gets pleasure and the other gets money. The analogy breaks down on that point.
Take it further then; what if both parties obtain pleasure and also end up better off financially. That must be a fairly common scenario, imo.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
How do both benefit financially? Who is footing the bill?
Surely it would be women doing all the stigmatising?
And it's pointless asking them about it, of course; they're terribly confused about things at the best of times.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote