View Single Post
  #30  
Old 03-06-2012, 06:24 PM
Scott's Avatar
Scott Scott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: near Toronto, Canada -.-
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinccenzo View Post
Okay, well it may just be me but over here living in my ideal world, but the fact that my husband makes a bit more than I doesn't mean its evened out with whats between my legs. People have more to offer than that and I've never heard of those things being for purchase from a prostitute.
Did you read the article excerpted from and linked to in the OP of the thread? I'll quote the last excerpt in it, as it provides the very evidence you claim you've never heard of:
*******************
Page 414 (Conclusion):
Commerce is but a manifestation of the more general exchanges that occur 
within human sexual and intimate relationships. Some systems refuse to endorse sex and commerce as a legitimate relationship that should be facilitated, protected or even acknowledged. Other systems take a serious position on the social role of commercial sex and the ordinary characteristics of the relationships, preferring to provide an avenue where these relationships can be established with minimal harm and destruction. The relationships between sex workers and clients can be nurturing, respectful and mutual. This experience of the commercial relationship can
enhance the quality of life of men who buy sex (see Sanders, 2007b) whilst at the same time provide sex workers with safe customers who will not breach the contract through sexual misconduct, financial exploitation (e.g. not paying), abusive language, or aggressive behaviour. A system that recognizes the emotional consumption that is integral to some forms of commercial sex and the possibilities for emotional mutuality between sex worker and client could be a framework that distils negative images of women as disposable victims and clients as unruly sexual beasts to be controlled. The current climate of criminalizing men who buy sex
(Brooks Gordon, 2005) and the impetus to block a regulated indoor market
(Sanders, 2007a) prevent policy intervening to reinforce the male client role as an accountable active participant who has responsibilities to himself, the sex worker, other sexual partners and a wider responsibility to respect women in all areas of society. Policy designed to manage sex work markets should be informed by evidence that understands the micro-relationships that form commercial sex alongside the fluidity of male and female sexualities.
*******************

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinccenzo View Post
Or if two make the same, that the sex isn't happening because she doesn't need his money? Perhaps marriage or pairing up once did mean sex in exchange for resources but it doesn't have to be.
I think it's a mistake to limit this discussion to sex. I think that, in all three of the sexual relationship categories in this thread, they can (and in my view, should) involve more then just sexual interactions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinccenzo View Post
I don't see sex as dirty and personally I'd call an ideal world one without a need for money.
I agree with you, in part. In essence, I think the current form of money is spiritually tainted by the fact that the banks can essentially print off as much as society lets them, charges interest on this money they create out of thin air, and then has the tax payer foot the bill when their bank sheets say they're broke.. which, ofcourse, necessitates the government to borrow yet more money from these same bankers, which, ofcourse, the bankers collect interest on. Money should be based on something of actual value, as it was in the past (gold, silver, or any other commodity that's actually worth something to people regardless of whether or not you can pay your taxes with it).

This being said, the concept of money, which is basically "i owe you" pieces of paper isn't, in my view, a bad one. The beautiful thing about love, ofcourse, is that it's not a zero sum game. I also think that sex can frequently be seen as something like dessert; it's great, but in order to be in a place where it's great, you have to do hard work; you need money (or commodities) in order to survive and work has to be done to get them. If you've done what you can in order to survive for the day, and you happen to have a partner, then the couple (or couples) can treat themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinccenzo View Post
But no, what rubs me (and not in a good way) its the belief that having more money means you can buy anything - even a person to do with whatever since they have less than you is something a-okay.
I also agree that this isn't good, and it's why I'm so against the current monetary system. For more information on my views on this, you may want to see documentaries such as Money as Debt or The Money Masters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinccenzo View Post
Or that it can be looked at as no different from marriage or dating because of your money/their lack of money and a history of men controlling resources. I feel this attitude and the one behind bankers making money out of thin air and fraud are more closely linked than any consenting sex or relationship has to do with prostitution. Its the idea that forking over some money means the fact that they are a person won't be too "in your face" while you get off on them. It means you won't have to risk rejection by her like a non sex worker might turn someone down for having a crap attitude or unkempt body or just plain not being attractive to them.
Again, I agree with your view that making money out of thin air is terrible. That being said, I think that for many in today's society, finding a woman that wants to be with them sexually without a money inducement can be difficult if not impossible. As you say, some of the reasons for this may be a crap attitude, an unkempt body or them just not being attractive to women. People can certainly improve in these areas. That being said, I think that a large part of the problem is our society itself, with all these notions that you can only be in love with one person. Personally, the fear that a woman will become possessive with me is a large part of the reason that I frequently don't even try with most women.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinccenzo View Post
I have met one sex worker who said she intended to become a prostitute before she became one. She didn't seem a very happy or mentally healthy person and it seemed the statement was bravado. I do not have enough personal data to say no one ever wants to be a prostitute but I have often wondered how many prostitutes we would have in a world where money wasn't a factor.
I agree. Think about it this way; even things like being attractive, having a good attitude and such can be seen as a form of currency. If a person has it, they could find a partner. The reason that prostitution has taken off, in my view, is because money has essentially come to mean resources. Most people don't actually hunt and/or harvest their own food, so they need it simply to survive. In a sense, you could say that the concept of money is a very old one; in essence, it represents something of value. The real problem is that right now, the bankers can make tons of it out of thin air and everyone else has to live off of their dregs; it's an unfair system and it simply can't continue.

Last edited by Scott; 03-06-2012 at 06:32 PM.
Reply With Quote