Buying and selling sex (a prag approach)

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Here’s an alternative, more pragmatic approach. Since we don’t have the power to legalize or illegalize things, the question ought to be - should we pay for sex, should we sell sex? What are the pros and cons of paying for and selling sex?

Buying sex–

There’s no emotional attactchment (could be a pro or con). It’s expensive, 2-300 dollars an hour (con), lest you’re buying a cheap ho, but cheap hos are cheap for a reason. There’s risk of contracting diseases, risks that can be minimized/mitigated (slight con). It’s pleasurable (pro). The buyer’s in control, he gets what he/she wants, when he/she wants (pro). There is something, unseemly about it (con). Promiscuity could, I don’t know, cheapen sex with your prospective mate (con). It serves no logical purpose, logical as in, survival (con). Unless you’re a nympho, you can do without it (con), just go on the internet. May occasionally be necessary or nearly so for those who can’t get layed (pro). If you’re married, could, uhhh, interfere with your marriage (con), lest you’re partner’s into that sort of thing.

Overall, I think it’s a con, but it may be necessary here and there. If you’re single, just rent a movie or go online. If you’re married, unless you and you’re partner are weird, stay away.

Selling sex–

Money (pro). I can’t speak from experience, but I’m betting it’d fuck/impede you’re chances of having a normal relationship, during and after (con). You can’t choose who you fuck, how you fuck (con). If you’re a nympho (pro). Could get savagely raped (con). Probably will contract an illness (con). Could be embarrasing (to say the least) if your friends and family find out (con). Drug addiction, crime and prostitution usually go hand in hand (con). If you’re a single mother with 5 kids to feed, or a girl looking to pay off her college tuition, in other words, financially desperate, personally though, I think you’d be better off swinging from a poll (slight pro). Your pimp could be a fucking dick (con). I guess it could be rewarding if you’re a bimbo (self-esteem), but otherwise, you should probably find another outlet for your talents (con).

Overall, I think it’s a shit job, unless you’re really financially desperate, stay way.

Well, what do you think?

2

I can’t think of the title, but they made a movie wherein an idea man, in fear of his job, realized the econimic advantages of socially capitalizing on the economy of sex-credits.

In the film, the corporate benefits are explained in detail. Every member of society is expected to earn their worth to society and by increasing one’s sexuality, they gain sex-credits. Each encounter is registered with the State. Credits are assessed statistically. A person can get sued for diminishing another person’s sex appeal due to reduction of their innate value to society.

In the case of legalized prostitution, if a car accident causes a woman to no longer be useful as a prostitute, can she sue the other driver for lost income compensation?

Don’t think for a second that you are going to ever sell anything without the State stepping in to get its share to increase its control to regulate to its greater power.

Pragmatics.

3

I didn’t realize prag meant pragmatic. I was thinking of the relevant use of the word “Prag” in prisons: a prag is someone who gets fucked up the ass in exchange for protection in prison.

Anyhow, you can’t weigh the pros and cons for everyone, you can only do so for yourself.

4

What he said.

5

to James, sounds like an interesting movie.

to Hump, I just did weigh the pros and cons for everyone.

6

no you didn’t

7

How do you figure?

8

you have no clue what other people value. you might be able to make some good guesses at best. to say “i can decide what action is best for everyone” presumes you know precisely what everyone values and that they all value the same things the same amount.

9

Prostitution is more or less bad. I know this because I’m more objective and better at assessing the pros and cons than most people. Bad in of itself and bad for everyone. Now what do you think?

10

All humans are more or less the same, what’s good for one is good for all or nearly all.

11

You can’t say this is good, you can’t say this is bad, you can’t say this masculine, you can’t say… I hear a lot of this you can’t say, you can’t say. Being a philosopher is learning to be mute.

12

No, I’m with you on the shittiness of everyone saying everything is subjective and nothing is real, that’s bullshit (you happened to agree with someone when they said everything is subjective and now you’re saying how much you hate that, hrm), but right now we’re in a realm which is in fact explicitly subjective. I don’t think everything is subjective, I’m on your side with that, but this? This? Peoples’ preferences and values? Yeah, that’s subjective. Completely.

13

Today you tell everyone what kinda job they should or shouldn’t have, tomorrow you’re gonna tell everybody what kind of breakfast cereal tastes the best, where they should eat lunch.

I agree that humans are the same in some fundamental ways, but this isn’t fundamentals. We’re talking about specific preferences and values, and people aren’t the same at such a specific level. Some people like broccoli, some people hate broccoli. You can’t prescribe or prohibit broccoli universally.

Well, you CAN, you’d just be wrong.

14

Lucis,

It seems pretty obvious that your primary concern has become an affirmation of objectivity in …everything, as far as I can tell. I want to clarify something and see how it strikes ya–

It is bullshit, I agree. We assume objectivity in most of what we perceive. That is real, it is practical – far more so than solipsism. However, everything you “know”, believe, etc. is subjective. There would be no object without a subject. Identity and difference are likely either descriptions of the same, or in direct conjunction. Either way, subject and object depend on one another equally. We just don’t have the luxury of “knowing” an object as we know ourselves.

15

Yes, that and more, I believe in the objectivity of philosophic method.

When I look away from a basketball, I know it’s still there. The basketball exists independently of my existence, bad exists independently of my existence. Bad is a reflection, not a projection.

And there would be no subject without object, there would be no consciousness without something to be conscious of. There would be no self awareness without the other.

There is no we without objects.

16

2 beliefs I regularly encounter on this forum. 1 is some form of nihilism, philosophical skepticism, subjectivism or relativism, the other is scientism. I believe your’s is the latter. Philosophism is the belief in the objectivity of the philosophic method (some form of rationalism) and the objectivity of morals, values, aesthetics and metaphysics (wisdom, not just knowledge).

17

That’s what philosophy is, trying to find the good for the whole, not just for the self. I’m sorry to say, but that kind of mentality is unphilosophical (counter wisdom). I believe the specialized, intuitive and rational pursuit of wisdom (responsibility) is just as essential to the survival of our species as the specialized, extuitive and rational pursuit of knowledge (power).

We’re not talking about specifics, we’re talking about what’s inherently, intrinsically good (deontology) and what’s good for the majority of people, the majority of the time (consequentialism).

18

I feel some things have been coalescing in my psyche as of late. I want to transform, to reform philosophy itself. I want to make it positive and progressive. I think it should be as prominent in the proceeding age as science and religion were in the preceeding ages (modern and medieval). I wish to see the rise of philosophical societies such as there were in ancient Greece and Rome. Monosophies, Aristosophies and Demosophies, societies that would rule by reason and not by faith or the sword, but first, we have to do away with the impotence of the Philosophical Dark Age, a dual preoccupation with scientism (empiricism, atomism, moral, value, aesthetic, metaphysical and philosophical pessimism) and postmodernism.

19

“Philosophic method” being what? The Socratic method?

In all cases? I don’t buy that and neither should you.

You realize you’re agreeing with me, right?

This doesn’t address my point. Do you have the ability to “know” an object as you “know” yourself? Do you consider yourself a mere object, as you do the basketball?

20

Yes. I believe the philosophic method is specifically tailored to answer philosophic questions (politics, metaphysics etc). I wouldn’t use the scientific method to answer philosophic questions and I wouldn’t use the philosophic method to answer scientific questions, in the main.

Something like that.

Good, I grow tired of disagreement.

The moment you recognize and declare the I, you recognize and declare the other.