Whores were widely available in Ancient Greece, equal2u. They were sexually liberated. Guess what happened? Homoeroticism became rampant as the power structure in heterosexual love was overturned. Pederasty evolved, and a male child became the basically sexually enslaved “student” of a wise, older, Greek male.
I left a few other comments on the last page, don’t skip those either.
“Prostitution was a common aspect of ancient Greece.[1] In the more important cities, and particularly the many ports, it employed a significant number of people and represented a notable part of economic activity. It was far from being clandestine; cities did not condemn brothels, but rather only instituted regulations on them.” Wikipedia.
Ancient Greece legalised prostitution but they still viewed prostitutes with contempt.
There has never been a society in history where prostitutes are not only legal but also venerated as the most precious members of society. That’s what the Sexocracy is. Sexual Service Providers take the places that are typically filled by the rich, ‘royal’ families and religious leaders in today’s societies.
What the fuck are you talking about they viewed whores with contempt? There have been accounts were empresses have had contests with well know whores to see who could take the most cock before passing out! This is the best counter-argument you can come up with regard to my 4 or 5 comments? There was an entire scale of different kinds of prostitutes, each being progressively more respected.
Your “sexocracy” is not only refuted by human psychology, but also by economic science. Have you ever read a single book about how economies function?
Don’t you understand that money is just a symbolic representation of capital? And capital is a word used to describe things like lands rich in resources, which offer job opportunity. In other words, which offer physical labor opportunity. The goods produced through this physical labor are bought and sold through the use of the money. What do you propose? We just give all the capital to the best whores? How are those whores going to be able to get physical labor out of the capital, and sustain economic activity? What are they going to do, be great economists and businessmen, I mean businesswhores, as well? It doesn’t make any sense, how would any of that work? How do we balance out the money=capital=labor equation in your sexocracy?
In Wikipedia it says prostitutes in Ancient Greece were not allowed to marry or take part in ceremonies. That sounds pretty contemptuous to me. I’m not an expert on Ancient Greece. There may have been respected prostitutes. In the Sexocracy all SSPs are equally respected.
I’ve already explained multiple times how the Sexocratic economy functions. People have to work in to receive luxury status, this applies to all jobs, except one- Sexual Service Provider(SSP) which grants super luxury status. That way all the beautiful people are drawn to the SSP role, resulting in a generally sexually fulfilled and happy population. Fulfilled and happy people are efficient and productive, so all the farmers, teachers, doctors, plumbers, etc, etc do excellent work, making a high quality society.
Do excellent work how? Do they weave fucking baskets? No, they have to exploit capital, in the form of land, intellectual property, etc. Who owns the capital? The whores? How do the whores then regulate this capital and manage it? That requires a skillset beyond “working my balls a little bit too.” And with regard to regulating capital, we have only been able to come up with one way of doing it: money. And from money comes that entire social structure we have today, along with its most extreme realization, capitalism. So I ask again, how do your whores regulate their capital? If they are to be the wealthiest, then they must be the ones who own the capital. Bill Gates is so wealthy because he has a lot of capital, in the form of intellectual property, Microsoft, which gives job opportunities.
In today’s world capital is distributed across the whole population, some people have huge chunks of it like Bill Gates, while many have extremely tiny amounts. In the Sexocracy there is no money only statuses. Capital is distributed much more evenly. Rehab status people have least, standard status have more, luxury status more still, super luxury status the most. Capital is distributed unevenly but not to the extreme levels in today’s dysfunctional world.
So given my “status” I get a set amount of capital. Let’s say the capital in question is a piece of land. But how do I turn the capital into things I want? Like a laptop for example? I have to contract people to get the materials out of it, to turn it into the laptop, etc. Why would they do that if they get nothing- no money, in return? They have their set amount of capital, and the only way to get more at a certain point is by becoming a whore.
If you do enough work you get luxury status. That means you’re given luxury land, property, food and everything else. Of course a proportion of those luxury goods and services will be produced by you. About one 7 billionth if the world’s population is 7 billion. I don’t see why it’s so hard to understand.
Who apportions the status? Who controls physical capital of eg machinery and infrastructure?
How is it different from state socialism with legalised prostitution, where “status” and “entitlements” can be represented by, say, paper-based certificates of currency?
There are many jobs in society, like farming and sanitation, that must be required for the population’s survival. The society determines how much of this work must be completed for a high quality of life and then these jobs are created and filled. After that non-essential jobs like artist and sportsperson can be created. Like in today’s society, there are workers and managers. Managers receive luxury status for work apportioning status and controlling physical capital in a way that ensures high functioning of society.
I’m not sure how these ‘paper-based certificates of currency’ you write about work. Or how they differ from bank notes and cheques and postal orders. The status given in the Sexocracy is not ‘representative’ of anything, it is a status that denotes what luxury level of goods and services you are given.
In the Sexocracy sexual services are legalised and regulated. But there is much more to it than that. Sexual Service Providers are the most economically and socioculturally rewarded members of society. Sexocracy venerates SSPS and the sexual service.
It doesn’t work, not in theory. And you won’t know if it works in practice until somebody does it. And I have better things to think about. I never was into politics or social theory. Philosophy is the name of my game.
No, they’re politics and social theory. They can be parts of a philosophy. Or they can be separate fields of study. A philosophy is a vision of human life as a whole, and those are representative of two aspects of human life. You don’t have a philosophy, and you’re not a philosopher.
Human society is not going to be able to function without some kind of representative economics which mobilizes trade and barter through a symbolic medium for dealing with capital, namely money. It has always used that medium, always will. You have no evidence to suggest that your barely articulate idea of a sexocracy would work, you just say it will. Show us how it will. Map it out from the ground up. That is going to take more than three or four sentences on an internet forum. You keep saying “will”, labor “will” be divided this way and that, “will” be based on statuses, etc. Stop saying “will” and start saying “how.” Show us how.
Equal, over looking the whole prostitute thing, the “status economy” doesn’t work.
It is incapable of being successful and will lead any group that follows such a “system” (used in the loosest sense) to ruin and economic despair. Not even stagnation but a full blown collapse.
I suggest you find another way to make whores privileged members of society.
If i was to do it, i would make a prostitute guild and set rates and standards.
How… is the object of the philosopher, politician, and social theorist. What you are, and you said it yourself, ( Other people have to agree with me and we have to work together to change society.) is a cult leader. All you are doing is talking out of your ass if you don’t give the how, the reason, the plan. You do understand that, don’t you, my autistic little friend? No, of course you don’t.