The weird prohibition against paying for sex

Why is it illegal to pay someone to have sex with you, or to ask someone if you can pay them to have sex with them? We pay people to do all sorts of things, just about anything really. You can pay someone to do things they do not want to do and no one cares. A lot of employment and jobs could fall under that category.

Paying someone already skews their value-calculus a bit, making them more likely to do something they don’t want to do. But we are fine with that in any other context, so why not when it comes to sex and relationships? A person should be able to pay someone to date them, for example. “Hey I will pay you $500 a week to be my girlfriend/boyfriend” and there should be nothing wrong with that. It is a mutual transaction between two consenting adults. The fact that the money involved will skew some of the value-calculus of the one who is getting paid is a non-issue, because 1) we already accept this same principle in just about any other situation including the entire economy and world of working jobs, and 2) we still retain our free agency and personal responsibility for making decisions for ourselves, assuming we are adults.

There is an argument that if we allow people to pay for sex, it will adversely affect poor women because they will always know they can just go sell their bodies to make some money. But that is their choice, if they want to do that why should anyone stop them? Maybe that is what they really want to do, maybe that is what is really good for them at that point in their life, to make more money they need to survive or improve their situation. Or maybe they just like having sex and would like to get paid for it too.

In either case it’s none of our business. Two consenting adults should be able to decide on contractual sex or contractual relationships together, including when money is exchanged. Just in the same way that two adults can go on a date and the guy is expected to pay for the date, the girl is expected to give him sex later. That’s a simplification of course, but there is always some element of quid pro quo, contractual basis in the background of most situations like this.

The truth is that humans do things that they think will give them more value. We may date someone because we like them as a person, we enjoy being around them, or because we are lonely, or because we want to get laid. Adding “because we wanted to make some money” doesn’t add anything bad or fundamentally different to the equation. People will do what they want as they perceive it to add value to their lives. As long as this is freely transacted without compulsion, fraud or robbing someone of their free agency, then consenting adults should be left alone to do whatever it is they want to do and assuming they are not causing harm to anyone else.

Paying someone to do something they might not otherwise do cannot be necessarily construed as compulsion, because that is literally what working a job is. No one, and I mean no one would keep going to their employer and working their job if the employer stopped paying them. And it could be argued (not by me, but playing a bit of devil’s advocate here) that paying someone to give up 8 hours of their life every day, 5 days a week, to do something they otherwise wouldn’t do, is far more onerous and compulsively infringing on their life than paying someone to sleep with you for 1 hour and then they’re free to go about the rest of their day.

Does the prohibition against paying for sex benefit men or women? Who does it really empower? I am not sure. I think it might only empower a certain type of person, the ones who would never pay for sex or allow themselves to be paid for sex. People with strong moral convictions against it, or who just find it gross. But those people would probably not be paying for sex or being paid for sex anyway even if it were legalized. Then again, maybe some of them rely on the fact that it being illegal takes some of the pressure off, so they don’t need to make the choice.

Ah yes, that’s it. That is the group who it benefits: those with weaker free will, who think paying for sex is bad but know that, if it were an option, they might be tempted to do it themselves. By logical extension therefore, prohibition against paying for sex also benefits couples and relationships for whom one or both parties would probably be tempted to pay for sex or be paid for sex outside the bounds of their relationship, but since it is illegal the pressure of temptation is reduced sufficiently to make it a non-issue for their relationship.

I honestly think it should be considered normal to pay for sex. Think about this, people go to the bar and want to meet people to date or hook up with. Or they use Tinder or other apps. They expect one party will buy the drinks and food, that still happens. “Hey, having a nice night? Looks like your drink is almost gone, here let me buy you another one.” A nice gesture, perhaps? Or are they paying them to improve the odds of attracting more of their interest and attention? Of course that is what they are doing. Paying someone in favors or buying things for them is no different, fundamentally, than handing them some cash. It could be considered normal and a part of negotiation to offer an amount of cash for the relationship or the hook up, then a back and forth depending on how each person feels about the other’s physical attractiveness and any possible red flags or risk factors, until a price is reached that satisfies both parties. Or, if no price is satisfactory to either party they go their separate ways.

Eventually, if you date someone for a while and you both really like each other, you would naturally stop paying for their company. That would be a sign that a real romance has developed, real mutual respect and liking each other. That could be a memorable cute moment in a relationship, like “hey last night was really fun, aren’t you gonna give me my $50?” …“Well I thought I’d stop paying you, you know… I mean I really like you.” …“Aw, you’re so sweet (kiss) yes silly you don’t need to pay me. I really like you too.”

I suppose this sort of thing presupposes a higher level of maturity, emotional self-control and self-awareness than is probably the case for most people. Maybe that is why society simply avoids the whole issue and coddles the less mature, less self-aware, less emotionally in control of themselves by simply banning paying for sex to take the option (legally anyway) off the table.

Honestly if someone offered to pay me for sex I would be flattered. I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t be. The more attractive and desirable you are the more money people would pay to be with you. And as a free adult with your own responsibility and right to make decisions for yourself, you can always just say no. We should be teaching empowerment and greater self-responsibility and personal strength to people, not coddling their lacks thereof to make sure they never get into situations that might be difficult, uncomfortable or tempting for them.

Then again, based on what I said above regarding the pressure of temptation on one or both parties in a committed relationship to breach that relationship by paying for or being paid for sex with someone else, the prohibition against paying for sex does make sense from this perspective especially with regard to committed couples who have children. Families (or the integrity of the family unit) are protected by the prohibition against paying for sex, at least I think this is generally true for most cases. So that is one reason in favor of the prohibition. But, again, it already presupposes an inherent weakness on the part of the mother and father, that if it were legal they would be meaningfully tempted to do it for one reason or another. If that were the case then maybe their relationship isn’t quite as good or committed as they think it is, or maybe the relationship shouldn’t be propped up artificially if it can’t maintain that level on its own merit.

But the other issue would be if two people were in a committed relationship, and say they have kids too, and they are poor and struggling, the woman could always go sell her body to earn some money. This would probably be very emotionally difficult for the man to cope with. So maybe a big part of the reason for the prohibition against paying for sex is because men do not want to deal with the possibility that their wife/girlfriend would be tempted to go make money on the side by having sex with other men. By banning “prostitution”, men get the dual benefit of having greater control over their wives/girlfriends while also reducing the temptation on themselves to go out and cheat with another women. So there is a somewhat moral or at least moralistic angle here to consider. Again, based at least in part on one or both parties in the relationship having sufficiently low will power or self-control that, without the laws banning paying for sex, they just may not be able to resist it. I’m not sure what that says about these laws, but I am even less sure what it says about human beings themselves and the nature of their supposedly “committed” relationships.

Cutting edge topic from the fast-food court.

We need to answer why we need prostitution, the oldest occupation in the world.
Our consumer needs demand answers.

And another obvious side to this issue that I didn’t realize before, but should have. Prohibitions against paying for sex put sex further under the realm of more committed relationships, even if this is only indirect. And it keeps sex more within the context of having a family or at least having longer-term committed relationships together.

If sleeping around were more commonplace and accepted even from people who were in committed relationships or had kids, that would be bad for the integrity of the family unit. And it would be bad for knowing the certain parental lineage of the children, since maybe one kid was fathered by someone else? How would you really know, unless sex is firmly controlled and kept within the purview of the family unit. So there’s one reason on the side of keeping the prohibitions against paying for sex.

As usual you contribute nothing and only bait people with your trolling. This will be the last time I respond to you in this topic.

“We need to answer why we need prostitution”, no we don’t. Everyone knows why prostitution exists, and I have already outlined the reasons in the OP which you clearly did not read.

Women need money. Men want to have sex. This is not complicated.

People transact with cash or other valuable items/services/favors in order to obtain things they deem of greater value than what they paid for them. This is very basic. But I am sure it is far over your head.

You have plenty of fast-foodies that share your Intellectual culinary tastes, manchild.

Ironically…prostitution is to sex what fast-food is to your kind.
Fast, and easy pleasure… accessible with money.

With no nutritional value.

Cheeseburgers… and cokes…

Destroy paternalism and liberate females…and men-children from responsibilities… - see free-will.
Then wonder why women don’t cook anymore and why men-children can only consume fast-food.

Money = Americanism’s Messiah.

Mediator between men-children and the divine…
A charmless, unattractive, poor, man-child can find relief…
Salvation… hallelujah!!

Hamburgler is upset because after trolling my threads with inanities and sarcastic posts, he gets his own consumerism fast-food thread disrupted.

Will you have fries with that, manchild?

1 Like

Satyr is temporarily suspended again for immediately going back to just bald insults after a previous suspension for being too insulting.

1 Like

Given your pattern of always busting on yourself, is it safe to assume this is self-referential?

If not, that’s the sexiest thing I’ve ever read on this board.

But.

You’re prolly female, so.

Oh well.

You should have lead with that. I didn’t read anything else you said.

The last point I made here, about how prohibition against paying for sex is supportive of families and having children within intact family units, seems to carry the most weight. Society cannot continue to exist and thrive without valuing families and successful reproduction. In that way, paying for sex could still exist but at the edges of society. Not necessarily illegal but also not condoned as a value or openly supported as good or even neutral. Sort of like what homosexuality was like until the supreme court ended the debate and destroyed the process of cultural evolution of ideas and discussion that had been going on. Homosexuality doesn’t need to be illegal, adults should be able to have gay sex if they want to. Just like I feel adults should be able to pay each other for sex if they want to. This is a free country or ought to be. But the issue here isn’t with the legality but the culture. Culture has failed to sustain positive, supportive values that would assist families and children to continue being desired aspects and cornerstones of society. Hedonism and degeneracy have become too powerful. I suspect it will not be too long before a supreme court ruling says that no state can pass a law saying it is illegal for consenting adults to pay each other for sex. Prostitution will become de facto legal by virtue of judicial fiat, simply because it MUST be that way according to the unfolding logic of our society.

If we had a strong culture and strong traditional values around issues of family, marriage, and respect for sexuality, then we could have legal prostitution and legal homosexuality and it wouldn’t really matter, they would still be frowned upon by the majority of the population and so occur primarily at the edges of society and in secret. Most people wouldn’t admit to it, and those who did would be ostracized and look down upon. That would be the most rational way for society to be organized both to legalize freedom while also sustaining positive values and preventing the spread of harmful behaviors that threaten the foundation of society and its future, that foundation being successful reproduction and good parenting.

So it really depends on the perspective you want to look at the issue from. You can take a perspective of adult rights and freedoms of consenting people to make their own choices freely without interference from the state, which is the main perspective I have been taking here. But you can also look at the perspective of a healthy society, its culture and sustaining values. I think it is possible for both conditions, both value-sets to be satisfied mutually. Possible yes, but maybe not very realistic. Certainly as sexual taboos and norms loosen the value society and most people put on things like family, monogamy and successful child-rearing tends to decline.

It’s important to note that people can legally pay people for sex even in jurisdictions where prostitution is illegal: just do it on camera. In the US at least, it’s effectively accepted that the First Amendment protects the right to produce pornography, and attempts to prosecute the production of pornography as a form of prostitution have lost (as far as I’m aware).

This tells us something about why prostitution is illegal, and supports @HumAnIze’s suggestion that it’s about temptation: Laws against prostitution specifically criminalize sexual gratification in exchange for money, rather than sexual acts.

As for who benefits from laws against prostitution, the pattern of criminalization tells us something about that too. Prostitution was legal for a long time on the American frontier, areas with a heavy imbalance in the sex ratio. Where societies were composed of mostly men, prostitution was de facto or de jure legal. It is made illegal when the sex ratio becomes more balanced. This could be explained in one of two ways:

  1. the prohibition benefits everyone in a society where stable families are realistically available to most adults, because prostitution erodes family bonds.
  2. the prohibition benefits women, because men are the primary consumers of prostitution and prohibiting it gives women more bargaining power.

Likely it is a combination of both of these, combined with general American prudishness and Puritanical denial of the body, which created a reluctance for anyone to publicly speak out in support of the prostitution. I get the impression that prostitution is less commonly prohibited in a-religious societies like Northern Europe, or in non-Abrahamic societies like Thailand or Japan.

Also worth noting that prostitution is natural. Wild chimpanzees have been observed exchanging meat for sex, though that would also fit other narratives, .e.g ‘male as provider’ (though the chimps weren’t pair-bonded and the sex was plainly transactional). And when researchers studying economics introduced a form of money to a colony of capuchin monkeys, the monkeys used it to pay for sex (ironically this behavior was subsequently prohibited by the human researchers, suggesting again that prudishness is a main driver).

2 Likes

Aha, nice. That’s all very interesting, thanks.

I was wondering about porn and stuff like only fans too. How is that fine and legal, when just a regular dude paying a regular girl for sex in their own home is so frowned upon and illegal?

I guess all you need to do is setup one of your phones to film your sex act, and keep it saved just in case you ever get charged with prostitution. Then be like “you judge I was making porn, dig it” and he will be like “kewl brother, keep keeping it real!”

So incredibly weird.

Prostitution is not something I’m into.

It will destroy earth.

I’m not attached to earth surviving.

I’ll makei it very simple to you. There’s a poor beautiful woman who lives next door to me.

She claims she doesn’t want to be objectified.

If I gave her a thousand dollars she’d fuck me in a heartbeat if I asked for sex in exchange. If I just gave her the thousand dollars …. No sex.

That’s how women are and men have to wrap their heads around it.

Hi there, regarding prostitution being the oldest profession in the world, l have strong doubts. A prostitute would resonably require clothing for warmth and clients with disposable income. That presupposes a swathe of trades preceding prostitution.

The oldest trade was likely food or clothing related. For example tannery.

As for why prostitution is taboo, it makes mundane the mysteries of spiritual love and physical pleasure.

Spiritual love is not explained as nature’s way to trick us into mating, spiritual love is superfluous to that and nature doesn’t have a mind of its own to organise this.

The act of physical pleasure during reproduction is inexplicable too.

Thus prostitution profanes these mysteries by reducing them to coinage.

Back then humans didn’t get cold.

The oldest profession is berry picking.

Welcome to the boards

I might as well add this fact.

The dust on unwashed berries has vitamin b12.

That’s how people could survive on berries alone. Vegan.

Sex in our laws is very much a rat’s nest. Both Carleas and Hum have pointed out the irony of making prostitution illegal unless you put it on video. They said a lot of other stuff, but I have a short attention span, and I’m short on time.

But against sex that follows the golden rule there is no REAL law. Does it follow the golden rule to pay someone money (instead of mutually sharing actual connection, so forth) for the most physically intimate act possible between two people? Does it treat that person as an end or merely as a means to an end? Does it help them develop virtue and lasting joy/satisfaction? Or is it a quick fix that exploits the entire industry & its consumers and leads to further alienation? There have been studies done on this sort of thing. When a marriage is reduced to mere sexual transactions, and there is no mutual consent respect, it dies. Even if they die legally married.

I’d rather talk about what marriage is supposed to be like. But in order to do that, I’d have to read these books that are written by Christian authors that I’ve had on my shelf since before I was even divorced (my kids were getting married, and I don’t think they even read them). sigh I have other nerd stuff to do, so I’m not very motivated to do this. But I could be.

Calling someone “wh***” is an insult no matter how one may try to revise it as being a decent thing.

It’s an insult as it profanes the mysteries of love, both emotional and physical.

As for marriage having to be more than sex, doubtless you are pursuing an idealised Ross and Rachel pairing off Friends, they will be an alchemical pairing of metallic gold and silver, they will never go to the toilet, their food and money appears ex nihilo. They love as equals to 18 decimal places. This For-Television idealisation of love only results in divorce and loneliness. Only. only.

Emotional love isn’t something we should always expect through a marriage contract. Physical love is a marital duty. Be decent and take the physical love under marriage contract and hope that the emotional love develops with your spouse and definitely with your child born within wedlock (begeting a bast’d is bad for the offspring)

The emotions were there & the duty never forsaken (¡if you mean mere physical love!), we begot two sons, the youngest begot us two grandkids (so far), but.

Your plan may be a better one, in terms of not prioritizing emotions at the beginning?

Or telling emotions who is in charge.

Heh!!!

Anywhayz.

Kinda veering off topic.

Which is GREAT!