Althouse: About that prostitution thread.

March 20, 2009

About that prostitution thread.

Blake summarizes.

107 comments:

Revenant said...: Blake summarizes.

It would be more accurate to say he restated his side of the argument and misrepresented the other side.; 3/20/09, 6:24 PM
David said...: Women don't generally respond to expensive gifts--at least the desirable ones don't. They respond to inexpensive gifts: think flowers, an ice cream cone, a goofy stuffed dog, a baseball style hat with a rare logo or phrase, a silly trinket. These things show the suitor is interested, knows that the tangible can be meaningful but considers that the woman can't be bought. All of the above work best when least expected.; 3/20/09, 6:25 PM
Revenant said...: Women don't generally respond to expensive gifts--at least the desirable ones don't.

That must be why diamond rings are so inexpensive. :); 3/20/09, 6:27 PM
David said...: If you are getting the diamond before she has responded . . . . well, just don't. Not these days anyway.; 3/20/09, 6:36 PM
Big Mike said...: Well said, Blake. You seem to understand women (this from the guy who has been married for 34 years and still isn't sure he completely understands his wife, much less her gender).

But she does like having her shoulders rubbed and her back scratched.; 3/20/09, 6:40 PM
Buford Gooch said...: I've been married to the same woman for 35 years. There is no exchange of material goods for sex. The sex is great, and better than it has ever been.; 3/20/09, 6:43 PM
Revenant said...: If you are getting the diamond before she has responded . . . . well, just don't. Not these days anyway.

I wouldn't recommend not getting the diamond after she has responded, either. Or opting for a relatively inexpensive one, unless she has already volunteered that an inexpensive one is ok and you're pretty sure she really meant it.

Anyway, blake dishonestly summarized my position as "all women are whores" and then went off into a lot of irrelevant nonsense about what does into a relationship. But I wasn't making a general statement about relationships, or claiming that women only care about money, or any other the other straw men that blake so persistently attacked. I didn't say all you need to build a relationship is to give material possessions to the woman in question, although I did say that such gifts are mandatory in most relationships.

What I said was "most women trade sex for material goods at one time or another". That's all. I'm not interested in re-arguing the position because blake has a whole lot of emotion and anger on his side and all I've got is the facts.; 3/20/09, 6:47 PM
The Dude said...: Yes, but what about sex with your wife, Bufe?

And, if you think it has zero cost, get divorced. Half your net worth is hers. Unless that is zero, you will pay something.; 3/20/09, 6:47 PM
Buford Gooch said...: My my, fcai, but you are a cynical person.; 3/20/09, 7:00 PM
themightypuck said...: Brilliant attack on materialism.; 3/20/09, 7:06 PM
Darcy said...: Umm...and that could be restated to say half of her net worth is yours too, fcai. Geez.

And I didn't see Blake being emotional or angry, Revenant. If you meant that a few of us commenters were saddened by what you wrote, well, that has nothing to do with the truth of things. You say you have facts. I think a lot of people would disagree with that, and that is all we were doing.; 3/20/09, 7:08 PM
blake said...: Yeah, Rev, keep spinning. You misrepresented what I said on that thread as agreeing with you, which I most emphatically do not.

But then, in your mind, I'm the emotional, angry one and yet, you, the unemotional guy with the facts told me to "go fuck myself", one of your more common rejoinders. (Mr. Spock you ain't.)

Quote: "most women trade sex for material goods at one time or another".

prostitution = sex for pay

pay = money or other material goods

Therefore, according to you, "most women are prostitutes at one time or another".

You say you have facts. I didn't even get into that part, because I was just trying to point out that even things that seem like an exchange between an intimate couple aren't necessarily that at all--that it's only particular kinds of relationships where the quid pro quo of commercial trade--the kind needed for your statement to have any meaning--exists.

But show me the facts, Rev.

Show me a study that demonstrates this "sex for material goods" predominates among the female population. Or that a guy getting a girl without offering her stuff is rare.

What exact science reaches into a woman's mind and says, "Yes, it was gift #428 that caused her to do that guy" or to even presume such a calculus exists?

Seems to me you've stated an unsupported opinion.; 3/20/09, 7:38 PM
Revenant said...: And I didn't see Blake being emotional or angry, Revenant.

I phrased it badly. It isn't that he's being emotional and angry, it is that his (and Freeman, et al's) argument consists entirely of appeals to emotion and anger.

Blake concedes that the only claim I made -- women having sex with a man as a result of a material gift -- is something that happens. He hasn't got an argument against my position because my position is factually correct.

So he and others simply resort to a lot of enthusiastic attacks on how horrible it is to see the world this way. There's lots of crap along the lines of "try telling a woman you love her", which manages to simultaneously be insultingly condescending and completely irrelevant. He changed the topic of discussion from whether sex-for-goods exchanges happen to whether healthy relationships involve more than that, then pretends like we were claiming money is the only factor in a relationship.

I'm not interested in joining the collective circle jerk and searching for ways to out-banal the other commenters in praising the importance of a hug or a kind word. I never disputed that those things were important. I just disputed that they were the sum total of motives for sex in a relationship.; 3/20/09, 7:57 PM
blake said...: Blake concedes that the only claim I made -- women having sex with a man as a result of a material gift -- is something that happens.

Wow. You actually posted that? After accusing me of being dishonest.

Of course it happens, Rev. It's called "prostitution". I don't believe most women engage in it.

Retract the "most" and we're done.; 3/20/09, 8:00 PM
blake said...: (Or alternatively, support the "most" with some actual facts.); 3/20/09, 8:00 PM
traditionalguy said...: Is this sweeps week at Althouse? Sex, politics and religion are the 3 things we could not discuss in a friendly way in a social setting. So lets go.Sex in a marriage is always a good starter, but the relationship is not based uon it. The man want a pretty, smart, fun wife for companionship and a family. The woman wants a man who will be loyal to her. That loyalty includes love(sharing emotions), attention, truth telling, and loving her children. In exchange the wife brings life itself to him and the children and the inlaws and the outlaws. The husband's role adds protection and social standing in support of his important and highly valuable wife. That leaves money as a side issue about as important as dailey food, but usually not important unless it runs out.But the prostitute relationship is 100% money based. The old saying is that a man does not pay for the sex, he pays her to go away after the sex is over. So we live in a material world, but we are speaking spirits who love companionship and relationships more than we love the lifestyles of the rich and famous, no matter how fascinating sex without a relationship may seem to our hunter instincts.; 3/20/09, 8:11 PM
Revenant said...: "Blake concedes that the only claim I made -- women having sex with a man as a result of a material gift -- is something that happens."

Wow. You actually posted that? After accusing me of being dishonest.

I'm open to the possibility that you might just be an idiot. There's precedent.

You wrote:

Do women sometimes receive an expensive gift that they respond to with sex? Sure

You then went into a lot of irrelevant crap about how in healthy relationships women have motives beyond the crassly commercial. Well no shit, Sherlock, nobody ever denied that a healthy relationship is about more than just material wealth.

I don't believe most women engage in it.

It is, I'm sure, purely an eerie coincidence that women are lavished with material gifts by men far more often than the reverse occurs. Sheer happenstance that even the richest women overwhelmingly seek mates that are richer still. Pure chance that men on the hunt for a mate actively attempt to seem wealthier than they are.

Because really, the majority of women actually aren't about the money at all. It is just that the whole of human civilization has accidentally constructed itself in a way that acts as if male wealth was critical to a woman's mating decisions. Oops!; 3/20/09, 8:16 PM
Fen said...: Therefore, according to you, "most women are prostitutes at one time or another

To be more precise: "most women prostitute themselves at one time or another".

I can't argue with that statement. Men do it to, just not usually with sex. And most the women I've known have traded on their charms to get something ["charms" meaning sexual favours, not just flirting] at one time or another.; 3/20/09, 8:17 PM
Revenant said...: The old saying is that a man does not pay for the sex, he pays her to go away after the sex is over.

That always struck me as an arrogantly macho way of putting it. Like "I *could* get this woman to screw me for free, but then she'd expect me to spend time with her". Yeah, maybe, but lets be realistic; most guys are not Brad Pitt. Even Brad Pitt isn't Brad Pitt these days.; 3/20/09, 8:19 PM
Fen said...: Guess I should pre-emptively define "most". For me, its 2/3rds. Is that a reasonable benchmark for "most".; 3/20/09, 8:19 PM
Revenant said...: To be more precise: "most women prostitute themselves at one time or another".

Yes, Fen, but if you phrase it like that it doesn't sound like I'm deliberately trying to insult an entire gender. So that won't fly. :); 3/20/09, 8:20 PM
blake said...: Done with you, Rev.

You changed your argument from "most" to "it happens" and you don't even acknowledge it.

Plus, you are absolutely incapable of arguing without resorting to ad hominem.; 3/20/09, 8:21 PM
Revenant said...: Guess I should pre-emptively define "most". For me, its 2/3rds. Is that a reasonable benchmark for "most".

"Most", in the sense of "most X are Y", just means "the majority".; 3/20/09, 8:22 PM
Fen said...: Yah. I have alot of respect for you and Blake and Freeman, so its kinda painful to watch you all go at each other. I didn't follow the original thread, but it seems like there's an underlying animus between all of you that undermines the arguments made.; 3/20/09, 8:23 PM
traditionalguy said...: Revenant... you are correct that the man paying the prostitute to go away after sex is being arrogant because he is participating in the abuse of another human without any fear of God.; 3/20/09, 8:24 PM
Chennaul said...: Basically Fen and Rev are trying to sell themselves as-

"not cheap"...

Work it girls!; 3/20/09, 8:24 PM
Revenant said...: Done with you, Rev.

Gee, blake, I'll miss having you misrepresent my argument.

You changed your argument from "most" to "it happens" and you don't even acknowledge it.

I have not changed it my position. Most women do it. I have "changed" my position from the straw-man position you invented and ascribed to me, i.e. "most women only have sex for material gain". This wasn't a "change" so much as it was me never having said it in the first place.

Plus, you are absolutely incapable of arguing without resorting to ad hominem.

You began the ad hominem attacks. It is silly to complain that I responded in kind.; 3/20/09, 8:27 PM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/20/09, 8:31 PM
Fen said...: Basically Fen and Rev are trying to sell themselves as-

"not cheap"...

Work it girls!

Sorry, don't follow you. I'm saying that the majority of women I've known have admitted to prostituting themselves at some point in their lives. Maybe its because I grew up in Dallas.

So I can find fault with Rev's opinion.; 3/20/09, 8:32 PM
Revenant said...: Revenant... you are correct that the man paying the prostitute to go away after sex is being arrogant because he is participating in the abuse of another human without any fear of God.

I hired a guy to dig a trench along my property, which (this being San Diego) consisted of removing, by hand, something along the lines of 1500 pounds of stone, clay, and surprisingly persistent dead roots from rock-hard soil. This was a truly miserable experience for him, I have no doubt. But I don't consider myself to have abused him, because he did it voluntarily for an agreed-upon wage.

Now, maybe the reason he was willing to dig a ditch for vastly less money that I would have demanded for it is because he's actually a depressive crack addict who desperately needs to raise money for his habit. I don't know. I didn't know the guy; I got his number from a friend of a friend. The point is, while I care about him in the generic sort of way that I care about everyone I don't know (i.e., I hope he lives a content and happy life), I don't consider it my business to second-guess how he chooses to make money. If he doesn't like digging ditches he can do something else for a living.; 3/20/09, 8:34 PM
Fen said...: Oh, and my own direct experience says the same: most the women I've had sexual relationships with have used sex as some form of barter/reward/punishment.

And no, not the one I married. I learned what NOT to look for in a companion.; 3/20/09, 8:36 PM
Trooper York said...: If like you better put a ring on it.; 3/20/09, 8:40 PM
Chennaul said...: Sorry I was purposefully being obtuse...

I haven't followed the whole argument and I was trying to be funny.; 3/20/09, 8:41 PM
Darcy said...: Really, Fen? Well, thank goodness you were able to find the rarest of women to marry, then. ;-); 3/20/09, 8:42 PM
Chennaul said...: Wait...

I'm saying that the majority of women I've known have admitted to prostituting themselves at some point in their lives. Maybe its because I grew up in Dallas.

Holy crap, really?; 3/20/09, 8:43 PM
Sofa King said...: I feel my position was misrepresented also. I took pains to point out that sex and relationships really are two separate things, and regardless how great you think altruistic sexual relationships are, there is no moral basis to ban material exchange for sex.; 3/20/09, 8:43 PM
Chennaul said...: Fen -

What the hell do you do for a living?

Bartender?

Strip club bouncer?; 3/20/09, 8:44 PM
Chennaul said...: I think what we have here is a Republican vs. Libertarian Death Match.; 3/20/09, 8:45 PM
Darcy said...: Sofa King, I got what you were saying as far as that goes. Not sure where you feel you were misrepresented - could you explain?; 3/20/09, 8:52 PM
blake said...: Sofa,

Yes, I got that. I didn't see where banning it was suggested, even among those who disapprove of prostitution.; 3/20/09, 8:54 PM
The Dude said...: Cynical? Perhaps. Realist? Yep. Been there, done that.

I think we know what they are, all we are doing is negotiating a price.

Better? Nah, still cynical.

I am coming up on my 40th anniversary. Thank goodness I am also approaching the 17th anniversary of my divorce.

When I asked the ex- "Why now?"

She said "You finally had enough money to make it worth while."

Yep, just negotiatin'...; 3/20/09, 8:59 PM
Sofa King said...: Sofa King, I got what you were saying as far as that goes. Not sure where you feel you were misrepresented - could you explain?

My point about no moral basis was not about personal ethics, it was about public policy. Perhaps that was my own fault for not being clearer.; 3/20/09, 9:12 PM
Chennaul said...: Basically the same guys that are making the argument that prostitution should be legalized seemed to be the same guys that are angry about sex for money.

So if you "win" the legalize prostitution argument you are going to get more of the same.

Sex as barter , sex separated from something more meaningful and spiritual.

Notice sex as the word vs. making-
love.

Weird how the guys who are arguing the Libertarian argument-legalize prostitution are exampling personally the best arguments against that.; 3/20/09, 9:12 PM
Sofa King said...: Basically the same guys that are making the argument that prostitution should be legalized seemed to be the same guys that are angry about sex for money.

Where do you get that? I certainly don't see where Rev or I expressed anger about sex for money.; 3/20/09, 9:20 PM
Chennaul said...: OK try resentment.; 3/20/09, 9:22 PM
Chennaul said...: On the personal level not in the New Zealand example.; 3/20/09, 9:23 PM
Sofa King said...: Again, where? If there is resentment expressed, it's at sanctimony. It's at substituting emotion for reason as a basis for public policy.

I actually think it is those who are against legalized prostitution that don't really believe their own arguments about the superiority of altruistic sexual relationships. If it was as obvious as they say, then people would choose them freely and legal coercion would not be necessary.; 3/20/09, 9:25 PM
Revenant said...: Basically the same guys that are making the argument that prostitution should be legalized seemed to be the same guys that are angry about sex for money.

I think there's an assumption by many people that identifying a commercial motive is the same thing as being angry about a commercial motive. But I'm not Ralph Nader. I'm no angrier about the idea of money for sex than I am about the idea of money for beer.

I do find it amusing when a guy goes out and blows a few months' pay on an engagement ring and then badmouths the idea of getting a $10 lapdance at a nudie bar -- "how can you pay for that?". Consciously, dude. :); 3/20/09, 9:30 PM
Chennaul said...: I've skimmed three different threads at two different blogs-

The argument being made is that women exchange sex for the material mostly.

And you know what?

I don't know that I disagree with that.

But how do you not get more of that by legalizing prostitution.

I get it's a slippery slope argument but I think the more you separate the spiritual from the sexual into that abyss you go.; 3/20/09, 9:32 PM
Chennaul said...: Rev-

I do find it amusing when a guy goes out and blows a few months' pay on an engagement ring and then badmouths the idea of getting a $10 lapdance at a nudie bar -

Really you know guys like that?

Where?

I wanna meet 'em.

[Joking-but if I was on the hunt-hell ya!]

I think again it's depth of meaning, character and spirituality.; 3/20/09, 9:38 PM
Revenant said...: Again, where? If there is resentment expressed, it's at sanctimony.

Yes, that's exactly it. I got drawn into this because people were insisting that prostitutes were by definition illegitimate, unsafe, and generally worthy of scorn. I disagree with that position. I think sex work in a free and legal environment is a good and legitimate thing.; 3/20/09, 9:40 PM
Sofa King said...: I think there's an assumption by many people that identifying a commercial motive is the same thing as being angry about a commercial motive. But I'm not Ralph Nader. I'm no angrier about the idea of money for sex than I am about the idea of money for beer.

Spot on. In fact, between the prostitute and the manipulative materialistic girlfriend, I respect the prostitute more. There's at least some honor in the honesty of the transaction taking place. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit - isn't that the foundation of our "free market society?"; 3/20/09, 9:41 PM
Revenant said...: Really you know guys like that? Where?

The traditional standard for how much a groom should spend on an engagement ring is two months' salary. Not everybody follows it, but a surprising number of people still do.; 3/20/09, 9:44 PM
Chennaul said...: The foundation of our society like it or not has some moral basis.

Morality plays into iit even if it's "difficult".; 3/20/09, 9:46 PM
Sofa King said...: Of course, at that point, the objection to the lap dance is probably just sour grapes.; 3/20/09, 9:46 PM
Chennaul said...: Dude-

No I'm talking about a guy that doesn't like cheap lap dances, and goes for the ring.

That combo.; 3/20/09, 9:47 PM
Chennaul said...: I don't get the point of a lapdance.

I mean would I pay a guy ten bucks to wave a chocolate bar in front of my face?

As the infamous troll around here would say-

Duh.

{; 3/20/09, 9:49 PM
Sofa King said...: The foundation of our society like it or not has some moral basis.

Yes, and part of that morality is that - absent other higher moral imperatives - it's not evil for two adults to trade something each of them posess for something else each of them wants. Freedom is moral.

So perhaps the question boils down to whether freedom is a higher moral imperative than prudishness. I think it is, maybe you disagree.; 3/20/09, 9:49 PM
Sofa King said...: I don't get the point of a lapdance.

I mean would I pay a guy ten bucks to wave a chocolate bar in front of my face?

Probably not, because you can after all legally exchange money for chocolate any time you feel like it.

If, perhaps, you could never experience even the sight or smell of chocolate except at the whims of other people, you might not be so cavalier about the prospect.; 3/20/09, 9:51 PM
Revenant said...: In fact, between the prostitute and the manipulative materialistic girlfriend, I respect the prostitute more.

Even with a non-manipulative girlfriend you generally ought to go into the relationship realizing "cash-wise, I'll be putting a lot more into this then I'll be getting out". Any guy bothered by that idea ought to stick to masturbation and save himself a lot of trouble.

But why be bothered by it? Let's face it, unless the lady is unusually horny or you are an unusually skilled lover you'll probably be getting more out of the sexual side of the relationship than she will. Relationships are not bilaterally symmetrical. A female friend of mine once replied to a comment about women making less than men by saying "God gave men most of the money, but he gave us ALL the pussy". That sums it up pretty well.; 3/20/09, 9:52 PM
The Dude said...: Speaking of famous trolls, not to mention cheap sluts, where has Michael been lately?; 3/20/09, 9:54 PM
Revenant said...: I don't get the point of a lapdance. I mean would I pay a guy ten bucks to wave a chocolate bar in front of my face?

I didn't know the act of naked women rubbing up against me had to HAVE a point. Pretty much an end in itself, I'd say.; 3/20/09, 10:00 PM
William said...: In Victorian London about one out of every six women worked as a prostitute. In Germany, in the immediate post war period, the figure was even higher. And to top that, during the siege of Leningrad cannibalism was rampant. Survival is the highest moral value....The women here who advertise their virtue are actually just demonstrating their wealth and position. High morals, like expensive silks, are markers of high status rather than of high useful value.....I have never had a homosexual experience, and no amount of money would tempt me to have one. Nonetheless, I feel that a stretch in the big house might cause me to reconsider my views about homosexuality.....In like way, I would ask all the women who have taken a position of categorical rejection of prostitution to try to keep an open mind on the subject. We are entering what will prove to be the worst recession of most people's lifetimes. There's a feeling that Obama's split strike convergence strategy towards the economy may only make things worse. But on the bright side, all venereal diseases will be covered under the new national health plan. I don't recommend this a primary career goal, but as a fall back plan there are worse options than prostitution. I myself am learning how to dress human meat.; 3/20/09, 10:02 PM
Wince said...: Get the feeling that some of the commenters on this thread are fighting over the favor of a woman -- Althouse?

I'm reading expecting David Attenborough to come out from behind a tree to explain.; 3/20/09, 10:05 PM
Ron said...: If it were sweeps here at Althouse we'd be getting photoshopped pics of Andrew Sullivan eating a banana. No, this is just the usual carnivale!; 3/20/09, 10:07 PM
Revenant said...: Yes, and part of that morality is that - absent other higher moral imperatives - it's not evil for two adults to trade something each of them posess for something else each of them wants. Freedom is moral.

Besides, while our poetry and religious history might speak highly of the importance of romantic love, in reality most people paid fairly obsessive attention to the materialistic implications of marriage until fairly recently, and many people still do. The idea that marrying a man for his money is wrong is largely a modern one.; 3/20/09, 10:13 PM
Issob Morocco said...: Sex with a teleprompter!; 3/20/09, 10:51 PM
Anonymous said...: you people think too much.

some do , some don't but just evaluate too much.

now dance.

this is all need to know in life.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OafqYNCzq5U; 3/20/09, 10:55 PM
David said...: Man-this has become nearly incoherent. Talk about touching a nerve . . .

Have you noticed also that it's become a locker room. All the women have left. That fact may be making the conversation less fruitful.; 3/20/09, 10:58 PM
Darcy said...: Yeah, there's a possibly important clue there, David. Good call. ;-); 3/20/09, 11:12 PM
Revenant said...: Have you noticed also that it's become a locker room. All the women have left.

Maybe if we offered them money? :); 3/20/09, 11:21 PM
Darcy said...: God, you're a butthead, Revenant.; 3/20/09, 11:22 PM
Revenant said...: God, you're a butthead, Revenant.

And here I thought I was poking fun at my own position with that comment. Pardon me, Ms. Hypersensitive.; 3/20/09, 11:29 PM
Darcy said...: You read me wrong. I would think butthead would have been a clue, but it was subtle.; 3/20/09, 11:36 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: It isn't that he's being emotional and angry, it is that his (and Freeman, et al's) argument consists entirely of appeals to emotion and anger.

Excuse-moi? You did tick me off, so I guess that's where you get "emotion and anger." But I spent a ton of time pointing out to you real life experience that contradicts your claim. You said that you know lots of women who won't do that, but that they're a minority. I don't know if that's a function of your locale or your social circle, but that is just not the normal thing everywhere.

I hadn't been back to the original thread until now, so I just saw this:

There are people (e.g., most women) who can't view sex as just a physical thing, but there are plenty of people (e.g., most men) who can.

Men who believe that are kidding themselves. I stand by what I wrote there.; 3/20/09, 11:55 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Oh, and as far as some people being uncomfortable with certain of us arguing over this: Ha. Just wait until the next thread about fiscal conservatism or some such thing comes up. We'll all be back in agreement. :); 3/20/09, 11:57 PM
Ron said...: If Rev will offer me money, I'll pretend to be a woman who fits his cliche, just so he can feel vindicated...but for even more money...I won't!; 3/21/09, 12:01 AM
Anonymous said...: be proud, old white laadies zing, too

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD4mgyNn1nc; 3/21/09, 12:17 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: I think what we have here is a Republican vs. Libertarian Death Match.

Hey! I missed this before. I object! At least write Conservative vs. Libertarian.

Now I don't know which is worse, having your entire gender tarred as mostly being a bunch of whores or having your ideology tarred as... well, since we're talking about an official political party, mostly represented by a bunch of whores.; 3/21/09, 12:20 AM
Chennaul said...: Freeman-

I should clarify

I was talking about the legalization of prostitution argument not the spin-off argument-app.2/3rds of all chicks are kinda-whores/prostitute debate.

I mean where in the Republican party platform does it say-

We are for legalized prostitution.

That's a Libertarian pipe dream....

William-

I worked my way through college washing dishes and bartending but-

Ya-morality is a luxury of the well to do.; 3/21/09, 12:37 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: madawaskan,

I know. I was just making a joke about politicians/bureaucrats.; 3/21/09, 12:40 AM
Chennaul said...: Freeman-

OK gotcha.

Well we are talking about the two oldest professions.

I still think Republicans send amateurs to the Hill...compared to the other side.

A large part of that is a function of the bias inherent in the media microscope.; 3/21/09, 12:52 AM
Revenant said...: Men who believe [that they view sex as just a physical thing] are kidding themselves. I stand by what I wrote there.

Female erotica is romance novels; male erotica consists of anonymous young women getting boned to within an inch of their lives without any conversation. Do the math, Freeman.; 3/21/09, 12:54 AM
Revenant said...: That's a Libertarian pipe dream....

No, small government is a libertarian pipe dream. Prostitution is already either legal or decriminalized in most of the developed world. The United States' decision to keep it illegal is unusual.

I don't see the status quo holding much longer. The ban on sex for money is too bizarre in light of legalized fornication, the Roe and Lawrence decisions, and particularly the porn industry.

Right now, a woman can go out, have sex with fifty men, and abort the child if she gets pregnant. She can even get paid for it IF there's a camera rolling and the results are sold on the open market. But she can't do it for money, not even with one man, not even in the privacy of her own home, if there's no camera. This is not a sensible legal regimen. It has to shift one way or the other, and I don't see it shifting in the direction of increased restrictions on sex. That cat's out of the bag, I think.; 3/21/09, 1:03 AM
Chennaul said...: Rev-

Ya I had second thoughts about that almost as soon as I hit publish.

You could be right-but I don't see that coming up through the Republican party-which btw is on the death bed because they never realized the street smart,or unscrupulousness they were up against.

So in that regard definitely-over.

Weird thing-every Dutch military liaison I've met absolutely abhors what has become of their country.; 3/21/09, 1:10 AM
chickelit said...: My $.02:

Revenant: We've disagreeded briefly before. I respect you to death (I mean that). You've gotta back down on this somehow.

Freeman: I was a bit hurt by your "It's a regional thing" innuendo over at blake's.; 3/21/09, 2:21 AM
Revenant said...: You could be right-but I don't see that coming up through the Republican party

I expect it to come about through the infamous "activist courts". My guess would be that street prostitution and pimping will stay illegal but in-call and out-call service in homes or hotels will be allowed.

So long as people don't have to look at crackwhores standing on their street corner, I don't think they much care what goes on. Other prostitution gets cracked down on mostly because it is a good way for vice cops to get bribes or sex.; 3/21/09, 2:36 AM
knox said...: I myself am learning how to dress human meat.

Ann Althouse sure has a lot of cannibalistic commenters...; 3/21/09, 7:08 AM
traditionalguy said...: Protecting women and children is a basic plus for any social group. If the free market is the only mechanism of men, women and children relating to one another, then your women and children are as safe as your Manufacturing job has been. The highest bidder will buy up everything you are or will be and you will become an old leftover piece of rubbish like Detroit. Protecting your women and children is self interest, all you Libertarians!; 3/21/09, 7:12 AM
KCFleming said...: Materialists have their own sanctimony on exhibit here. In refusing to recognize the spiritual lives many people have, that aspect of existence is routinely ignored and belittled, baubles for unsophisticated rubes.

The pro-prostitution view, especially that which conflates many/most women with whores as a result, has its defenders, to be sure, but it's mainly -if not solely- a male viewpoint.

That fact alone should give its supporters pause. Where are the women who jump in yeling "yes! You described it perfectly!"? More, the fact that women see it as deeply misogynistic ought to give them further pause. Is that male belief abhored because 'the truth hurts' or because (more likely) it's merely the oldest insult against women dressed up as libertarianism or freedom or somesuch?

The sex-for-stuff view is like looking at a piano and seeing black and white keys, three pedals and a box of wood. The music is absent, and the connection music makes dismissed as unreal or ...immaterial.; 3/21/09, 7:30 AM
knox said...: Revenant 3/17

A guy who tries building a relationship on kind words and deeds and going dutch on everything isn't going to get any. The relationship is probably going to die early on, too.

Revenant today:

I wasn't making a general statement about relationships, or claiming that women only care about money

Rev, please stop claiming that Blake, or any of the rest of us, are misinterpreting or misrepresenting what you were saying. The above statement from 3/17 is unqualified, and stated pretty decisively.; 3/21/09, 7:32 AM
knox said...: Pogo, very well said.; 3/21/09, 7:33 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: knox is right, Rev. Blake and the rest of us haven't mischaracterized your remarks. You've spent this thread squirming like an eel to dodge them.

And your constant objection to the word "whores" is bizarre. You realize that to most people there's not a nickel's difference between saying, "women are whores" and "women trade sex for material goods?" The latter is what most people consider to be the very definition of a whore.

As for this:

Female erotica is romance novels; male erotica consists of anonymous young women getting boned to within an inch of their lives without any conversation.

Even if that's true, it doesn't refute what I wrote. Erotica is fantasy, not reality. Turning that fantasy into reality leads to misery, male or female.

And Pogo did describe it well. Blake was spelling out that piano-music connection for you.; 3/21/09, 8:06 AM
MarkW said...: Jumping into the thread very late:

Blake: In the stereotypical situation, where the man wants sex more than the woman, his sexual attention is at less of a premium. It can be self-centered. If she's not in the mood, sex can be her gift to him. (Wise women know this and wise men appreciate it.)

But how does he reciprocate? However good and considerate a lover he may be, where's the exchange in terms of doing something for your partner that you wouldn't necessarily be inclined to?

You think women respond to expensive gifts? Try doing the dishes. Paint a room.

But exchanging sex for something of value (getting out of tedious, unpleasant work) is a form of prostitution. This form of payment is greatly preferred by most nice women in committed relationships because expensive jewelry in that situation would make what was actually going on much too obvious. (They may want the nice gifts, too, mind you -- but on occasions not directly or obviously linked to sex).

So am I another angry, cynical male? Nope, I've been married more than 25 years, quite happily most of the time. Has my wife ever expected any of these kinds of exchanges for sex? Oh sure, and it took some time and effort to make it clear that I won't accept that.

As usual, my sex drive is stronger. But I don't want to have sex with my wife when she considers it a tedious task that's the equivalent of doing the dishes. If, at any given time, she feels like I'm not also doing a favor for her too, then tomorrow's OK, or the next day, or next week -- whenever. Do I get less sex this way? Maybe...but it's better sex. And I'm not sure it's less -- it may be more. When she finally totally accepted the idea that sex is something she does for herself and not for me -- that I just wouldn't accept it being used as a form of power in the relationship -- it seemed to make a difference.

So I'll happily exchange sexual favors for sexual favors, tedious jobs for tedious jobs, and gifts for gifts. But I refuse to mix up the categories. Works for me, but YMMV.; 3/21/09, 8:41 AM
Darcy said...: Excellent, Pogo, knox, and Freeman. Spot on about Blake's comments!; 3/21/09, 9:23 AM
KCFleming said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/21/09, 9:30 AM
Sofa King said...: Love can't be found on the ledger; but then, the things that count the most often cannot be counted at all.

If love can't be found on the ledger it's because you have a terrible accountant.; 3/21/09, 10:06 AM
KCFleming said...: Heh.
I meant you can list a material exchange as a line item on a ledger, quantified by price.

And love is not such a commodity, for no accountant can price it.; 3/21/09, 10:39 AM
Meade said...: All of my life I've been searching
for a girl to love me like I love you
oh, now...
But every girl I've ever had
breaks my heart and leaves me sad...
what am I... what am I suppose to do?... oh, oh, oh, oh ...
AnnA, just one more thing, girl...
you give back your ring to me
and I will set you free...
go with Lem; 3/21/09, 5:38 PM
Revenant said...: That fact alone should give its supporters pause. Where are the women who jump in yeling "yes! You described it perfectly!"?

Since prostitutes serve the purpose of eliminating a male need that normal women otherwise profit by filling, I would not expect most women to be enthusiastic about prostitutes.; 3/21/09, 6:04 PM
Revenant said...: knox is right, Rev. Blake and the rest of us haven't mischaracterized your remarks. You've spent this thread squirming like an eel to dodge them.

Knox is unable or unwilling to understand the difference between something being a necessary condition and something being the only condition. Here's an example that might clarify the point you persist in missing: if we cut our soldiers' pay to the bare minimum they needed for subsistence support themselves and their families, most of them would quit. But only an idiot would honestly think that making that observation is the same as saying "our soldiers only care about money".

You and blake also persist in saying that I am labeling all women in this manner. I know you are smart enough to tell the difference between the words "most" (> 50%) and "all" (100%). So your protests that you aren't misrepresenting me are a pretty obvious lie.

And your constant objection to the word "whores" is bizarre.

If you said Barack Obama was a black person and I told people you called him a nigger, would it be unfair for you to complain? After all, if you look up the word "nigger" in a dictionary you'll find it right there: "a black person".

Furthermore, blake also peddled a bullshit line about how it was curious that I hadn't said "all men are johns", the point being that obviously there must be some sort of anti-female bias at work here. But if any of you stopped to think for a minute, you'd realize that under the exact same logic you're using to claim that I called "all" women "whores", I called "all" mean "johns", too. I said that most women trade sex for material goods at some point -- who'd you think they're trading them too, Martians? So yes, I feel I have legitimate grounds for feeling I was misrepresented.

Even if that's true, it doesn't refute what I wrote.

Unless you are in possession of a mind-reading device you're willing to share with the general public there is no way to prove or refute your claim that sex has to be more than just physical for most men. But since there's no circumstantial evidence supporting your position and a wealth of circumstantial evidence opposing it (porn, the gender gap in patronizing prostitutes and strip clubs, the higher average number of male casual sex partners, the huge gap in promiscuity rates between male and female homosexuals, and however many millions of anecdotes), I don't really see why I need to refute your claim about how men's minds work.

And Pogo did describe it well. Blake was spelling out that piano-music connection for you.

Neither Pogo nor blake has ever demonstrated an ability to understand a materialist viewpoint. They persistently confuse materialism with reductionism, as they both did in this case. Materialism allows for emergent properties of systems; this makes their banal "a piano is more than just the keys" stuff moot.; 3/21/09, 6:34 PM
Sofa King said...: Materialists have their own sanctimony on exhibit here. In refusing to recognize the spiritual lives many people have, that aspect of existence is routinely ignored and belittled, baubles for unsophisticated rubes.

That's not fair at all. Who has refused to recognize that people have "spiritual lives," let alone belittled them for it? If my refusal to accept your spiritual life as a rationale for a constraint on my liberty means that I'm committing some offense to you, then you are nothing more than a tyrant.; 3/21/09, 7:29 PM
theobromophile said...: Since prostitutes serve the purpose of eliminating a male need that normal women otherwise profit by filling, I would not expect most women to be enthusiastic about prostitutes.

Rev, seriously, are you just trying to piss people off?

Now, you are hitting on an important argument for chastity and waiting for marriage: why put out on a date, after a $50 dinner, when you could get $1,000/hour for it on the street? - but that isn't really your point.

Selfishly, I would prefer that men go to prostitutes than to pressure women around them for sex. As the modern dating norm is to have sex very, very early on (if there is even dating, as opposed to friends with benefits, involved!), legalised prostitution could be like manna from heaven. We could tell the gents to sod off and have sex with a lady of the night if it's just about screwing and getting off, but, if they want sex from us, they better love us. I mean, if the guy has options for getting laid, he can't say that he needs chaste girls to stop being chaste, right?

The unselfish part of me that informs my policy position (usually libertarian, but anti-prostitution) says that every woman deserves sex with a man who loves her.; 3/21/09, 7:40 PM
Sofa King said...: The unselfish part of me that informs my policy position (usually libertarian, but anti-prostitution) says that every woman deserves sex with a man who loves her.

In what way is that unselfish? It shows no regard for men whatsoever.; 3/21/09, 8:09 PM
Revenant said...: Rev, seriously, are you just trying to piss people off?

If I said that we should expect most blue-collar workers to favor restrictive immigration laws because illegal immigrants compete against them, would people assume I was deliberately trying to piss off blue-collar workers?

It is a fact that prostitutes are in competition with non-prostitutes. It is also a fact that the majority of the latter favor locking up the former, a position which cannot be explained by concern for the well-being of women who prostitute themselves. So why do you think it is that most women want to cause harm to prostitutes?

Look at the pattern of illegalization in America. The banning of prostitution followed the rise of female political power. Women, not men, led the push to strip women of part of their rights. Now either women as a class are irrational (insert sexist joke here), or treating prostitutes as criminals was in the interests of most women even though it hadn't been much of a concern for the men.

If it pisses people off to think that prostitution was made illegal out of selfish motives then fine, let them be pissed. But it fits the facts better than rival theories. It also explains why prostitution is still illegal in a country where porn isn't -- how many wives worry about their husbands becoming porn stars? Porn stars are "whores" by Freeman and blake's preferred use of the term, but they aren't whores that normal women need to worry about.; 3/22/09, 3:16 AM
theobromophile said...: Rev,

You claim that it is a "fact" that prostitutes are in competition with non-prostitutes, and also claim it as a "fact" that most women want prostitutes locked up.

Aside from going all Princess Bride on you, all I can say is this: that which you assume to be true is likely not as true as you think it is.

On a final note: Trust me, I'm not competing with prostitutes for a man; any man that I want wouldn't be swayed by paying for a night of sex.; 3/22/09, 2:59 PM
kentuckyliz said...: There are some young cynical women who trade sex for money. Child support. They look for a young man with a good paycheck and no kids in line in front of them. The first in line for child support gets a bigger check.

I think it's shocking and awful but what is, is. You get more of what you incentivize.

There are men who want sex and money--specifically, for a woman to give up her lucrative career to raise their children. So they're taking her sex and her money. I guess that's like beating up your whore and taking her money. Perhaps that makes him a pimp.

(I'm being facetious in that last paragraph there....); 3/24/09, 10:06 PM