It's really simple I think: the vast majority of "transactions" won't be well defined "do x to get y" offers but just things that may or may not change certain odds. There's an entire spectrum between the extremes of pure romantic love and list price prostitution and I believe that the point were you really can't fool yourself anymore can be surprisingly far from the former.

Combine a mild dose of self delusion with a huge potential payoff and world view that everything is crap and there's evil everywhere and you'll have no trouble living with yourself no matter what you do.

Is pure romantic love devoid of transactions? Many couples involve two people giving commitment and expecting commitment back. Sure, not all couples are so monogamous, but many if not most are. People have expectations of what to receive from a relationship and when they don't, they consider ending the relationship. Point out a one sided romantic relationship people will tell you to find someone better for you. Sure, it is never put in the language of 'do x, get y'.

Many social groups who help each other with resources without keeping tabs still can recognize when someone is leaching off the group, especially when they recognize the person has the ability to contribute to the group but chooses not to. People who support someone without expecting them to be paid back often have an expectation of the relationship being two sided with sentiments such as "I know if the roles were reversed, you would do the same for me." In cases where the roles do reverse but they don't do the same, you see people quite broken. It wasn't ever a strict tally, but it does hurt the person that their relationship wasn't as too sided as they expected.

We even describe people as being enablers when they give to someone without receiving back what we think is due (with that last part being defined in highly situations terms).

Romantic love is definitely transactional, just like everything else. We are animals in a physical world, after all. Anyone who says that they love someone truly without conditions just hasn't had enough of their conditions broken to know that they have them. I say this as a happily married person going on fifteen years. Our marriage is romantic, sure, but it's also a deal, and you're both putting stuff into the deal and getting stuff out of it to make it work. The romance wouldn't work without the rest of it.

This assumes that everyone views integrity in the same way. Not everyone views sex as a sacred rite that a lot of cultures make it out to be. Regardless of my views or your views using sex for gain isn't wrong or immoral to everyone. I don't support or think it's right for anyone to have no other option but some people would argue that having the option is better than not and I shouldn't enforce my morals on them.

Note: I'd never use sex in a bargain, vows and dealing with peoples emotions is a very serious thing to me. I'm not everyone though.

Arguably there are two issues here. The first is viewing sex as sacred or not. But if you consider it not sacred, if you think of giving someone sex as roughly equivalent to giving them money, then that brings us to the next issue: Bribery. If the claims are true, then essentially you're expected to bribe people (with sex) who act as industry gatekeepers, or else find it much more difficult to progress in your career. That would be called "corruption"—and to not want to be part of that is indeed a manifestation of "integrity".

Now, one could come up with alternate motivations. "So, let's see just how dedicated you are to your career" ... Oh lord, I can't finish that with a straight face. I mean, if someone does think sex is at least mildly sacred, then being willing to do it for career purposes would show dedication (or desperation), but there are probably lots of other ways to measure that, not to mention that you might end up selecting less for dedication and more for sexual blaséness.

An important topic here is that shame is also a construct, and it is a collective construct. Certain things are shameful in one culture, not in another.

This isn’t to say that we don’t have a gut feeling when something feels wrong. We have an inner sense of boundaries which eg. can be damaged by trauma and deeply affects our ability to connect and such.

But when it comes to adult relationships there is a wide spectrum of behaviours and unless everyone tells you something is deeply wrong, I think there are times and places where people may not endure the same sense of shame.

Exactly. Insisting on how shameful and/ or traumatic some experiences must feel is, deep down, incredibly puritanic.

Which isn’t always a bad thing. E.g. society can deem certain experiences shameful (incest) for puritanical reasons if it decides to do so.

I don't quite buy that; whatever your cultural norms are, there will always be a significant problem with any kind of forced violation of this kind.

Perhaps, but none of this was forced. It was clear that if you didn't play the game you wouldn't get farther in general, but you had a choice, if you call get out of music a choice.

A polish pop star who once said that her career took 10 years longer to go off than it otherwise would because she refused to sleep with the important people in the biz. So, you can maintain your integrity.

At a very real risk of being permanently blocked. Just because one person managed to succeed despite not being compromised, that doesn't mean it's possible generally. It seems more likely that almost all the artists that refuse to compromise have their career killed right there.

Why do you think so many celebs face drug addiction? They're being exploited, often have to compromise their morals, and drugs are a coping mechanism.

Institutions of power are masters of controlling people. It's almost scientific.

I also really like this Gaga interview referencing Amy Winehouse

"You can't have it both ways; You can't enjoy listening to somebody singing sad songs about the blues and heartbreak and then not expect them to be truly heartbroken."

A lot of artists already struggle with mental health and addiction issues and that is why their music is powerful and propels their success.

Amy Winehouse is one of my favorite artists. Watch Amy for an amazing, sad, portrait that shows her existing struggles which were amplified to the extreme by our treatment and ridicule of her.

Mac Miller is another example that comes to mind, his last few albums in particular are lyrically intense and personal and candid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddRN5lYMTJY

Also drugs are used as a control mechanism, as we say with the child stars who were being sexual abused. Get them addicted to drugs while the abuser gets what they want.

Maybe a lot of these people can look themselves in the mirror. After all, its just drugs and sex.

There's no reason for these things to be sacred cows outside of what society tries to program us to believe.

It’s not about the sex and drugs but rather about controlling and abusing people.

The article is interesting because it seems to be an example of just that.

> how do people maintain their integrity in such a foul environment?

They can not require sexual favors when they are about to decide who to help. This ability is entirely within their possibilities.

Because really, the biggest integrity fail in this is sexual harassment, making business decisions based on sexual favors (demanding ones or accepting them) and abuse of power.

Other people in the thread have cast this vision as puritanical, but in my view the more interesting angle is that its Judaeo-christian aspect has more to do with the sense of expecting punishment. We are trained by the media to have this idea of people eventually paying a psychological price for doing things considered shameful by the majority. In reality, the propensity of people to feel shame sometimes corresponds to that pattern, and sometimes doesn't. It all comes down to the inability to theorize of different minds.

It is not to be thought that the life of darkness is sunk in misery and lost as if in sorrowing. There is no sorrowing. For sorrow is a thing that is swallowed up in death, and death and dying are the very life of the darkness. --Jacob Boehme

Push those feelings and emotions deep down inside and don't think about them? Drink and use drugs often? See therapists? Probably the same way most people deal with/don't deal with shitty situations.

PWSD - Post Weinstein Stress Disorder

Another thought,

How much of the content you consume comes out of this environment?

Are you letting that content set what you imagine is normal behavior?

As a society, what role does the entertainment industry play in setting behavioral norms?

Why wouldn't they be able to look themselves in the mirror?

I agree with the sentiment of your comment. But I do get the impression that creativity often comes from bad experiences, trauma and pain.

I am not speaking from experience here.

You overestimate the amount of integrity people have.

Remember that said woman would look like Harvey Weinstein.

But this sort of behavior reinforces the idea that the industry would be filled with shameless people who would do anything to get ahead. Actual talent would be at best a secondary factor to success. We have lost generations of talented artists simply because they had a shred of integrity.

But would a rich and powerful woman want to have sex with you? For millions of dollars?

I salute your inflated ego, sir!

The key word is “I’d” which is the contraction of “I would”, which indicates a hypothetical situation separate from the commenter’s ego or self-image.