Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti...
by bostik on Friday July 18, 2014 @06:06PM
(#8055846)
The biggest difference between sex for money and sex for free is that sex for money usually ends up costing a lot less.
I didn't come up with that but I do feel comfortable quoting it.
Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti...
by enraged_camel on Friday July 18, 2014 @07:00PM
(#8056029)
>>In a society in which a hefty part of the male population thinks that buying a woman drinks or even dinner entitles them to have a happy ending, this statement is very cynical.
There's a significant difference between buying someone dinner and expecting sex, and paying them money for sex. The former is a favor that is done as a form of signaling and courtship. The latter is a monetary transaction that formalizes the objectification of one party.
Re:Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalized indoor prosti...
by anotherevan on Saturday July 19, 2014 @10:03PM
(#8059363)
I think it crosses some sort of a line away from favour or courtship when one party thinks buying a meal means they are _entitled_.
“You’re not inviting me in? But I bought you dinner!”
I find that sort of logic and thinking very disturbing.
In a society in which a hefty part of the male population thinks that buying a woman drinks or even dinner entitles them to have a happy ending, this statement is very cynical.
Au contraire, I think that allowing people to pay for sex might actually de-blur some lines here. If you want quick sex for money go to a prostitute. If you want companionship that at some point get intimate enough to end in sex, date someone. If you buy someone dinner do that because you want to and not with an implicit expectation of getting something in return. Jeez.