3 ms·
> Why is it that two people can't agree to exchange sex for money? It depends very heavily on the balance of power. You're talking about it like two people wit
by IanCal 12y ago
> Why is it that two people can't agree to exchange sex for money?
It depends very heavily on the balance of power. You're talking about it like two people with equal bargaining power coming to a agreement they're both happy with. If that's the case then great, that's fine. I don't think that's universal though, or even particularly common.
However we have a large number of rules to stop exploitative working environments across all industries, and something as physical and emotional as sex should have similar or stronger guarantees around.
There should be ways of creating safe environments and regulations that allow prostitution, but saying that "prostitution is a victimless crime" seems very off. We can probably create situations where it is, at worst, no more objectionable than someone working an office job they hate. However, I hardly think that's a good explanation of the current situation in many countries.
- heylefty 12y agoThere is never a balance of power between the employer and the employee. If there were, the employee wouldn't have to work for the employer, since he'd have just as much money and influence in the first place. Your argument condemns all employment.
- saraid216 12y agoI'm okay with that condemnation. Do you have a real refutation?
- heylefty 12y agoI thought it was obvious, but I'll spell it out for you. A worldview that would seek to ban all employment without proposing some alternative method of partitioning the world's limited resources is nonsensical.
- IanCal 12y ago> If there were, the employee wouldn't have to work for the employer, since he'd have just as much money and influence in the first place. So the employer needs no employees? > Your argument condemns all employment. Only exploitative employment.