16 ms·

I hope one day, assuming I have the money and don't have a stable partner, I will legally be able to pay a professional for their company for a few hours, both

I hope one day, assuming I have the money and don't have a stable partner, I will legally be able to pay a professional for their company for a few hours, both as consenting adults not under duress. I like to think that we have the right to be "loved" and cared for, even if fictitiously and for a very brief moment.

masterleep 12y ago
Don't be ridiculous. This is America, the land of the free, by which we mean the land where practically everyone wants to stick their nose in your business and try to change the way you live your life. There are a few people who advocate generally leaving others alone to do what they want, but they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe.
- remarkEon 12y ago
  ...but they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe. I think this is (slowly) starting to change. There seems to be a weird nexus on the other side between the libertarian right and the populist left. Prison reform is one example. Perhaps a slow acknowledgement that some of the laws governing social policy just don't make sense in the 21st century.
  - lepht 12y ago
    Thanks for a more optimistic view
  - tsotha 12y ago
    Prison reform, drug policy, foreign policy... there are lots of areas of overlap. But these are groups with who have diametrically opposite views regarding the basis of society. I don't know if and how long they'll be able to work together.
    - remarkEon 12y ago
      Yeah I'll for sure concede that point about how long they're gonna work together. In some respects, I wonder if the GOP is supporting some of the more populist agendas just to win elections and not necessarily because they actually believe in the principle. I'm just trying to be more of an indeterminate optimist for some issues. But you're right, the point remains.
  - mwfunk 12y ago
    Years ago I remember reading an article claiming that, according to some Pew research poll or another, the most common (maybe not a plurality) political disposition among Americans was socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Unfortunately, neither party caters to this segment. The Democrats are socially liberal and (historically, at least) fiscally liberal; the Republicans tend to be socially conservative and (based on the last couple of decades at least) fiscally batshit crazy liberal, despite having a platform calling for the exact opposite of that. The libertarians might be the Republicans' salvation, in that many of them actually do resemble the mythical socially liberal/fiscally conservative politicians, at least if you squint hard enough. While I don't agree with them 100%, I would definitely rather have the libertarianish Republicans being the dominant force in the party than theocons, who just seem utterly repugnant to me. On the other hand, the Democrats could benefit hugely if any disaffected libertarians switch parties. I don't see any more cognitive dissonance between libertarians and Democrats than I do libertarians and Republicans, honestly. For whatever reason people think of the Republican party as being the natural home for people with libertarian tendencies, but that doesn't seem any more set in stone than the South voting solid Democrat. Most people don't remember this, but the South voted Democrat consistently prior to 1964. When the Democratic party supported the Civil Rights Act, the evangelical voters switched en masse from Democrat to Republican. The evangelicals weren't any more married to the Democrats than the libertarians are to the Republicans, IMO. In both cases, neither party really represents the values that the voting bloc really care about, so their loyalty is more based on expediency than alignment of political principles.
    - IgorPartola 12y ago
      It is important to distinguish between libertarians who are fiscally conservative (spend money on necessities, not foreign wars, etc.), and libertarians like the Koch brothers, for whom libertarianism is a way to get the government off their businesses' backs. I am still trying to find an "ism" that resembles my views: spend money on roads, borders, police, education, social services, and healthcare; cut spending on the military, drop the second amendment, and step away from being the world police. Oh, and in the next 10-20 years spend about $500b/year on solving global warming. Then leave social issues the hell alone, such that as long as people are not directly harming each other, leave them the hell alone. Sort of a mix of libertarian (socially liberal, fiscally conservative), with democratic ideas for healthcare (100% covered single payer, very good safety net for poor, unemployed), and the green party's concern for the environment. Oh and find me a politician brave enough to say something about the gun situation in the US.
  - Centreal 12y ago
    Confusing pattern recognition is a fast pain. Slowing social scaling sense to account for trauma/error combinators is about literacy.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    >> being on the lunatic fringe. > I think this is (slowly) starting to change. Abolitionists were once thought of as being on the lunatic fringe. Now we accept their position as philosophically correct. As for libertarians, I entirely agree with those that point out national sovereignty as being inconsistent with humanist values. However, just because you are philosophically correct, that doesn't mean you aren't part of a lunatic fringe. The differentiating factor is how you interact and propose to interact with society at large.
- ssalazar 12y ago
  > they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe. Yeah contradicting 100 years of development of economic theory, i.e. proposing to return to the gold standard, will have that effect.
- datashovel 12y ago
  For the most part I would guess that laws that are perceived as an attempt to restrict people from doing what they want, are in fact meant to protect innocent people from becoming victims of crimes. A lot of these laws, no doubt, if executed more thoughtfully, would bring us far more reasonable laws. Ultimately I think it boils down to being able to (a) convince citizens they need to make thoughtful consideration when voting for their representatives, and (b) convince qualified people that they should run for office.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
craigsmitham 12y ago
Not all consent is created equal. Momentary consent does not justify a lifetime of oppression and discrimination. Prostitution is an act of violence against all women and should be prosecuted as such. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jinamoore/in-sweden-being-a-prostitute-is-legal-but-paying-one-isnt#.gr4lYdGAm http://www.buzzfeed.com/jinamoore/in-sweden-being-a-prostitu...
- dethstar 12y ago
  Could you expand on the "not all consent is created equal" part? Is it related to other things such as sexual slavery?
  - x0x0 12y ago
    If a starving or addicted person does X for $Y, is that true consent? While you're not literally raping the person, it's closer to rape than consent imo.
    - smtddr 12y ago
      If we go down this logical path, I'd say society already has lower-than-minimum-wage and/or dangerous jobs being done by people who have no feasible alternative... so we've kinda already accepted that this situation will occur for some people. Not saying this is okay, just saying that legalized prostitution as a profession would just be another dangerous job in a long list of other extremely hazardous jobs people probably shouldn't do, but end up doing anyway.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        Continuing down that logical path, it's impossible to have a truly consensual business transaction of any sort because the involvement of currency makes it coercive.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
dethstar 12y ago
I read this comic[0] a few years ago, it's autobiographic and in it the main character goes for a while living like you just explained and I'd recommend reading it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paying_for_It https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paying_for_It
downandout 12y ago
Oddly enough, you can....if you film it. Porn actors don't work for free. I always thought that someone would recognize this and create a service where the girls are available as "actresses" with boilerplate contracts etc to make the experience quick and easy. When done the video would be the property of the client, who could destroy it or keep it. All of it would be legal. I never built it because that isn't a business I really want to be involved in, but somebody should - even if only to highlight how arbitrary these laws are.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  There will be a few wrinkles, as there are local laws that apply to filming pornography. From what I've read, it's become difficult enough to make money in porn, that many porn actresses are basically using porn as a means of publicity to promote themselves as high priced prostitutes. It wouldn't surprise me if there was already a website as you describe.
  - escortingadvice 12y ago
    More on porn stars becoming escorts: http://www.salon.com/2014/02/24/when_porn_stars_become_escorts_lucrative_new_trend_could_also_be_risky/ http://www.salon.com/2014/02/24/when_porn_stars_become_escor... http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/mindgeek_porn_monopoly_its_dominance_is_a_cautionary_tale_for_other_industries.html?wpsrc=fol_tw http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/... https://twitter.com/EscortingAdvice/status/559800979592192000 https://twitter.com/EscortingAdvice/status/55980097959219200...
  - makomk 12y ago
    From what I've heard that's basically always been the case, it's just that porn actresses used to be a lot more secretive about it.
- tsotha 12y ago
  There are cities in Southern California who have used anti-prostitution statutes to arrest people doing porn. It's logical, IMO, if a bit irregular.
sanxiyn 12y ago
Sorry, you don't have the right to love and care, because other people have to give them. I advocate basic income, but I don't advocate basic love, because while money is easily transferrable, love is not.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  I don't think he was asking for an entitlement program to pay for hookers.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  are you completely oblivious to the logical inconsistency in the positions you just articulated?
  - sanxiyn 12y ago
    Yes, I am. Where is the logical inconsistency?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
aikah 12y ago
Brothels are legal in Nevada, so you can get some there for cheap.And please , spare us the "I will legally be able to pay a professional for their company for a few hours", You just want to fuck, say it. > I like to think that we have the right to be "loved" and cared for, even if fictitiously and for a very brief moment. There is no "love" or "care" in prostitution, only sex for money.The only thing a prostitute loves is your money. But that's ok. Just don't romanticize it. It's creepy but I bet you like it that way.
- practicalpants 12y ago
  To be fair, a lot of marriages and exclusive relationships are also predominantly about the money, or the social status, or the social pressure, things that also have nothing to do with 'love,' yet they also get 'romanticized' as you say. I'm not defending prostitution, I just think it's arrogant when people imply what a 'normal', or 'legitimate' relationship is.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  "I will legally be able to pay a professional for their company for a few hours", You just want to fuck, say it. In any human interaction, in many cultural contexts, it is very possible to be too businesslike and leave the other participants feeling awkward or even a bit abused. This is especially true in any service oriented businesses. Given the nature of the business of prostitution, I would expect this to be especially true there. I would expect that intelligent and sensitive customers would be more sensitive in this way. I would also expect that the higher paid practitioners of the business would tend to have higher emotional intelligence, and would also be smart enough to arrange their lives to mostly deal with people they mostly like. I would also posit, that in any situation where one is paying for someone's time, one should modify the expectation of "true friendship" in such a relationship to take the economic relationship into account. But let's take your admonition and apply it to the cafe, and see what we get: There is no "love" or "care" in the cafe, only coffee for money. The only thing a barista loves is your money. But that's ok. Just don't romanticize it. Does that sound strange? Yes it does. There is a certain vehemence that just doesn't apply to coffee, but which does apply to sex. (1) That's kind of weird. Why is it ok to be warm, friendly, and chatty with your barista, but not with a prostitute? I should think it would be creepier to be absolutely mechanical about it. It's creepy but I bet you like it that way. Actually, this line sounds emotionally abusive and therefore creepy. Much creepier than anything in the gp comment. (1 - Most of the time. There was this one time I asked for a decaf at Blue Bottle. Yeah I know, but I was already pretty wired.)

masterleep 12y ago

Don't be ridiculous. This is America, the land of the free, by which we mean the land where practically everyone wants to stick their nose in your business and try to change the way you live your life. There are a few people who advocate generally leaving others alone to do what they want, but they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe.

remarkEon 12y ago
...but they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe. I think this is (slowly) starting to change. There seems to be a weird nexus on the other side between the libertarian right and the populist left. Prison reform is one example. Perhaps a slow acknowledgement that some of the laws governing social policy just don't make sense in the 21st century.
- lepht 12y ago
  Thanks for a more optimistic view
- tsotha 12y ago
  Prison reform, drug policy, foreign policy... there are lots of areas of overlap. But these are groups with who have diametrically opposite views regarding the basis of society. I don't know if and how long they'll be able to work together.
  - remarkEon 12y ago
    Yeah I'll for sure concede that point about how long they're gonna work together. In some respects, I wonder if the GOP is supporting some of the more populist agendas just to win elections and not necessarily because they actually believe in the principle. I'm just trying to be more of an indeterminate optimist for some issues. But you're right, the point remains.
- mwfunk 12y ago
  Years ago I remember reading an article claiming that, according to some Pew research poll or another, the most common (maybe not a plurality) political disposition among Americans was socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Unfortunately, neither party caters to this segment. The Democrats are socially liberal and (historically, at least) fiscally liberal; the Republicans tend to be socially conservative and (based on the last couple of decades at least) fiscally batshit crazy liberal, despite having a platform calling for the exact opposite of that. The libertarians might be the Republicans' salvation, in that many of them actually do resemble the mythical socially liberal/fiscally conservative politicians, at least if you squint hard enough. While I don't agree with them 100%, I would definitely rather have the libertarianish Republicans being the dominant force in the party than theocons, who just seem utterly repugnant to me. On the other hand, the Democrats could benefit hugely if any disaffected libertarians switch parties. I don't see any more cognitive dissonance between libertarians and Democrats than I do libertarians and Republicans, honestly. For whatever reason people think of the Republican party as being the natural home for people with libertarian tendencies, but that doesn't seem any more set in stone than the South voting solid Democrat. Most people don't remember this, but the South voted Democrat consistently prior to 1964. When the Democratic party supported the Civil Rights Act, the evangelical voters switched en masse from Democrat to Republican. The evangelicals weren't any more married to the Democrats than the libertarians are to the Republicans, IMO. In both cases, neither party really represents the values that the voting bloc really care about, so their loyalty is more based on expediency than alignment of political principles.
  - IgorPartola 12y ago
    It is important to distinguish between libertarians who are fiscally conservative (spend money on necessities, not foreign wars, etc.), and libertarians like the Koch brothers, for whom libertarianism is a way to get the government off their businesses' backs. I am still trying to find an "ism" that resembles my views: spend money on roads, borders, police, education, social services, and healthcare; cut spending on the military, drop the second amendment, and step away from being the world police. Oh, and in the next 10-20 years spend about $500b/year on solving global warming. Then leave social issues the hell alone, such that as long as people are not directly harming each other, leave them the hell alone. Sort of a mix of libertarian (socially liberal, fiscally conservative), with democratic ideas for healthcare (100% covered single payer, very good safety net for poor, unemployed), and the green party's concern for the environment. Oh and find me a politician brave enough to say something about the gun situation in the US.
- Centreal 12y ago
  Confusing pattern recognition is a fast pain. Slowing social scaling sense to account for trauma/error combinators is about literacy.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  >> being on the lunatic fringe. > I think this is (slowly) starting to change. Abolitionists were once thought of as being on the lunatic fringe. Now we accept their position as philosophically correct. As for libertarians, I entirely agree with those that point out national sovereignty as being inconsistent with humanist values. However, just because you are philosophically correct, that doesn't mean you aren't part of a lunatic fringe. The differentiating factor is how you interact and propose to interact with society at large.
ssalazar 12y ago
> they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe. Yeah contradicting 100 years of development of economic theory, i.e. proposing to return to the gold standard, will have that effect.
datashovel 12y ago
For the most part I would guess that laws that are perceived as an attempt to restrict people from doing what they want, are in fact meant to protect innocent people from becoming victims of crimes. A lot of these laws, no doubt, if executed more thoughtfully, would bring us far more reasonable laws. Ultimately I think it boils down to being able to (a) convince citizens they need to make thoughtful consideration when voting for their representatives, and (b) convince qualified people that they should run for office.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

craigsmitham 12y ago

Not all consent is created equal. Momentary consent does not justify a lifetime of oppression and discrimination. Prostitution is an act of violence against all women and should be prosecuted as such. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jinamoore/in-sweden-being-a-prostitute-is-legal-but-paying-one-isnt#.gr4lYdGAm http://www.buzzfeed.com/jinamoore/in-sweden-being-a-prostitu...

dethstar 12y ago
Could you expand on the "not all consent is created equal" part? Is it related to other things such as sexual slavery?
- x0x0 12y ago
  If a starving or addicted person does X for $Y, is that true consent? While you're not literally raping the person, it's closer to rape than consent imo.
  - smtddr 12y ago
    If we go down this logical path, I'd say society already has lower-than-minimum-wage and/or dangerous jobs being done by people who have no feasible alternative... so we've kinda already accepted that this situation will occur for some people. Not saying this is okay, just saying that legalized prostitution as a profession would just be another dangerous job in a long list of other extremely hazardous jobs people probably shouldn't do, but end up doing anyway.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Continuing down that logical path, it's impossible to have a truly consensual business transaction of any sort because the involvement of currency makes it coercive.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]

dethstar 12y ago

I read this comic[0] a few years ago, it's autobiographic and in it the main character goes for a while living like you just explained and I'd recommend reading it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paying_for_It https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paying_for_It

downandout 12y ago

Oddly enough, you can....if you film it. Porn actors don't work for free. I always thought that someone would recognize this and create a service where the girls are available as "actresses" with boilerplate contracts etc to make the experience quick and easy. When done the video would be the property of the client, who could destroy it or keep it. All of it would be legal. I never built it because that isn't a business I really want to be involved in, but somebody should - even if only to highlight how arbitrary these laws are.

stcredzero 12y ago
There will be a few wrinkles, as there are local laws that apply to filming pornography. From what I've read, it's become difficult enough to make money in porn, that many porn actresses are basically using porn as a means of publicity to promote themselves as high priced prostitutes. It wouldn't surprise me if there was already a website as you describe.
- escortingadvice 12y ago
  More on porn stars becoming escorts: http://www.salon.com/2014/02/24/when_porn_stars_become_escorts_lucrative_new_trend_could_also_be_risky/ http://www.salon.com/2014/02/24/when_porn_stars_become_escor... http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/mindgeek_porn_monopoly_its_dominance_is_a_cautionary_tale_for_other_industries.html?wpsrc=fol_tw http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/... https://twitter.com/EscortingAdvice/status/559800979592192000 https://twitter.com/EscortingAdvice/status/55980097959219200...
- makomk 12y ago
  From what I've heard that's basically always been the case, it's just that porn actresses used to be a lot more secretive about it.
tsotha 12y ago
There are cities in Southern California who have used anti-prostitution statutes to arrest people doing porn. It's logical, IMO, if a bit irregular.

sanxiyn 12y ago

Sorry, you don't have the right to love and care, because other people have to give them. I advocate basic income, but I don't advocate basic love, because while money is easily transferrable, love is not.

stcredzero 12y ago
I don't think he was asking for an entitlement program to pay for hookers.
oldmanjay 12y ago
are you completely oblivious to the logical inconsistency in the positions you just articulated?
- sanxiyn 12y ago
  Yes, I am. Where is the logical inconsistency?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

aikah 12y ago

Brothels are legal in Nevada, so you can get some there for cheap.And please , spare us the "I will legally be able to pay a professional for their company for a few hours", You just want to fuck, say it. > I like to think that we have the right to be "loved" and cared for, even if fictitiously and for a very brief moment. There is no "love" or "care" in prostitution, only sex for money.The only thing a prostitute loves is your money. But that's ok. Just don't romanticize it. It's creepy but I bet you like it that way.

practicalpants 12y ago
To be fair, a lot of marriages and exclusive relationships are also predominantly about the money, or the social status, or the social pressure, things that also have nothing to do with 'love,' yet they also get 'romanticized' as you say. I'm not defending prostitution, I just think it's arrogant when people imply what a 'normal', or 'legitimate' relationship is.
stcredzero 12y ago
"I will legally be able to pay a professional for their company for a few hours", You just want to fuck, say it. In any human interaction, in many cultural contexts, it is very possible to be too businesslike and leave the other participants feeling awkward or even a bit abused. This is especially true in any service oriented businesses. Given the nature of the business of prostitution, I would expect this to be especially true there. I would expect that intelligent and sensitive customers would be more sensitive in this way. I would also expect that the higher paid practitioners of the business would tend to have higher emotional intelligence, and would also be smart enough to arrange their lives to mostly deal with people they mostly like. I would also posit, that in any situation where one is paying for someone's time, one should modify the expectation of "true friendship" in such a relationship to take the economic relationship into account. But let's take your admonition and apply it to the cafe, and see what we get: There is no "love" or "care" in the cafe, only coffee for money. The only thing a barista loves is your money. But that's ok. Just don't romanticize it. Does that sound strange? Yes it does. There is a certain vehemence that just doesn't apply to coffee, but which does apply to sex. (1) That's kind of weird. Why is it ok to be warm, friendly, and chatty with your barista, but not with a prostitute? I should think it would be creepier to be absolutely mechanical about it. It's creepy but I bet you like it that way. Actually, this line sounds emotionally abusive and therefore creepy. Much creepier than anything in the gp comment. (1 - Most of the time. There was this one time I asked for a decaf at Blue Bottle. Yeah I know, but I was already pretty wired.)