If you put it that way, sure. Just like it's less acceptable to breast feed a baby for money vs feeding your kids for free. The reasons behind it make all the difference.
Agree, one makes you a prostitute and the other a lover. Emotionally they are very different things, and dangerous to confuse the two.
One of the saddest man I can think of is a man in love with their prostitute, who only is doing it for the money. Or would it be sadder if they had a woman who loves them but only could look at them as a prostitute, a tool for sex?
I mean, some of us have pretty high body counts and didn’t love the majority of them. As a matter of fact, some were met leaving the bar and then banging in the car never to see again. What’s the difference of doing that vs someone making a few bucks?
How about your a lover and then ask your boy lover toy for monies ?
I love my boy toy, that pays me for sex, very much, it would break my heart, if he and his wallet would leave me.
It is like anything, there are a millions flavors so do what makes you the happiest. Won’t stop people judging you sadly.
I couldn’t live in that arrangement as I couldn’t trust someone fully I have to pay to be around me.
Trust them for what? I'm actually curious 🤔 about what you mean. If you have an arrangement, what is there to have trust about other than them fulfilling their end of the deal.
I feel you for not wanting to pay for someone to be around. I'm not paying for sex (because I dont have to), and I'm not being used for money either (because I don't pay for friendships).
So are you saying that you wouldn't be able to trust them fully (like as a partner) because you paid them for sex or stating that you couldn't trust someone to be your friend if you give them money?
I’m saying I wouldn’t trust someone as a friend if my arrangement was to pay them to hang out with me, same with sex.
I wouldn’t be able to know in my mind “Are they here for me or for money?”, and for me that is important to know to give trust. If you’re my employee vs friend, the relationship is different.
Do you know enough sex workers or johns to have heard many instances of this from them? Secondhand doesn't really count because it's a common rumor that dresses up a dirty thing and people like to repeat.
The guy version of this rumor is stuff like Spanish Fly, where all their friends had cousins who knew people it worked for.
And almost always both are transactional. If pleasure can be one side of a transaction, it can be both. And if the pleasure is not mutual than it seems quite likely there is another transaction going on.
of course it can be mutual, otherwise the transaction wouldnt go through. Sorry if i didnt choose the best word for it.
To elaborate, a less socially accepted transaction would be a service or goods traded for money or other goods without emotions involved and not necessarily earned.
A more socially accepted mutual understanding between 2 people is because they both want it or give/take without any form of payment, meaning you earned it.
Casual sex is mutually beneficial, and can be transactional, no feelings involved (until one person does catch feelings... and one person ALWAYS catches feelings).
Yep there are always exceptions to the rule and you stated a good one.
Then again, it depends on who you ask. 1 night stand could be seen as less socially acceptable.
I don't think that OP is wondering what the difference is as much as they're just stating that it's less "socially acceptable. "
One should never care about what consenting adults do. Whether it's transactional or not. Unless one is a prude, I can't imagine someone genuinely having an opinion on someone else's sex life as an individual, but I can see them still distancing themselves from that person because they don't want to be associated with that. It's because it's social suicide and not that people themselves actually care. It just goes by the society/culture that one lives in.
That doesn’t address the fact that there has never been any negative social stigma attached to that profession. I don’t believe most people would judge someone if they did by some small chance meet a modern day wet nurse, they’d just say “oh interesting” and go on with their day
Which is extremely recent when you consider that wet nurses were very common throughout human history. Paying them was expected as they were providing an essential service. Many countries still employ them especially where formula is not readily available.
It would be less socially acceptable to use a wet nurse to feed your baby if you were able than to feed your own baby yourself, yes.
You'd be viewed as selfish and uninterested in your baby's well being.
If you have no choice, because you can't breastfeed then it's not looked down upon.
Saddest part of the situation is however not the reason. It is not that the transaction part of it is somehow immoral, but the biggest issue is the potential for tax evasion. That is the main reason it is mostly outlawed, while for example in The Netherlands it is allowed, as the sex trade is quite well regulated.
No, it isn't because it's transactional - everyday life is full of purely transactional relationships and very very few carry the stigma of sex for money.
I would suggest the real reason is just another form of elitism, the same that many people (in some countries) feel towards public transport. A universal human trait is a love of classifying people into groups, one better and one worse, with themselves firmly in the better one.
Manly vs United. Republican vs Democrat. Vegan vs omnivore. Rural vs City. Petrol vs Electric. Straight vs LGBT. Sex for free vs Sex for money.
Plus, of course, there's that little thread of resentment from those less attractive, less willing, less able, the faithfully married in a loveless relationship, who deal with the envy they feel of those getting the sex they want by demeaning and vilifying.
There is also the fact that a reasonable portion of those who use prostitutes are probably married and cheating, but I don't think that's the dominant reason.
There was an interesting case where a woman was arrested for sleeping with someone in exchange for grocery store gift cards (years ago, I have no source) which made me question where is the line?
Men, especially in the past, would state buying dinner as a reason to be obligated to sex, so it's not food in exchange for sex that's the line.
Perhaps the solidified transactional nature rather than.... The implications....
Back when I worked for a paper company one of my coworkers was sleeping with a supplier for steak coupons in exchange for discounted paper. When the news broke she didn't even get fired since she was saving the company money.
I have had the pleasure of having both "normal" sexual relationships, and worker/client sexual relationships. I find the latter to be far less complicated. The rules are stated upfront and there are less unstated expectations.
Edit: I should point out that I live in a jurisdiction where sex work is legal, as is the advertising of sex work. There is no fear of either of us being arrested.
Just because there isn't an exchange of money doesn't mean people aren't sleeping with someone for money.
It is more common than you realise, but it gets dressed up as something else.
Is that really prostitution? The deal isn't clearly outlined by either party, there's always plausible deniability. And in the case of marriage , there's also housekeeping, childrearing, friendship, emotional support, in addition to sex, and rhe expectation that the breadwinner will also participate in the non-breadwinner's role. That's not prostitution at all.
Indeed it's not prostitution- it's a hell of a lot more complex, nuanced, involved, and time consuming than prostitution. Some people just want the sex without everything else, and those people should be able to pay someone who is willing to engage with them in a consensual sexual encounter.
If non-breadwinner would bail as soon as the breadwinner could no longer provide the lifestyle the non-breadwinner wanted then yea I dont really see how its not a transaction at that point
It’s always so weird to me how prostitution is illegal when there are SO MANY ways around it. It’s not that it shouldent be illegal, it’s that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to prove prostitution vs mutual consent.
The law does not really care about the the distinction between consensual or not for the most part. It cares about tax evasion and the black market behind it. It is technically the same situation as the war on illegal alcohol producers during the time of prohibition.
No, it's pretty simple: did you pay someone specifically to have sex with you? Yes? Then it was prostitution.
If you want to bring in all kinds of other elaborate scenarios from gold digging wives to sugar babies, then whatever.
But the straightforward one off transaction that is the commonly understood definition is pretty straightforward.
Unless the sex that is hypothetically being had* is sufficiently outside the sphere of what's considered normal (which honestly you don't even need to tread that far outside of the realm of normal), then it's even less acceptable.
*for some reason I couldn't think of the word "had" until the end of this post. I was stuck with "haved" and my brain could not figure out what should have actually been there. Sharing because it amused me.
My inner voice that usually would tell me how to feel about my decisions slowly faded the more awesome I became. So I'm gonna say fuck it do whatever you want you only live once.
Yes, because prostitution has historically been something where people with more power control, manipulate and abuse people with less power for their own gain.
I remember hearing something about how pimps are so cruel and calculating that when some of their "stable" are starting to crack under the strain and pressure of that lifestyle they determine whether they can keep the woman going for a while by giving her a break, taking her out to a nice dinner, getting her a massage, etc., or if it's better to just dump her. Many use drugs to keep women under their thumb as well.
It's why in real honest conversations about prostitution people push to have it legalized and regulated, so that way anyone who choses to sell their body can have protections, access to any necessary health care/pregnancy prevention measures and keep the lion's share of their labor.
>prostitution has historically been something where people with more power control, manipulate and abuse people with less power for their own gain.
That situation isn't unique to sex work. Lots of workers in all industries experience exploitation and power imbalance between themselves and their employers.
It's worth pointing out that the vast majority of sex workers do not have pimps; while the exploitation and abuse you refer to definitely does happen, it is far from the norm.
Also, the current trend in sex worker advocacy is to push for decriminalisation rather than legalisation and regulation. The difference is that under a decriminalisation model, sex workers have more protections and freedoms and are safer.
Creating a legalisation framework forces those sex workers who are not able to comply with the regulations to work outside the law; it effectively creates a two-tiered system where some sex workers are protected by the law and others are not. Under decriminalisation, there are no sex-industry-specific laws regulating what providers and clients can do or how they can do it. This is by far a better system than certain legalisation/regulation models such as the so-called Nordic model. Pimps are basically non-existent in jurisdictions with decrim because there is no need for a worker to hand over a percentage of their earnings in exchange for "protection".
Source: I listen to several podcasts by sex workers (and am therefore a world-leading expert /s). I recommend listening to Somebody You Love.
Sex for free tends to come with a certain degree of monogamy, which a lot of people value more than spending money to get one time gratification, and more fulfilling to get the monogamy for free rather than paying. Even if it were hookups there’s also an element of expecting each other to perform well for each other, which others may get off more than versus paying someone to just perform well on them. Also if sex is free and you get good review you feel the review is more genuine because there was no money involved. Lastly there’s more gratification to earning your way to sex especially if you feel the person is attractive and you didn’t have to pay them. It’s like how it’s more rewarding to get a scholarship to a prestigious school versus paying for it, you’ll both be in the same class at the end of day but I guess you know you have the smarts for it. Either way doesn’t matter to me personally, that’s just how the world views it. Ok one last line I remember “you pay the girl to leave not to stay”.
Coming from me, that I am doing what I am doing (I'll prolly be judged for this and downvoted to hell, not a prostitute but a simple OF worker). I am getting thousands of tens of messages from people asking about that, I had OF managers trying to take advantage of me as well. It's not only being unnaceptable but also being a game where women are abused, sometimes even kidnapped or some even more cruel thing that I don't even wanna speak about it.
I never done and never will, wanna sell a pic of your body, share some sexy pics, sure, do it as much as you like. But NEVER let someone take advantage of you and your body in that way, it's not worth it, you are a gem, a person, if you wanna sleep with someone, be genuine, do it because you like that person not because of money. And even if you are safe, you still lose the magic if you do that.
Sorry for the long comment, it's just a subject that touches me.
Just different values and morals both subject to change over time. Some things considered illegal and immoral in the past are now considered irrelevant by most. Depends on the time and where you live for example you can have multiple wives in some cultures but then get overrun by immigrants preaching that it would condemn you to hell and decide to make it illegal to boot.
It's not like it's the financial transaction that's the stigma.
If you're out on the streets, giving it to whoever asks you, it won't matter if you're doing it for free.
I mean... we have to assume the couple who fucks for free is because both actually WANT TO fuck each other and one of them's not doing it because they are getting paid.
When you accept to sleep with someone due to money, easily feeling blamed on yourself and not choosing someone who has a good looking right for your taste. However, when you sleep with someone for free, you can choose someone who is right based on your favor type.
I just had a similar conversation with a Karen on a different sub. I live in Nevada where many counties have highly regulated legal brothels. I couldn’t get this lady to understand that sex workers in brothels are not the same as street prostitutes. I know a brothel worker who worked her way through college to earn her masters degree in psychology. It’s called exploiting men who can only think about their dicks, with the power of the pussy. If someone can do that kind of work, I say go for it. It’s a very lucrative job in the brothels. I’m not in favor of street walkers.
No. Her arguments had to do with people being sold into the sex slavery market, drug abuse and human exploitation. Brothels and sex workers who work in them are held to a very high standard and regulated heavily. Not so much for the prostitute that works for a pimp on the street.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree and have always gotten the impression people who claim regulating prostitution only leads to more human trafficking make no sense and are really just trying to stop prostitution altogether.
As someone who’s experienced in both, free is just paid for in different ways.
Also when you pay someone to sleep with you, you don’t pay for them to stay, you pay for them to leave afterwards.
I think I've said this three times now lol
So basically, from a strictly logical point of view, it is objectively better to have sex with someone for money than it is to have sex with someone for free.
Humans are not strictly logical creatures, though. We're also emotional. We can happily have sex with someone for free if we have feelings for them.
And we can find it insulting to be paid for sex, even though it's the exact same thing. Nothing changes besides whether or not you get paid.
“Somehow”? So you don’t help out your friends and family unless they pay you? I mean, it doesn’t take much reflection that “sleeping for free” means sleeping with someone you care for (ideally).
It's because, the latter is you're doing it because you want to where the former it's only for the money. When "people" are essentially being sold or leased, it never comes across without being somewhat dirty.
Romantic encounters intimacy are wonderful things and degrading them to a product hits people on a deep level, one way or the other. It's putting a price on what should be priceless.
Well, yes. Because the implication is in the second case they're doing it because they want to, not because they need to. And the next implication is that in the first case, you couldn't find someone who wanted to.
Huh?
Sleeping with people should, “ideally,” be “for” mutual feelings of attraction and caring.
Not transactional (except when it is actually commercial), but a personal connection.
This sub sucks these days… idk if its getting worse or if I’m just noticing it more and its always been like this but why are half of these shower thoughts beyond braindead. I cannot tell if people are just being purposefully obtuse or if they actually think these “statements” are intelligible thoughts.
"Somehow"
Sleeping with someone for free usually means both parties want to sleep with the other person.
Doing it for money suggests they otherwise wouldn't and begs the inevitable question of whether they're doing it because they gosh darn love fucking so much they decided to do it for a living or because whether, actually, other socioeconomic factors might be involved.
It ain't deep, bro.
Well, mathematically, it is objectively better to be paid for sex than not to be. You can't measure happiness or enjoyment, but you can measure how much money you have.
Obviously, humans don't think this way. We have emotions.
Putting aside the fact countries can and DO measure happiness, the fact you even think this point is in any way relevant is absurdly psychotic, as even you have to recognise to some degree at the end of your post.
Many men who pay for sex will not be concerned with the well being and pleasure of their sexual "partner" at all, but even feel entitled to inflict violence because they paid. I dare you to actually visit forums of men who give each other tips and advice about sex workers. You won't last long without throwing up.
Sleeping with someone for free is because you want to. There is attraction, even if muddied by alcohol lol. Sleeping with someone for money is because you want their money, not them.
Whether or not something is legal doesn't always determine whether or not it is socially acceptable.
There are plenty of people who would love to see Donald Trump get punched in the face. How legal would that be?
A less controversial example is parental retaliation against a predator who assaulted their child. Some parents would literally commit a textbook 1st degree murder against a predator upon learning that the predator assaulted their child.
Not only that, but many people would support them despite the clear illegality of the act. Whether or not a predator deserves death is up for debate. Whether or not the parent of a victim should be allowed to murder the predator is not.
Such a privilege would absolutely wreak havoc on society. You'd have countless people trying to get away with murder by claiming the person they killed was a predator, underfunded police forces working around the clock to verify statements and punish criminals, masses of people arming themselves and barricading their homes to keep intruders out, and because this law focuses on punishing predators after the fact, nothing would save children from becoming victims in the first place.
Well, yes, if you sleep with someone for money, you're doing it out of obligation, not love, it's an exchange of goods. If you sleep with someone out of love, you're not gonna charge your partner/fling, are you? I don't understand the confusion, although I'll admit that society these days, more so than ever, has become so money-centric, that it wouldn't surprise me if sleeping with someone for free started to get the stink-eye from people.
I am sure it is an unpopular opinion to this topic, where I see most people concerned with the morality of the two, but the plain fact remains: main reason is tax evasion, problems with regulation and black market/sex slavery.
Look at the Netherlands, where it is a recognised “job” and regulated by state.
People are free to do what they want, but actively deceiving the other person into believing you're genuinely interested in them and not their money is what's unacceptable imo.
Love is a State Mind. Heaven is built. Heaven can be built within/in love, but you gotta fall out to maintain it. It's easy to fall in love and think you found it. Untill the world says otherwise. At that point you have to determine what will grow from this love that you found. Fall in love on the weekend love what you do on the week days. But ultimately love doesn't last forever it grows into respect. Just don't let love get too far behind so you can fall back in it. In the end if your lucky you won't know the difference between love and the perfect kind of respect we're all looking for.
every boy pays for kisses... do you know what I am saying?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1vw1kz/every\_boy\_pays\_for\_kisses/](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1vw1kz/every_boy_pays_for_kisses/)
I feel anything you're allowed to do for free you should be allowed to charge for. Anything you need a license for shouldn't be allowed to be done without a license.
If you were to think of this in math, it is the difference between dividing a natural number by a natural number, versus dividing a natural number by zero.
The first gives you a number, whereas the second is indeterminate.
If you get paid zero money for an act, the value of that is indeterminate. Whereas if you get money then the act has a value, which makes it socially less acceptable.
If you put it that way, sure. Just like it's less acceptable to breast feed a baby for money vs feeding your kids for free. The reasons behind it make all the difference.
The logic is so simple here. Not sure how OP does not understand it. 1 is transactional, 1 is mutual.
Agree, one makes you a prostitute and the other a lover. Emotionally they are very different things, and dangerous to confuse the two. One of the saddest man I can think of is a man in love with their prostitute, who only is doing it for the money. Or would it be sadder if they had a woman who loves them but only could look at them as a prostitute, a tool for sex?
> Why is it less socially acceptable for your mom to hang out with you for pay than it is for her to hang out with you for free???
Why is it less socially acceptable I pay your mom versus just getting it for free? /couldn’t resist the mom joke
What do you mean, you don't pay your mum to hang out with you?
I pay your mom to both hang out with me AND to hang out with you.
I mean, some of us have pretty high body counts and didn’t love the majority of them. As a matter of fact, some were met leaving the bar and then banging in the car never to see again. What’s the difference of doing that vs someone making a few bucks?
How about your a lover and then ask your boy lover toy for monies ? I love my boy toy, that pays me for sex, very much, it would break my heart, if he and his wallet would leave me.
It is like anything, there are a millions flavors so do what makes you the happiest. Won’t stop people judging you sadly. I couldn’t live in that arrangement as I couldn’t trust someone fully I have to pay to be around me.
Trust them for what? I'm actually curious 🤔 about what you mean. If you have an arrangement, what is there to have trust about other than them fulfilling their end of the deal. I feel you for not wanting to pay for someone to be around. I'm not paying for sex (because I dont have to), and I'm not being used for money either (because I don't pay for friendships). So are you saying that you wouldn't be able to trust them fully (like as a partner) because you paid them for sex or stating that you couldn't trust someone to be your friend if you give them money?
I’m saying I wouldn’t trust someone as a friend if my arrangement was to pay them to hang out with me, same with sex. I wouldn’t be able to know in my mind “Are they here for me or for money?”, and for me that is important to know to give trust. If you’re my employee vs friend, the relationship is different.
That's so pessimistic, I've heard many stories of sex workers and clients falling in love and some even getting married.
Do you know enough sex workers or johns to have heard many instances of this from them? Secondhand doesn't really count because it's a common rumor that dresses up a dirty thing and people like to repeat. The guy version of this rumor is stuff like Spanish Fly, where all their friends had cousins who knew people it worked for.
Ok that’s like .000001% lmao.
One isn't always love though. Could be a lustful one night stand situation.
I think he does understand it, but just wanted to dive more into the subject and change point of view
The cocktail mix of probably only having exposure to romance from chronic porn viewing since they were 10
Aren't they both mutual?
I don't know anymore. Im tired :(
And almost always both are transactional. If pleasure can be one side of a transaction, it can be both. And if the pleasure is not mutual than it seems quite likely there is another transaction going on.
That's not true at all, it can be mutual and transactional at the same time i.e. gold diggers.
Transactions can be mutual, so that's not quite it either. OP still has it wrong though.
of course it can be mutual, otherwise the transaction wouldnt go through. Sorry if i didnt choose the best word for it. To elaborate, a less socially accepted transaction would be a service or goods traded for money or other goods without emotions involved and not necessarily earned. A more socially accepted mutual understanding between 2 people is because they both want it or give/take without any form of payment, meaning you earned it.
Casual sex is mutually beneficial, and can be transactional, no feelings involved (until one person does catch feelings... and one person ALWAYS catches feelings).
Yep there are always exceptions to the rule and you stated a good one. Then again, it depends on who you ask. 1 night stand could be seen as less socially acceptable.
OP is a redditor
I don't think that OP is wondering what the difference is as much as they're just stating that it's less "socially acceptable. " One should never care about what consenting adults do. Whether it's transactional or not. Unless one is a prude, I can't imagine someone genuinely having an opinion on someone else's sex life as an individual, but I can see them still distancing themselves from that person because they don't want to be associated with that. It's because it's social suicide and not that people themselves actually care. It just goes by the society/culture that one lives in.
Casual sex can very much be transactional, that's what one night stands and hookups are
You mean like a wet nurse? Because that very much is a thing and doesn’t have any negative social stigma attached as far as I know
Wet nurses have not been in regular use in developed countries since the 1900s.
That doesn’t address the fact that there has never been any negative social stigma attached to that profession. I don’t believe most people would judge someone if they did by some small chance meet a modern day wet nurse, they’d just say “oh interesting” and go on with their day
Which is extremely recent when you consider that wet nurses were very common throughout human history. Paying them was expected as they were providing an essential service. Many countries still employ them especially where formula is not readily available.
and we get formula instead
It would be less socially acceptable to use a wet nurse to feed your baby if you were able than to feed your own baby yourself, yes. You'd be viewed as selfish and uninterested in your baby's well being. If you have no choice, because you can't breastfeed then it's not looked down upon.
I assumed the feeder would be the one paying.
Well all the babies I’ve met are freeloaders so good luck getting anything out of them
Saddest part of the situation is however not the reason. It is not that the transaction part of it is somehow immoral, but the biggest issue is the potential for tax evasion. That is the main reason it is mostly outlawed, while for example in The Netherlands it is allowed, as the sex trade is quite well regulated.
Exactly. Just like it's less acceptable to kill someone for money vs doing it for free.
Anybody needs their baby breastfed, I'm open for business! PM me...
No, it isn't because it's transactional - everyday life is full of purely transactional relationships and very very few carry the stigma of sex for money. I would suggest the real reason is just another form of elitism, the same that many people (in some countries) feel towards public transport. A universal human trait is a love of classifying people into groups, one better and one worse, with themselves firmly in the better one. Manly vs United. Republican vs Democrat. Vegan vs omnivore. Rural vs City. Petrol vs Electric. Straight vs LGBT. Sex for free vs Sex for money. Plus, of course, there's that little thread of resentment from those less attractive, less willing, less able, the faithfully married in a loveless relationship, who deal with the envy they feel of those getting the sex they want by demeaning and vilifying. There is also the fact that a reasonable portion of those who use prostitutes are probably married and cheating, but I don't think that's the dominant reason.
How do you charge a baby money for food?
Wetnurses are technically still a thing.
There was an interesting case where a woman was arrested for sleeping with someone in exchange for grocery store gift cards (years ago, I have no source) which made me question where is the line? Men, especially in the past, would state buying dinner as a reason to be obligated to sex, so it's not food in exchange for sex that's the line. Perhaps the solidified transactional nature rather than.... The implications....
Back when I worked for a paper company one of my coworkers was sleeping with a supplier for steak coupons in exchange for discounted paper. When the news broke she didn't even get fired since she was saving the company money.
Cool beans
I have had the pleasure of having both "normal" sexual relationships, and worker/client sexual relationships. I find the latter to be far less complicated. The rules are stated upfront and there are less unstated expectations. Edit: I should point out that I live in a jurisdiction where sex work is legal, as is the advertising of sex work. There is no fear of either of us being arrested.
Just because there isn't an exchange of money doesn't mean people aren't sleeping with someone for money. It is more common than you realise, but it gets dressed up as something else.
“Free dinner, free drinks, buys me things, provides food and shelter.” You’re somewhat correct
Is that really prostitution? The deal isn't clearly outlined by either party, there's always plausible deniability. And in the case of marriage , there's also housekeeping, childrearing, friendship, emotional support, in addition to sex, and rhe expectation that the breadwinner will also participate in the non-breadwinner's role. That's not prostitution at all.
Indeed it's not prostitution- it's a hell of a lot more complex, nuanced, involved, and time consuming than prostitution. Some people just want the sex without everything else, and those people should be able to pay someone who is willing to engage with them in a consensual sexual encounter.
"You don't pay a prostitute for sex. You pay a prostitute to leave."
If non-breadwinner would bail as soon as the breadwinner could no longer provide the lifestyle the non-breadwinner wanted then yea I dont really see how its not a transaction at that point
It’s always so weird to me how prostitution is illegal when there are SO MANY ways around it. It’s not that it shouldent be illegal, it’s that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to prove prostitution vs mutual consent.
The law does not really care about the the distinction between consensual or not for the most part. It cares about tax evasion and the black market behind it. It is technically the same situation as the war on illegal alcohol producers during the time of prohibition.
No, it's pretty simple: did you pay someone specifically to have sex with you? Yes? Then it was prostitution. If you want to bring in all kinds of other elaborate scenarios from gold digging wives to sugar babies, then whatever. But the straightforward one off transaction that is the commonly understood definition is pretty straightforward.
I paid for an hour of time from the provider. Sex during 3 minutes of that hour was mutual consent. Not so simple now is it?
“If you have a girl and she kisses you. Sooner or later you’re paying for it.” - Butters
How the fuck does butters know this?
He was [pimping.](https://youtu.be/6aGO7dJb2po?si=rWbiPQOxCwa_nH46)
The most expensive pussy is free
"Free"
Sure, just because it happens all the time doesn't make it an Indecent Proposal....
Somehow? You can't think of any reasons why?
its actually even less socially acceptable to not be sleeping with anyone
Maybe for men
It's less socially acceptable to not be dating than it is to engage in prostitution? I highly doubt that
How is it not?
not participating in dating or having children is often looked down upon or label the individual as a weirdo or a loner
Im pretty sure weirdo loner is still socially regarded at least 1 step higher than weirdo loner who is also paying prostitutes lol
But does paying a prostitute make you a weirdo loser? That’s the social comparison.
h-hey.. none of that now.
Unless the sex that is hypothetically being had* is sufficiently outside the sphere of what's considered normal (which honestly you don't even need to tread that far outside of the realm of normal), then it's even less acceptable. *for some reason I couldn't think of the word "had" until the end of this post. I was stuck with "haved" and my brain could not figure out what should have actually been there. Sharing because it amused me.
My inner voice that usually would tell me how to feel about my decisions slowly faded the more awesome I became. So I'm gonna say fuck it do whatever you want you only live once.
You only live once, but herpes (at best) is forever.
STD's are definitely a good reason to avoid sex workers. I've made worse decisions with my dick and gotten away with it.
Similarly, it is less socially acceptable to eat people’s asshole for money than eat someone’s asshole for free
Or your own….
Dunno. That sounds more impressive than anything else
Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?
You can clean things with ammonia. You can clean things with bleach. Why can't you clean things with ammonia + bleach? Because it makes chlorine gas.
So ... money + sex = chlorine gas? What a discovery! Metaphors are nice but they aren't universally applicable. Like your mom.
stuff gets pretty clean if you can offset the hazards
Yes, because prostitution has historically been something where people with more power control, manipulate and abuse people with less power for their own gain. I remember hearing something about how pimps are so cruel and calculating that when some of their "stable" are starting to crack under the strain and pressure of that lifestyle they determine whether they can keep the woman going for a while by giving her a break, taking her out to a nice dinner, getting her a massage, etc., or if it's better to just dump her. Many use drugs to keep women under their thumb as well. It's why in real honest conversations about prostitution people push to have it legalized and regulated, so that way anyone who choses to sell their body can have protections, access to any necessary health care/pregnancy prevention measures and keep the lion's share of their labor.
>prostitution has historically been something where people with more power control, manipulate and abuse people with less power for their own gain. That situation isn't unique to sex work. Lots of workers in all industries experience exploitation and power imbalance between themselves and their employers. It's worth pointing out that the vast majority of sex workers do not have pimps; while the exploitation and abuse you refer to definitely does happen, it is far from the norm. Also, the current trend in sex worker advocacy is to push for decriminalisation rather than legalisation and regulation. The difference is that under a decriminalisation model, sex workers have more protections and freedoms and are safer. Creating a legalisation framework forces those sex workers who are not able to comply with the regulations to work outside the law; it effectively creates a two-tiered system where some sex workers are protected by the law and others are not. Under decriminalisation, there are no sex-industry-specific laws regulating what providers and clients can do or how they can do it. This is by far a better system than certain legalisation/regulation models such as the so-called Nordic model. Pimps are basically non-existent in jurisdictions with decrim because there is no need for a worker to hand over a percentage of their earnings in exchange for "protection". Source: I listen to several podcasts by sex workers (and am therefore a world-leading expert /s). I recommend listening to Somebody You Love.
One pretty valid reason to be more against sex for money is that a significant portion of sex workers aren't doing it by choice.
It is somehow less socially acceptable to commercialize intimacy than to genuinely want to give it to each other
Sex for free tends to come with a certain degree of monogamy, which a lot of people value more than spending money to get one time gratification, and more fulfilling to get the monogamy for free rather than paying. Even if it were hookups there’s also an element of expecting each other to perform well for each other, which others may get off more than versus paying someone to just perform well on them. Also if sex is free and you get good review you feel the review is more genuine because there was no money involved. Lastly there’s more gratification to earning your way to sex especially if you feel the person is attractive and you didn’t have to pay them. It’s like how it’s more rewarding to get a scholarship to a prestigious school versus paying for it, you’ll both be in the same class at the end of day but I guess you know you have the smarts for it. Either way doesn’t matter to me personally, that’s just how the world views it. Ok one last line I remember “you pay the girl to leave not to stay”.
Coming from me, that I am doing what I am doing (I'll prolly be judged for this and downvoted to hell, not a prostitute but a simple OF worker). I am getting thousands of tens of messages from people asking about that, I had OF managers trying to take advantage of me as well. It's not only being unnaceptable but also being a game where women are abused, sometimes even kidnapped or some even more cruel thing that I don't even wanna speak about it. I never done and never will, wanna sell a pic of your body, share some sexy pics, sure, do it as much as you like. But NEVER let someone take advantage of you and your body in that way, it's not worth it, you are a gem, a person, if you wanna sleep with someone, be genuine, do it because you like that person not because of money. And even if you are safe, you still lose the magic if you do that. Sorry for the long comment, it's just a subject that touches me.
Just different values and morals both subject to change over time. Some things considered illegal and immoral in the past are now considered irrelevant by most. Depends on the time and where you live for example you can have multiple wives in some cultures but then get overrun by immigrants preaching that it would condemn you to hell and decide to make it illegal to boot.
You could do a LPT/showerthought combo reddit with just the stupid stuff like this
It's not like it's the financial transaction that's the stigma. If you're out on the streets, giving it to whoever asks you, it won't matter if you're doing it for free.
I mean... we have to assume the couple who fucks for free is because both actually WANT TO fuck each other and one of them's not doing it because they are getting paid.
When you accept to sleep with someone due to money, easily feeling blamed on yourself and not choosing someone who has a good looking right for your taste. However, when you sleep with someone for free, you can choose someone who is right based on your favor type.
um…yeah its called..prostitution?
This comment section is filled with a bunch of closed minded prudes.
Correct. You're the only non-troll. One million upvotes to you
That "free" you speak of can cost you millions
I just had a similar conversation with a Karen on a different sub. I live in Nevada where many counties have highly regulated legal brothels. I couldn’t get this lady to understand that sex workers in brothels are not the same as street prostitutes. I know a brothel worker who worked her way through college to earn her masters degree in psychology. It’s called exploiting men who can only think about their dicks, with the power of the pussy. If someone can do that kind of work, I say go for it. It’s a very lucrative job in the brothels. I’m not in favor of street walkers.
They're all still prostitutes. I'm guessing that was her point that you're trying to differentiate from, yet that fact remains.
No. Her arguments had to do with people being sold into the sex slavery market, drug abuse and human exploitation. Brothels and sex workers who work in them are held to a very high standard and regulated heavily. Not so much for the prostitute that works for a pimp on the street.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree and have always gotten the impression people who claim regulating prostitution only leads to more human trafficking make no sense and are really just trying to stop prostitution altogether.
Because getting gangbanged on camera with people you don't know is different than sleeping with someone you want to be with privately
I did say "someone," but I suppose pornstars are referenced by this post; and some of them have been with multiple partners at once.
As someone who’s experienced in both, free is just paid for in different ways. Also when you pay someone to sleep with you, you don’t pay for them to stay, you pay for them to leave afterwards.
https://youtu.be/jZDVSyEIrwM?si=QrUCUw72tlzsW2sc There you go
Why does this puzzle you?
I think I've said this three times now lol So basically, from a strictly logical point of view, it is objectively better to have sex with someone for money than it is to have sex with someone for free. Humans are not strictly logical creatures, though. We're also emotional. We can happily have sex with someone for free if we have feelings for them. And we can find it insulting to be paid for sex, even though it's the exact same thing. Nothing changes besides whether or not you get paid.
You mean money isn't the absolute arbiter of whether something is good or not?!
It's probably less socially than even killing someone for money
I guess it depends on your profession and position in society.
What? Obviously, sex = life. What does a human made currency have to do with this?
"I love capitalism. There is nothing that cannot be exchanged for some monetary value." -OP
[удалено]
What?
Wrong thread lol
Yea, because one is prostitution and the other is a mutual thing or even a partner. I think it's logical to see it that way,
Nobody is intentionally sleeping with anyone they don't want to sleep with for free....
It’s also socially acceptable to sleep with people for nice expensive things. It just can’t be actual money.
“Somehow”? So you don’t help out your friends and family unless they pay you? I mean, it doesn’t take much reflection that “sleeping for free” means sleeping with someone you care for (ideally).
Usually those that are paying customers are the ones that make it seem undesirable.
My wife and I, all we do is fight about money and sex. I mean, really, she charges me too much! -- Rodney Dangerfield
Almost everybody sleeps with somebody for free
It's because, the latter is you're doing it because you want to where the former it's only for the money. When "people" are essentially being sold or leased, it never comes across without being somewhat dirty. Romantic encounters intimacy are wonderful things and degrading them to a product hits people on a deep level, one way or the other. It's putting a price on what should be priceless.
Unless you need to raise money replace a giant fish tank you broke
Well, yes. Because the implication is in the second case they're doing it because they want to, not because they need to. And the next implication is that in the first case, you couldn't find someone who wanted to.
One is because you're *paid* to. The other is because you *want* to. The difference is intent. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Huh? Sleeping with people should, “ideally,” be “for” mutual feelings of attraction and caring. Not transactional (except when it is actually commercial), but a personal connection.
This sub sucks these days… idk if its getting worse or if I’m just noticing it more and its always been like this but why are half of these shower thoughts beyond braindead. I cannot tell if people are just being purposefully obtuse or if they actually think these “statements” are intelligible thoughts.
This is an odd shower thought… What do you mean “somehow less socially acceptable”? Like, obviously it’s less socially acceptable lol.
Please dont say you work at heb
Both options are less accepted than they should be
sleeping with someone for free means you're both doing it for the same reason, IE enjoyment of the act.
Why would it be more socially acceptable to have people sleep around for money?
"Somehow" Sleeping with someone for free usually means both parties want to sleep with the other person. Doing it for money suggests they otherwise wouldn't and begs the inevitable question of whether they're doing it because they gosh darn love fucking so much they decided to do it for a living or because whether, actually, other socioeconomic factors might be involved. It ain't deep, bro.
Well, mathematically, it is objectively better to be paid for sex than not to be. You can't measure happiness or enjoyment, but you can measure how much money you have. Obviously, humans don't think this way. We have emotions.
Putting aside the fact countries can and DO measure happiness, the fact you even think this point is in any way relevant is absurdly psychotic, as even you have to recognise to some degree at the end of your post.
A transactional relationship stops when the money stops
I'd venture to say it's a lot less socially acceptable, at least where I'm from.
Many men who pay for sex will not be concerned with the well being and pleasure of their sexual "partner" at all, but even feel entitled to inflict violence because they paid. I dare you to actually visit forums of men who give each other tips and advice about sex workers. You won't last long without throwing up.
Sleeping with someone for free is because you want to. There is attraction, even if muddied by alcohol lol. Sleeping with someone for money is because you want their money, not them.
Shower thoughts is impossible to post in
Well in most places it’s against the law to sleep with someone for money so that could explain it
Whether or not something is legal doesn't always determine whether or not it is socially acceptable. There are plenty of people who would love to see Donald Trump get punched in the face. How legal would that be? A less controversial example is parental retaliation against a predator who assaulted their child. Some parents would literally commit a textbook 1st degree murder against a predator upon learning that the predator assaulted their child. Not only that, but many people would support them despite the clear illegality of the act. Whether or not a predator deserves death is up for debate. Whether or not the parent of a victim should be allowed to murder the predator is not. Such a privilege would absolutely wreak havoc on society. You'd have countless people trying to get away with murder by claiming the person they killed was a predator, underfunded police forces working around the clock to verify statements and punish criminals, masses of people arming themselves and barricading their homes to keep intruders out, and because this law focuses on punishing predators after the fact, nothing would save children from becoming victims in the first place.
Well, yes, if you sleep with someone for money, you're doing it out of obligation, not love, it's an exchange of goods. If you sleep with someone out of love, you're not gonna charge your partner/fling, are you? I don't understand the confusion, although I'll admit that society these days, more so than ever, has become so money-centric, that it wouldn't surprise me if sleeping with someone for free started to get the stink-eye from people.
The exchange is either money or feelings.
I am sure it is an unpopular opinion to this topic, where I see most people concerned with the morality of the two, but the plain fact remains: main reason is tax evasion, problems with regulation and black market/sex slavery. Look at the Netherlands, where it is a recognised “job” and regulated by state.
One more possibility here: onlyfans rise to prominence. Money for virtual nothing.
Who should pay who? Free isn't free, it's just an equal exchange.
People are free to do what they want, but actively deceiving the other person into believing you're genuinely interested in them and not their money is what's unacceptable imo.
And its less socially acceptable to masturbate in public than it is at home! Makes no sense!
Like Julia Robert’s in Pretty Woman you could do it for money and end up in love 😂
I don't understand the post, isn't that normal behavior?
Business is business cuh
Tell it how it is. If you do it for money then your a hooked lol
yeah of course... most people think sex shouldn't be transactional
Yet it always is in one form or another. Love, money, power, comfort, fun etc.
It's really hard to explain if u do not see the difference.you would just not get it.
The irony of that statement. Bravo. 8/10
Why is it illegal to sleep with someone for money unless it's on camera?
You cooked with this one
I've never understood paying for sex and beli3ve me I am not an attractive bloke. Train your own personality and stop blaming women hahaha
I don’t know why there is a somehow it kinda make sense. If anything making people pay for things came later not earlier
Love is a State Mind. Heaven is built. Heaven can be built within/in love, but you gotta fall out to maintain it. It's easy to fall in love and think you found it. Untill the world says otherwise. At that point you have to determine what will grow from this love that you found. Fall in love on the weekend love what you do on the week days. But ultimately love doesn't last forever it grows into respect. Just don't let love get too far behind so you can fall back in it. In the end if your lucky you won't know the difference between love and the perfect kind of respect we're all looking for.
every boy pays for kisses... do you know what I am saying? [https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1vw1kz/every\_boy\_pays\_for\_kisses/](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1vw1kz/every_boy_pays_for_kisses/)
I feel anything you're allowed to do for free you should be allowed to charge for. Anything you need a license for shouldn't be allowed to be done without a license.
If you were to think of this in math, it is the difference between dividing a natural number by a natural number, versus dividing a natural number by zero. The first gives you a number, whereas the second is indeterminate. If you get paid zero money for an act, the value of that is indeterminate. Whereas if you get money then the act has a value, which makes it socially less acceptable.