Polyphemus

A few basics

59 posts in this topic

Let's see how this goes down as a general summary from a male perspective:

1) Sex for money has been around since written records began. Its acceptability is a function of cultural and economic forces. In itself it is "morally" neutral.

2) The clientele is and always has been primarily male, which speaks to some fundamental of the male sex drive.

3) Men's reasons for seeking paid sex are many and various - beyond no. 2 above there is no point in seeking a common demoninator or in trying to justify or vilify one reason more than another.

4) Money paid is not a reliable indicator of quality of service and value for money is an entirely subjective concept.

5) In whatever country a man engages in paid sex, he should be at pains to understand the unique attitudes and customs of that country and to take all possible steps to ensure he is not supporting the commercial, physical or emotional abuse of the WG involved.

6) If punting is costing you more than money and/or ceases to be a pleasure and becomes a necessity, you should consider it a problem.

Please shoot me down or add more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the above is completely subjective depending on whom you are talking too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of the above is completely subjective depending on whom you are talking too.

Ummmm...no it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) The clientele is and always has been primarily male, which speaks to some fundamental of the male sex drive.

Please shoot me down or add more.

I'd say part has to do with economics - males usually held the purse strings and have had the freedom to pursue sexual pleasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see how this goes down as a general summary from a male perspective:

1) Sex for money has been around since written records began. Its acceptability is a function of cultural and economic forces. In itself it is "morally" neutral.

2) The clientele is and always has been primarily male, which speaks to some fundamental of the male sex drive.

3) Men's reasons for seeking paid sex are many and various - beyond no. 2 above there is no point in seeking a common demoninator or in trying to justify or vilify one reason more than another.

4) Money paid is not a reliable indicator of quality of service and value for money is an entirely subjective concept.

5) In whatever country a man engages in paid sex, he should be at pains to understand the unique attitudes and customs of that country and to take all possible steps to ensure he is not supporting the commercial, physical or emotional abuse of the WG involved.

6) If punting is costing you more than money and/or ceases to be a pleasure and becomes a necessity, you should consider it a problem.

Please shoot me down or add more.

The first three points show why it well NEVER be abolished by clueless, hypocrytical politicians.

The fourth and sixth points are also very valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its acceptability is a function of cultural and economic forces. In itself it is "morally" neutral.
there is no point in seeking a common demoninator or in trying to justify or vilify one reason more than another.

What a cop out. It's morally neutral, no point in discussing it - so that's OK then. You won't beat HH etc with arguments like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first three points show why it well NEVER be abolished by clueless, hypocrytical politicians.

The fourth and sixth points are also very valid.

What causes you to think they want to abolish it?

They merely have to keep a lid on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see how this goes down as a general summary from a male perspective:

1) Sex for money has been around since written records began. Its acceptability is a function of cultural and economic forces. In itself it is "morally" neutral.

2) The clientele is and always has been primarily male, which speaks to some fundamental of the male sex drive.

3) Men's reasons for seeking paid sex are many and various - beyond no. 2 above there is no point in seeking a common demoninator or in trying to justify or vilify one reason more than another.

4) Money paid is not a reliable indicator of quality of service and value for money is an entirely subjective concept.

5) In whatever country a man engages in paid sex, he should be at pains to understand the unique attitudes and customs of that country and to take all possible steps to ensure he is not supporting the commercial, physical or emotional abuse of the WG involved.

6) If punting is costing you more than money and/or ceases to be a pleasure and becomes a necessity, you should consider it a problem.

Please shoot me down or add more.

Crime can also be viewed as a function of cultural and economic forces, is that also morally neutral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see how this goes down as a general summary from a male perspective:

1) Sex for money has been around since written records began. Its acceptability is a function of cultural and economic forces. In itself it is "morally" neutral.

I'm probably being thick, but I don't understand how paid sex 'In itself is "morally" neutral.' I might agree (!), but don't understand what you mean ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see how this goes down as a general summary from a male perspective:

From a punters perspective - please remember the majority of men don't pay for sex and choose not to for a variety of reasons.

1) Sex for money has been around since written records began. Its acceptability is a function of cultural and economic forces. In itself it is "morally" neutral.

Something can only be 'morally neutral' when something doesn't harm one of the parties involved. As has been mentioned on here dozens of times by various WG's, many women are harmed by prostitution, and not just those who encounter violence. The job itself can have a huge psychological impact on many women.

Similarly, there are women who are perfectly fine with what they're doing and seem to be perfectly able to handle the job, in which case there isn't a moral dilemma of any kind whatsoever.

All of the above is completely subjective depending on whom you are talking too.

100% correct and the fact that I'd never be able to truly know the answer to that question is the reason I'd never punt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crime can also be viewed as a function of cultural and economic forces, is that also morally neutral?

Absolutely - "crime" is a concept defined by a particular society and relative only to that. Killing, for example, may either be "murder", a just and reasonable reaction or judicially-sanctioned execution and so on, according to when and/or where in history it may happen or have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm probably being thick, but I don't understand how paid sex 'In itself is "morally" neutral.' I might agree (!), but don't understand what you mean ;)

There is, as I see it, no universal moral reason to find a difference between sex for money and sex for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From a punters perspective - please remember the majority of men don't pay for sex and choose not to for a variety of reasons.

Something can only be 'morally neutral' when something doesn't harm one of the parties involved. As has been mentioned on here dozens of times by various WG's, many women are harmed by prostitution, and not just those who encounter violence. The job itself can have a huge psychological impact on many women.

Similarly, there are women who are perfectly fine with what they're doing and seem to be perfectly able to handle the job, in which case there isn't a moral dilemma of any kind whatsoever.

Firstly, if I had meant ALL men, I would have said from a universal male perspective, as it is, I think I have every reason to claim to be male.

Secondly, you simply illustrate my point about moral neutrality whilst believing you refute it. The exchange of money for sex in itself is neutral - particular circumstances may render it immoral but that is a different matter. And as you say if no harm is done then there is no moral dilemma - in other words, to repeat, it is neutral. What do they teach people in schools today!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see how this goes down as a general summary from a male perspective:

1) Sex for money has been around since written records began. Its acceptability is a function of cultural and economic forces. In itself it is "morally" neutral.

I'd happily give you an apology but if there's any confusion here it's your own fault for explaining yourself so poorly.

Anyone reading what you wrote above would assume you were trying to link the fact that 'sex for money has been around since written records began' and the fact that you say 'its acceptability is a function of cultural and economic forces' with the morality of prostitution. It's common convention to use numbering or bullet points to list a series of unique, distinct points. What are they teaching kids in the schools today?

And what is it with you punters and the 'it's the oldest profession' argument? It's clearly a non-argument and could be used to justify slavery, paedophilia and murder if you wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd happily give you an apology but if there's any confusion here it's your own fault for explaining yourself so poorly.

Anyone reading what you wrote above would assume you were trying to link the fact that 'sex for money has been around since written records began' and the fact that you say 'its acceptability is a function of cultural and economic forces' with the morality of prostitution. It's common convention to use numbering or bullet points to list a series of unique, distinct points. What are they teaching kids in the schools today?

And what is it with you punters and the 'it's the oldest profession' argument? It's clearly a non-argument and could be used to justify slavery, paedophilia and murder if you wanted to.

Do try to have more than half a thought at a time - it helps, you know. Of course I am linking the two - it has been around from the earliest times and its acceptability or not has varied according to prevailing cultural and economic forces. The link is quite clear and intentional. I hope this also answers your second querulous grumble about "the oldest profession" - when writing for adults one should be able to assume a modicum of intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do try to have more than half a thought at a time - it helps, you know. Of course I am linking the two - it has been around from the earliest times and its acceptability or not has varied according to prevailing cultural and economic forces. The link is quite clear and intentional. I hope this also answers your second querulous grumble about "the oldest profession" - when writing for adults one should be able to assume a modicum of intelligence.

And I said that it's a non-argument. Please realise that being patronising and condescending only serves to make you look childish and is no substitute for an argument.

As you said, you were linking the two. Please then, explain how something becomes 'morally neutral' by virtue of having existed for a long time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The exchange of money for sex in itself is neutral

Any human interaction is 'morally neutral' as you put it, until an individual or societal group apply a system of morals to it. The belief that something is morally OK because no harm is done is misleading, since 'harm' is a subjective concept. You may have the belief that you are doing no harm but that is only a belief, you cannot know the effect on the other person.

That is why we use the excuse of a purely financial transaction - if someone is willing to sell a service and we choose to buy that service, then there is, according to the morality of the market, no dilemma. Of course, this is also false but, I suspect, suffices for most of us imperfect beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any human interaction is 'morally neutral' as you put it, until an individual or societal group apply a system of morals to it. The belief that something is morally OK because no harm is done is misleading, since 'harm' is a subjective concept. You may have the belief that you are doing no harm but that is only a belief, you cannot know the effect on the other person.

That is why we use the excuse of a purely financial transaction - if someone is willing to sell a service and we choose to buy that service, then there is, according to the morality of the market, no dilemma. Of course, this is also false but, I suspect, suffices for most of us imperfect beings.

I tend to agree, although there may well be an essential morality, awareness of which we have not yet attained; but if, pro tem, the terms "moral" and "morality" are to have any useful meaning (I don't necessarily believe they do), one has to accept for example that not knowingly acting in a way that would reasonably be supposed to cause harm equates to acting either neutrally or morally. It is knowledge that activates morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely - "crime" is a concept defined by a particular society and relative only to that. Killing, for example, may either be "murder", a just and reasonable reaction or judicially-sanctioned execution and so on, according to when and/or where in history it may happen or have happened.

Ok, I can see where you're coming from with this moral neutrality idea (you can't blame the object or the concept, it's the way they are used etc). Someone gets shot, we punish the person who did the shooting not the gun, right? The very same gun can also be used to defend against a murderer so morally neutral, ok.

However, do you not agree that it is a little more far reaching with some concepts in particular paying for sex, in that there is simply not one cause and one effect. The implications of paying for sex and how they affect a society are far more complex. These things do not take place in a societal vacuum.

If I am wrong, why is there so much social stigma attached to this - what we refer to as a hobby but what many others refer to as a social ill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I can see where you're coming from with this moral neutrality idea (you can't blame the object or the concept, it's the way they are used etc). Someone gets shot, we punish the person who did the shooting not the gun, right? The very same gun can also be used to defend against a murderer so morally neutral, ok.

However, do you not agree that it is a little more far reaching with some concepts in particular paying for sex, in that there is simply not one cause and one effect. The implications of paying for sex and how they affect a society are far more complex. These things do not take place in a societal vacuum.

If I am wrong, why is there so much social stigma attached to this - what we refer to as a hobby but what many others refer to as a social ill?

Because particularly in this country we have a lot of historical cultural (primarily Victorian) baggage associated with commercial sex, and indeed sex in general, which obscures any real attempt to examine the question rationally, let alone morally. This is not so in many other countries both near neighbours and further afield. The current approach here is to bury the head in the sand and then try screaming, which simply results in confused spluttering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So has famine, pestilence, murder, rape, war...your statement tells us nothing.

Perhaps I should have made the quote more obvious. The OP wrote:

"1) Sex for money has been around since written records began."

I responded:

"Sex for money has been around at least since written records began." I added the link to give some support to the idea that sex for gain is probably not a new invention of literate Homo Sapiens but a fundamental part of animal behaviour since the dawn of time. That's what my statement was intended to convey.The fact that many bad things have also been around since for ever doesn't seem immediately relevant but no matter.

I'm of the opinion that if two or more competent adults freely agree to engage in some form of behaviour that affects only themselves, then outside agencies - state, church, etc - have no business interfering, whether or not money changes hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100% correct and the fact that I'd never be able to truly know the answer to that question is the reason I'd never punt.

So why are you here?

If I only participated in things that I had the answer for I would be rather restricted in my activities.

I don't understand computers but I use them.

I don't really understand cars but I drive one.

I always get very suspicious of non-punters who pontificate in places like this.

I suspect some get off on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummmm...no it isn't.

Yes it is. and I will explain why.

Let's see how this goes down as a general summary from a male perspective:

1) Sex for money has been around since written records began. Its acceptability is a function of cultural and economic forces. In itself it is "morally" neutral.

2) The clientele is and always has been primarily male, which speaks to some fundamental of the male sex drive.

3) Men's reasons for seeking paid sex are many and various - beyond no. 2 above there is no point in seeking a common demoninator or in trying to justify or vilify one reason more than another.

4) Money paid is not a reliable indicator of quality of service and value for money is an entirely subjective concept.

5) In whatever country a man engages in paid sex, he should be at pains to understand the unique attitudes and customs of that country and to take all possible steps to ensure he is not supporting the commercial, physical or emotional abuse of the WG involved.

6) If punting is costing you more than money and/or ceases to be a pleasure and becomes a necessity, you should consider it a problem.

Please shoot me down or add more.

1) as someone has already stated, it has been around longer than records began.(subject to who you are discussing this with)

Depending on how you view it and as has already been stated, morally neutral is a subjective state, and has to many variables.

2) if your female and only look for male companionship, IE Amazonian women in legend we supposedly only female orientated by this I mean they saw women as superior to men and thus would not be looking for female companionship, so again subjective depending on time, and culture.

3) the other common denominator is money. Men on the whole have more money and social standing to be able to do this.

Women are and would be villified for this kind of behaviour and our behaviours have been conditioned over sustained periods of time BY men, to reflect this outcome.

4) Money can give you a perspective on value. (subjective as you say)

5) If you are talking to a Pimp or Trafficker, then no their opinion would not be that of yours, thus again it is subjective as to whom you are speaking too.

6) some people by necessity seek out WG's, for example, disabled men, who cannot get a woman, or a man who's wife cannot provide this for him, or even some old gents who's wives have died and they cannot find someone in their own age group who they can have this interaction with.

SO again subjective because some BY necessity seek this out rather than just a pleasure.

So all of the above are SUBJECTIVE depending on WHOM you are discoursing with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now