An example of why I am against prostitution

[sandandfoam]

I have to disagree here. I think Badran is simply being reasonable to suppose that there are most likely some prostitutes -- and they are most likely high-end prostitutes -- who are content or even happy with their jobs. This is a large world with all kinds of people in it. If only a fraction of a fraction of the seven or eight billion people on this planet actually want to be prostitutes, there still might be millions of people who want to be prostitutes.

And, although Badran himself was too dumb to think of it, it would also have been reasonable of him to suppose there are most likely some caring johns out there. Again, the "this is a big world" principle is in operation.

I hear you Phil, which is why in the very first post I said

In a perfect world where everything was voluntary I am sure prostitution would be fine.
In the world we live in it is an awful business.

One enslaved and abused child is enough to negate any 'Pretty Woman' type positivity. I must add, that I do think Pretty Woman type scenarios are from the fairy land of Hollywood.

 

[Alceste]

I have to disagree here. I think Badran is simply being reasonable to suppose that there are most likely some prostitutes -- and they are most likely high-end prostitutes -- who are content or even happy with their jobs. This is a large world with all kinds of people in it. If only a fraction of a fraction of the seven or eight billion people on this planet actually want to be prostitutes, there still might be millions of people who want to be prostitutes.

And, although Badran himself was too dumb to think of it, it would also have been reasonable of him to suppose there are most likely some caring johns out there. Again, the "this is a big world" principle is in operation.

Yes, I accept that there may be some prostitutes who at totally fine with the job. The question is whether the johns can know and whether they care about how the prostitute feels about their job, and whether they care enough to refuse to buy the use of a woman's body until they are completely confident she is drug free, psychologically healthy, not a victim of childhood abuse, and not in dire financial situation that might impede her freedom of choice.

My opinion is that he can't be sure of any of those things, and even if he was it would not be likely to affect his purchasing behavior. Therefore, since he can't know and almost certainly doesn't care whether she is completely OK with it, he is acting from an entitled and sexually abusive foundation.

It isn't rape, but I would still call it sexually abusive behavior.

 

[Sunstone]

The question of whether all johns are entitled is an interesting one.

Entitlement in itself is not necessarily bad. A person, for instance, is entitled to clean air. They are entitled to free speech. In fact, they are entitled to quite a number of things. The question isn't entitlement itself, but rather whether or not their entitlement is morally legitimate.

So are johns ever morally entitled to pay for the services of a prostitute? To me, that question depends on whether the prostitute is both happily willing to provide them with those services, and competent -- in any normal sense of competent -- to consent to providing those services. A 12 year old child, for instance, would not be competent to consent. Nor would a severely mentally challenged person, such as a FOX viewer.

But I am not so sure about saying that a victim of childhood sexual abuse was automatically incompetent to consent. I think, at the very least, that insults several people I know, some of them friends, who are victims of childhood sexual abuse. It seems to me, that's something that goes case by case, rather than all one way or the other.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, I accept that there may be some prostitutes who at totally fine with the job. The question is whether the johns can know and whether they care about how the prostitute feels about their job, and whether they care enough to refuse to buy the use of a woman's body until they are completely confident she is drug free, psychologically healthy, not a victim of childhood abuse, and not in dire financial situation that might impede her freedom of choice.

My opinion is that he can't be sure of any of those things, and even if he was it would not be likely to affect his purchasing behavior. Therefore, since he can't know and almost certainly doesn't care whether she is completely OK with it, he is acting from an entitled and sexually abusive foundation.

It isn't rape, but I would still call it abusive behavior.

You could apply the same reasoning to whether or not it was morally right to purchase a hamburger from McDonald's, Alceste, and by the standards you have set here for due diligence, every person who has ever bought a McDonald's hamburger is guilty of not having exercised sufficient due diligence to determine their hamburger was made by someone who was "...drug free, psychologically healthy, not a victim of childhood abuse, and not in dire financial situation that might impede her freedom of choice."

It seems to me that's too high of a standard.

 

[Alceste]

The question of whether all johns are entitled is an interesting one.

Entitlement in itself is not necessarily bad. A person, for instance, is entitled to clean air. They are entitled to free speech. In fact, they are entitled to quite a number of things. The question isn't entitlement itself, but rather whether or not their entitlement is morally legitimate.

So are johns ever morally entitled to pay for the services of a prostitute? To me, that question depends on whether the prostitute is both happily willing to provide them with those services, and competent -- in any normal sense of competent -- to consent to providing those services. A 12 year old child, for instance, would not be competent to consent. Nor would a severely mentally challenged person, such as a FOX viewer.

But I am not so sure about saying that a victim of childhood sexual abuse was automatically incompetent to consent. I think, at the very least, that insults several people I know, some of them friends, who are victims of childhood sexual abuse. It seems to me, that's something that goes case by case, rather than all one way or the other.

I didn't say victims of abuse are incompetent to consent. I have said I think they would be better off in therapy than capitalizing on their ability to dissociate.

Also, while it's nice to imagine that johns sincerely care about whether the woman attached to their rented vagina is happy with her job, it's also highly unrealistic.

 

[Sunstone]

I hear you Phil, which is why in the very first post I said
One enslaved and abused child is enough to negate any 'Pretty Woman' type positivity. I must add, that I do think Pretty Woman type scenarios are from the fairy land of Hollywood.

We disagree then, Stephen, on the issue of whether or not one enslaved and abused child negates the choices of what could amount to millions of people. Do you have any other areas in which you impose such high standards? For instance, does one enslaved and abused person negate the entirety of communist thought and practice?

 

[Sunstone]

I didn't say victims of abuse are incompetent to consent. I have said I think they would be better off in therapy than capitalizing on their ability to dissociate.

I don't recall saying you said that. I was speaking generally, but if you think I was addressing only you, then that must be because of the order in which my post appeared relative to yours. That was merely incidental, however. The post was not directed specifically at you.

Also, while it's nice to imagine that johns sincerely care about whether the woman attached to their rented vagina is happy with her job, it's also highly unrealistic.

That makes as little sense to me as if you had said, "It's nice to imagine that customers of Wendy's Hamburgers care about the person who rents his or her labor to produce a hamburger for them. In reality, the issue would seem to me more complex than a simple yes or no. Cynicism is like fake eyelashes -- sometimes superficially attractive, but always dependent on an exaggerated version of reality.

 

[Alceste]

You could apply the same reasoning to whether or not it was morally right to purchase a hamburger from McDonald's, Alceste, and by the standards you have set here for due diligence, every person who has ever bought a McDonald's hamburger is guilty of not having exercised sufficient due diligence to determine their hamburger was made by someone who was "...drug free, psychologically healthy, not a victim of childhood abuse, and not in dire financial situation that might impede her freedom of choice."

It seems to me that's too high of a standard.

Not at all Sunstone. There's a reason it's not OK to have sex with a child, but it's totally fine to have them make you a hamburger. You guys have got to stop comparing sex trade work to jobs that don't involve sex. It's apples and oranges. The ethical standards must be higher for sex work because of the vastly greater potential for psychological and physical harm. That stuff doesn't magically disappear on a person's 18th birthday.

 

[sandandfoam]

We disagree then, Stephen, on the issue of whether or not one enslaved and abused child negates the choices of what could amount to millions of people. Do you have any other areas in which you impose such high standards? For instance, does one enslaved and abused person negate the entirety of communist thought and practice?

I have inadvertently facilitated distortion through the sloppy use of language. Apologies. I must rewind.
The case as you put it to me has been turned on its head (my own fault).
The issue is whether the en-slavery and abuse of millions of people is negated by the putative choices of hypothetical but willing prostitutes and their innocent johns.

I do not believe it is.

 

[Sunstone]

Not at all Sunstone. There's a reason it's not OK to have sex with a child, but it's totally fine to have them make you a hamburger. You guys have got to stop comparing sex trade work to jobs that don't involve sex. It's apples and oranges. The ethical standards must be higher for sex work because of the vastly greater potential for psychological and physical harm. That stuff doesn't magically disappear on a person's 18th birthday.

That strikes me as a straw man, Alceste, albeit a sophisticated one. I wasn't talking about children. And if I had been talking about children, I would not have claimed that children are competent to consent to sex in exchange for money.

As for the comparison of sex work to jobs that don't involve sex, you have offered no logical reason not to compare the two except your straw man.

 

[Badran]

One does have to wonder about the practicalities of your proposal. How does the John know whether she is a victim of childhood abuse, a drug addict, a victim of coercion (physical or economic), or any of the other things that you suggest might make buying sex from a woman OK?

As far as I can see, given the way these things go, if there has ever been an encounter between an enthusiastic, psychologically stable, financially secure prostitute and a John who actually cared about any of those things, it had to have been either a coincidence or negotiated fantasy role playing between lovers.

It's very, very impractical, but that's mainly because you listed things i didn't imply.

Drug addict - that's not something of essential relevance here. Being a drug addict doesn't eliminate a person's ability to choose a job, nor compromise their will. I understand precisely why you mentioned it, and yes, it can make someone's life a mess and drive them to do things they wouldn't normally do, but it doesn't in my eyes negate their ability to choose generally, especially considering the wide variety of possible addictions, many of which are not all that severe. This is an extremely important distinction because there's a vast difference between unhealthy scenarios (where you are having sex with a prostitute who is not particularly enjoying your company - but wants to be there to get the money), and between sexual abuse, where you are having sex with someone who does not want to be there at all, but are being forced by their pimps, for example. Basically, i'm clarifying that i was not intending for my scenario to be quite that innocent, and that's because it doesn't need to be for my point to be made in the first place. A claim was being made that johns are entitled rapists, this is what i'm addressing.

Never having being abused as a child - that too was not something i was talking about. Most prostitutes may have been abused as children, but people who are abused as children are not necessarily incapable of making choices for themselves, or are compromised in that department. IOW, i was certainly not talking about a psychological history check. I was talking about measures of caution and resorting to certain means that may produce an incredibly higher possibility of avoiding any possible victimization, and, coupled with self-imposed boundaries in the sexual act itself, may minimize the possibility even further to the point where it's just as basic as many other risks we take in life in our dealings with others, or at least very close to it.

Those measures i'm talking about are what would make what you consider a coincidence more of a statistically higher possibility resulting precisely from those responsible and careful considerations before doing something like acquiring the services of a prostitute, and similar self-imposed standards undertaken during the act itself, to minimize if not outright eliminate the possibility of damage in some cases.

As far as I can see, given the way these things go, if there has ever been an encounter between an enthusiastic, psychologically stable, financially secure prostitute and a John who actually cared about any of those things, it had to have been either a coincidence or negotiated fantasy role playing between lovers.

What i'm talking about is not stemming from pure theoretical thinking. It might be difficult for you to imagine a considerate John, but they do exist. My best friend who i've known for over 10 years (and who is not an entitled rapist) has acquired the services of prostitutes twice in his life and he has shared every single detail with me regarding those encounters, from his efforts in finding the right prostitute to everything that happened in there.

First, he sought prostitutes, the services of which cause as high as 7 times that of more regular prostitutes that can be sought through other, easier and much more convenient means. Second, they set the boundaries, and in one scenario, the prostitute had very specific set of things she would not do which would otherwise be considered very basic stuff, and he of course didn't do any of them (despite going there hoping to), she led things for the most, and he was as interested in pleasuring her as he was in pleasuring himself (but only because pleasuring her would make him feel like it was normal and more spontaneous).

I shouldn't share stuff like this, but in the other instance he also hugged her and more less was an emotional mess in there, which is why he was there to begin with.

Short version, as easy as it might to be to set ridiculously high standards and paint black and white portrayals of johns, in reality there are many exceptions to the also very true portrayals of slimey, scumbag entitled cockroaches. Some are just people in desperate need of sex and are unable to obtain it otherwise, for one and the main example i'm concerned with.

You guys have got to stop comparing sex trade work to jobs that don't involve sex. It's apples and oranges. The ethical standards must be higher for sex work because of the vastly greater potential for psychological and physical harm. That stuff doesn't magically disappear on a person's 18th birthday.

Some jobs require people to put their lives on the line for you, with ridiculously low pay.

 

[Alceste]

That strikes me as a straw man, Alceste, albeit a sophisticated one. I wasn't talking about children. And if I had been talking about children, I would not have claimed that children are competent to consent to sex in exchange for money.

As for the comparison of sex work to jobs that don't involve sex, you have offered no logical reason not to compare the two except your straw man.

I'm not talking about children either. I think you may have missed my point. I'm talking about human psychology, and saying there is no magic moment when we suddenly go from "children who can be harmed by sexual exploitation" to "adults for whom sex is completely indistinguishable from something as banal as taking out the trash or making lunch".

The reasons we have higher ethical standards for the sexual exploitation of adults than for the exploitation of ordinary laborers are exactly the same reasons we don't put people in jail for making their children do household chores: sexual exploitation has a vastly higher potential to cause phychological and physical trauma. Not just for children, but for everyone.

 

[Alceste]

It's very, very impractical, but that's mainly because you listed things i didn't imply.

Drug addict - that's not something of essential relevance here. Being a drug addict doesn't eliminate a person's ability to choose a job, nor compromise their will. I understand precisely why you mentioned it, and yes, it can make someone's life a mess and drive them to do things they wouldn't normally do, but it doesn't in my eyes negate their ability to choose generally, especially considering the wide variety of possible addictions, many of which are not all that severe. This is an extremely important distinction because there's a vast difference between unhealthy scenarios (where you are having sex with a prostitute who is not particularly enjoying your company - but wants to be there to get the money), and between sexual abuse, where you are having sex with someone who does not want to be there at all, but are being forced by their pimps, for example. Basically, i'm clarifying that i was not intending for my scenario to be quite that innocent, and that's because it doesn't need to be for my point to be made in the first place. A claim was being made that johns are entitled rapists, this is what i'm addressing.

Never having being abused as a child - that too was not something i was talking about. Most prostitutes may have been abused as children, but people who are abused as children are not necessarily incapable of making choices for themselves, or are compromised in that department. IOW, i was certainly not talking about a psychological history check. I was talking about measures of caution and resorting to certain means that may produce an incredibly higher possibility of avoiding any possible victimization, and, coupled with self-imposed boundaries in the sexual act itself, may minimize the possibility even further to the point where it's just as basic as many other risks we take in life in our dealings with others, or at least very close to it.

Those measures i'm talking about are what would make what you consider a coincidence more of a statistically higher possibility resulting precisely from those responsible and careful considerations before doing something like acquiring the services of a prostitute, and similar self-imposed standards undertaken during the act itself, to minimize if not outright eliminate the possibility of damage in some cases.



What i'm talking about is not stemming from pure theoretical thinking. It might be difficult for you to imagine a considerate John, but they do exist. My best friend who i've known for over 10 years (and who is not an entitled rapist) has acquired the services of prostitutes twice in his life and he has shared every single detail with me regarding those encounters, from his efforts in finding the right prostitute to everything that happened in there.

First, he sought prostitutes, the services of which cause as high as 7 times that of more regular prostitutes that can be sought through other, easier and much more convenient means. Second, they set the boundaries, and in one scenario, the prostitute had very specific set of things she would not do which would otherwise be considered very basic stuff, and he of course didn't do any of them (despite going there hoping to), she led things for the most, and he was as interested in pleasuring her as he was in pleasuring himself (but only because pleasuring her would make him feel like it was normal and more spontaneous).

I shouldn't share stuff like this, but in the other instance he also hugged her and more less was an emotional mess in there, which is why he was there to begin with.

Short version, as easy as it might to be to set ridiculously high standards and paint black and white portrayals of johns, in reality there are many exceptions to the also very true portrayals of slimey, scumbag entitled cockroaches. Some are just people in desperate need of sex and are unable to obtain it otherwise, for one and the main example i'm concerned with.



Some jobs require people to put their lives on the line for you, with ridiculously low pay.

Once again, I have never suggested that survivors of childhood abuse are incompetent or incapable of making choices. I have only ever said that I personally believe they would be better off in counseling than capitalizing on their ability to dissociate by reenacting the abuse, but for money and with some predetermined boundaries that help them feel like they are in control of the situation. There's not any right or wrong to it - just cause and effect, and my personal opinion as to in which direction an abuse victim's best hope of attaining life satisfaction most likely lies.

As to your friend, it sounds like he could be one of my prostitute friend's clients! She does say some of her johns just want to talk to a woman about their personal problems and then screw her. Sometimes they don't even bother with the screwing because they're so preoccupied with the talking! She has never once mentioned one of these sex therapy johns asking her one single thing about her own life or feelings though. IMO, those johns would also be better off in counseling.

Where entitlement enters into it is when you make statements like "Some are just people in desperate need of sex and are unable to obtain it otherwise". This statement assumes that a "desperate need for sex" is tantamount to a fundamental human right to actually have sex, even with another human being who is totally not into you. IOW, your friend feels "entitled" to sex by virtue of the mere fact that he wants some. But nobody "needs sex" so much they have absolutely no choice but to rent a vagina that happens to be attached to a real, live, thinking, feeling woman. Why do you think we evolved with arms that are exactly long enough to reach our genitals?

Edited to tone down the rhetoric, because Sunstone is awesome

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not talking about children either. I think you may have missed my point. I'm talking about human psychology, and saying there is no magic moment when we suddenly go from "children who can be harmed by sexual exploitation" to "adults for whom sex is completely indistinguishable from something as banal as taking out the trash or making lunch".

As "banal as taking out the trash or making lunch"? Again, you're creating a straw man. I never said sex work was completely indistinguishable from something as banal as taking out the trash or making lunch. I compared it, actually, to undesired jobs in general, and then specifically to menial restaurant jobs and to cleaning up toxic waste. Cleaning up toxic waste might be equivalent to taking out the trash in your mind, but taking out the trash certainly doesn't risk a host of debilitating diseases. You are not increasing the credibility of your position by treating mine flippantly. Let's quit with the FOX News tactics. It genuinely angers me to hear them come from someone of your intelligence.

I taking a break from this debate. I am sorely ****** off at the moment to have been treated like an idiot by someone I respect.

 

[Alceste]

As "banal as taking out the trash or making lunch"? Again, you're creating a straw man. I never said sex work was completely indistinguishable from something as banal as taking out the trash or making lunch. I compared it, actually, to undesired jobs in general, and then specifically to menial restaurant jobs and to cleaning up toxic waste. Cleaning up toxic waste might be equivalent to taking out the trash in your mind, but taking out the trash certainly doesn't risk a host of debilitating diseases. You are not increasing the credibility of your position by treating mine flippantly. Let's quit with the FOX News tactics. It genuinely angers me to hear them come from someone of your intelligence.

I taking a break from this debate. I am sorely ****** off at the moment to have been treated like an idiot by someone I respect.

Sorry, Sunstone. I'm honestly not trying to be an *******. I was comparing undesirable ordinary adult jobs to undesirable chores for children, and it was only to illustrate that it's not only in adulthood that we have different ethical threshold for sexual exploitation than ordinary exploitation. IOW, it's not an arbitrary distinction, and I felt you were suggesting that it was.

I wasn't trying to be flippant - we just don't have all that many household chores that are the equivalent of cleaning up toxic waste without adequate protection and I needed an equivalent to get across what I was trying to say. So when you mentioned flipping burgers, I just rolled with it. In retrospect, I can see how that must have come off as dismissive, and I aoplogize. I respect your intelligence as well, so I think we should be able to manage a thoughtful discussion that doesn't **** either of us off. :flower2:

 

[Badran]

Once again, I have never suggested that survivors of childhood abuse are incompetent or incapable of making choices. I have only ever said that I personally believe they would be better off in counseling than capitalizing on their ability to dissociate by reenacting the abuse, but for money and with some predetermined boundaries that help them feel like they are in control of the situation. There's not any right or wrong to it - just cause and effect, and my personal opinion as to in which direction an abuse victim's best hope of attaining life satisfaction most likely lies.

And with that much i would definitely not disagree, and have not said anything to indicate that i would. I was addressing them since they were on your list, which meant that i had to explain why i wasn't including them. This is also why i keep trying to point out what my posts are aimed at addressing precisely, because i know they might be giving a wrong idea about my position in general, which i'll clarify more on in this post. It's to mistake my position for one that considers prostitution particularly healthy, for example. Which is not the case.

As to your friend, it sounds like he could be one of my prostitute friend's clients! She does say some of her johns just want to dribble and moan at a woman about their personal problems and then screw her. Sometimes they don't even bother with the screwing because they're so preoccupied with the dribbling and moaning! She has never once mentioned one of these sex therapy johns asking her one single thing about her own life or feelings. IMO, those johns would also be better off in counseling.

Where entitlement enters into it is when you make statements like "Some are just people in desperate need of sex and are unable to obtain it otherwise". This statement assumes that a "desperate need for sex" is tantamount to a fundamental human right to actually have sex, even with another human being who is totally not into you. IOW, your friend feels "entitled" to sex by virtue of the mere fact that he wants some. But nobody "needs sex" so much they have absolutely no choice but to rent a vagina that happens to be attached to a real, live, thinking, feeling woman. Why do you think we evolved with arms that are exactly long enough to reach our genitals?

Indeed.

Actually, before addressing what you said, i sold him short on one aspect. He is in desperate need of both sex and emotional intimacy, not just sex, and more importantly the latter, but you probably guessed as much - just thought i should outright state it. Which is why of course after both experiences, he was still largely unsatisfied. Now, as to interpreting the statement to suggest a sense of entitlement, it's an understandable and fair interpretation, but it's not what i intended with the words, nor is it a representative description of my friends mentality at all. Here's why.

My intention was to emphasize the state of mind, which is one of, say, suffering, and an immense desire to address that suffering. Not of frustration due to perceived injustice of some sort or another. There are already girls who have made advances on him, but he wasn't attracted to them, so it's not a question of him just not getting a break and developing a sense of perceived injustice or lack of a supposed right, just quite simply bad luck causing a lack of something he sorely desires, which is more than natural for someone who is 25 and has not been intimate with anybody for over 6 years, in his case.

He went there because he thought it might be an adequate substitution. I don't think that's a good decision, but i don't blame him for it, or count it against him in a moral sense. Also, before resorting to going to prostitutes, he first sought and was able to have a one night stand, but those are excessively difficult to find around here, and he wasn't able to do it again. Point being, he isn't like an insecure depressed snob who thinks he has a right to sex and is not getting his cut, but more like someone who has a powerful desire, is in a situation where it's extremely difficult to satisfy that desire (by which i refer to both the pure sexual element and the emotional aspect), and resorted to a solution he thought might help, while trying his best to make sure it's done in a responsible way, as much as possible. That's all.

Now, for clarity, my situation is even worse than him. He's had loads of sex and intimacy in comparison to me.

But i have not sought prostitutes, and i haven't sought them for a reason. I don't think it would address my needs, i don't think it's healthy, and i wouldn't want to actually see a prostitute trying to pretend to satisfy me - it would depress me both for my sake and hers. But it's important to me that unfair generalizations are also addressed. At least, what i perceive as unfair generalizations. He is neither entitled nor having any rapist inclinations, in my view, if i take him as an example.

 

[Alceste]

And with that much i would definitely not disagree, and have not said anything to indicate that i would. I was addressing them since they were on your list, which meant that i had to explain why i wasn't including them. This is also why i keep trying to point out what my posts are aimed at addressing precisely, because i know they might be giving a wrong idea about my position in general, which i'll clarify more on in this post. It's to mistake my position for one that considers prostitution particularly healthy, for example. Which is not the case.



Indeed.

Actually, before addressing what you said, i sold him short on one aspect. He is in desperate need of both sex and emotional intimacy, not just sex, and more importantly the latter, but you probably guessed as much - just thought i should outright state it. Which is why of course after both experiences, he was still largely unsatisfied. Now, as to interpreting the statement to suggest a sense of entitlement, it's an understandable and fair interpretation, but it's not what i intended with the words, nor is it a representative description of my friends mentality at all. Here's why.

My intention was to emphasize the state of mind, which is one of, say, suffering, and an immense desire to address that suffering. Not of frustration due to perceived injustice of some sort or another. There are already girls who have made advances on him, but he wasn't attracted to them, so it's not a question of him just not getting a break and developing a sense of perceived injustice or lack of a supposed right, just quite simply bad luck causing a lack of something he sorely desires, which is more than natural for someone who is 25 and has not been intimate with anybody for over 6 years, in his case.

He went there because he thought it might be an adequate substitution. I don't think that's a good decision, but i don't blame him for it, or count it against him in a moral sense. Also, before resorting to going to prostitutes, he first sought and was able to have a one night stand, but those are excessively difficult to find around here, and he wasn't able to do it again. Point being, he isn't like an insecure depressed snob who thinks he has a right to sex and is not getting his cut, but more like someone who has a powerful desire, is in a situation where it's extremely difficult to satisfy that desire (by which i refer to both the pure sexual element and the emotional aspect), and resorted to a solution he thought might help, while trying his best to make sure it's done in a responsible way, as much as possible. That's all.

Now, for clarity, my situation is even worse than him. He's had loads of sex and intimacy in comparison to me.

But i have not sought prostitutes, and i haven't sought them for a reason. I don't think it would address my needs, i don't think it's healthy, and i wouldn't want to actually see a prostitute trying to pretend to satisfy me - it would depress me both for my sake and hers. But it's important to me that unfair generalizations are also addressed. At least, what i perceive as unfair generalizations. He is neither entitled nor having any rapist inclinations, in my view, if i take him as an example.

I am not passing moral judgment either, but it's still plain as day to me that your friend (and men who frequent prostitutes) does feel entitled to female company - for whatever reason he desires it - in a way you yourself (and men who do not frequent prostitutes) do not.

For you, the solution to not having access to female company is going without. For your friend, the solution to not having access to female company is buying it, like a fancy chocolate bar. He inherently denies her feelings and desires in order to satisfy his own. That's what I think is "abusive" about it, but I'm still not passing judgment. Most people stagger through life in a reactionary fog, acting first and rationalizing their behavior later. I think very few of us can assess the ethical or psychological implications of our own patterns of behavior, let alone do anything about them. That's why we should all see a therapist! Just like the prostitute has her reasons for indulging in what is almost always a self-destructive pattern of behavior, I'm sure your friend has his.

 

[Sunstone]

In retrospect, I can see how that must have come off as dismissive, and I aoplogize. I respect your intelligence as well, so I think we should be able to manage a thoughtful discussion that doesn't **** either of us off. :flower2:

Alceste, you're wonderful! Thank you so much for your kind concern for my feelings. I have a bit of apologizing too. I'm sorry for bringing this up publicly. I should have PMed you with my concerns, and if there's a next time, I will. Also, while I think my concerns were legitimate to some extent, I need not have gotten angry over it. I was short on sleep, and that might have had something to do with being short tempered. I've had a nap now, so be as delightfully flippant as you want, and I'll merely smile amused while still pointing out that your characterization of my position doesn't seem to exactly fit with my own notion of what I was trying to say. I like our disagreements almost as much as our agreements, because I can learn from both. And besides, your rhetoric is so creative!

 

[Sunstone]

I am not passing moral judgment either...

Well, if you're not passing moral judgement, I am. But not on Badran's friend. I'm passing moral judgement on Badran himself for being the sort of friend who obviously has been unwilling to set up his friend with a date. I think that, if Badran were a real and true friend to his friend, he'd be out in the streets of Cairo 24/7 until he had found a woman willing to engage in casual sex with his friend. Shameful he hasn't. Absolutely shameful. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think it's fair or realistic to pass blanket judgements on those who hire sex workers. Seems to be a sort of shaming. It's human to desire intimacy and some of us can't get it in other ways.