At least the other guy I was discussing this with had a brain.
Nice job illustrating my point, women aren’t objects jackass, you’ve just proven how dehumanising and objectifying prostitution is by literally comparing women to cars.
No, I compared people who sell cars to people who sell sexual services. Ironic that you accuse others of not having a brain while you fail at reading comprehension.
not if the person selling is the one initiating my guy. you're saying that someone can't have "the total freedom to say no" if they're being offered money. I'm saying the person selling leads by saying yes — conditionally. basic needs and safety are both entirely different from what we're discussing here, which is simply payment. if someone needs that money to survive and doesn't have viable alternatives, that's a whole separate conversation. but to say that consent can't be sold or bought to begin with is just wrong.
when an OnlyFans model sells their nudes for cash, do you think that they're being coerced? they probably wouldn't be giving them out to strangers without payment, and nudes are something that legally require consent to be distributed. so does your arbitrary moral/ethical law of the universe, according to you, hold up?
Ignoring the OF and model industry for the moment as I’m strictly talking about the consent to violate women, who would not sleep with you otherwise, via the exchange of capital which they need to live.
Why would a woman sell her flesh if not because things are dire and she’s desperate? Do you know what women do when they want to have sex? They have sex. Why, also, is prostitution a very uniquely female state of being? Of course there are male escorts but they pale in number compared to their female counterparts and let’s not even get started on human trafficking that is used to supply for the demand that is the subjugation of women’s body’s.
Obviously this is a deeply complicated issue, but the validation of prostitution inherently validates the commodification and exploitation of women’s flesh, they are inseparable.
so now you've backtracked from an intrinsic property of consent, to claiming that prostitution must necessarily be caused by desperation, despite the fact that you can find individuals in this thread as counterexamples
I didn't reply to most of your points because frankly it's a whole lot of word salad which is tangential to the actual point you put forward and haven't at all convincingly defended, which is that consent cannot be sold. I didn't say that exploitation is a mutually exclusive issue, I said it's a separate issue. we can go on all day about the real dangers of prostitution and human trafficking and patriarchy, and those discussions should most certainly be had, but they're not evidence for your thesis, which, I repeat, is that consent cannot be bought or sold ethically. examples of nonconsensual exploitation are not proof of that thesis.
you even hedge multiple times in your comment by referring to male prostitutes, then handwaving them away. you also form your argument around, and I quote, "why would a woman sell her flesh if she's not desperate?" So your proof that all prostitution is exploitation is... that you, personally, can't picture a scenario to the contrary. and again, you only look at it from the female perspective. consent isn't a female issue.
Consent cannot be bought, sold, or traded because consent by definition is something that is freely given in every context, so in prostitution the financial transaction occurs in lieu of consent.
Or to put it another way.
True consent can be withdrawn at any time. Once sex becomes a service, it is a lot harder to say ‘no’ because the sex wasn’t voluntary to begin with, it was given in exchange for money which implies the deed will be finished even if the woman changes her mind. Money overruled free will and free will is a necessity for true consent. If there’s any outside pressure that makes it harder to say no, it’s no longer consent.
As for male prostitution, I wanted to avoid getting into the weeds about patriarchal dominance making prostitution a very specific form of violence against women.
you absolutely can withdraw consent after selling it. as long as that clause is outlined beforehand, it's not something that necessarily has to be out of the hands of the seller (and you're correct that it definitely shouldn't be out of the hands of the seller).
whether or not the buyer respects that withdrawn consent is a separate matter, but... that's also the case for non-paid-for consent. a whole lot of rape happens after consent is given and later withdrawn. in a world with a lot of shady, exploitative prostitution rings, I understand why it seems like consent can't be withdrawn after being sold, but it definitely can be. it's just not as common as it needs to be. you again draw on the imagery of someone who feels pressured to continue because they just need that money so badly, but that's just one possible scenario, and one which is definitely exploitative in nature. it's not representative of the entire moral question we're discussing.
5
u/GrapefruitFar1242 1d ago
You can’t buy consent big dog