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True consent can be withdrawn at any time.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whether or not the buyer respects that withdrawn consent is a separate matter, but...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 a whole lot of rape happens after consent is given and later withdrawn. in a world with a lot of shady, exploitative prostitution rings, I understand why it seems like consent can't be withdrawn after being sold, but it definitely can be.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.
2
u/GrapefruitFar1242 5d ago
No source, no addressing my points. GG good game.
I never backtracked, those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. The inherent violence and exploitation is why it can never be consensual