• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Legal prostitution, a surprise benefit

The idea of a mutual relationship being made up of 'transactions' is a weird one to me. Yes, relationships are often contingent on things like finances and genuine emotion, but the relationships where partner's actually treat each other like bank accounts they can debit from, are usually the shittiest relationships, with the shittiest people, who end up divorced.


I think strong relationships depend on establishing a deep line of credit. The currency is trust. Insisting on getting paid ahead of time isn't a sign of trust.
 
Last edited:
The idea of a mutual relationship being made up of 'transactions' is a weird one to me. Yes, relationships are often contingent on things like finances and genuine emotion, but the relationships where partner's actually treat each other like bank accounts they can debit from, are usually the shittiest relationships, with the shittiest people, who end up divorced.


I think strong relationship depend on establishing a deep line of credit. The currency is trust.

Indeed. At the end of the day your partner is really a 'life' partner. They need to know they can depend on you to... help them live and fulfill their needs. If there is no trust, there is no real partnership.
 
I think strong relationship depend on establishing a deep line of credit. The currency is trust.

Indeed. At the end of the day your partner is really a 'life' partner. They need to know they can depend on you to... help them live and fulfill their needs. If there is no trust, there is no real partnership.

Trust is a part of any relationship with a prostitute as well. If you can't trust the woman, how do you know that she won't go and put the video of you and the donkey up on YouTube as soon as you leave her apartment? You're paying to avoid stresses like that.
 
Indeed. At the end of the day your partner is really a 'life' partner. They need to know they can depend on you to... help them live and fulfill their needs. If there is no trust, there is no real partnership.

Trust is a part of any relationship with a prostitute as well. If you can't trust the woman, how do you know that she won't go and put the video of you and the donkey up on YouTube as soon as you leave her apartment? You're paying to avoid stresses like that.

How does paying her reduce the possibility of her posting it? You can't buy trust.
 
The thing is what else explains it? Neighbor states didn't see the decline. They didn't see a decline in other crime, only rape. Something cut the rape rate, and only the rape rate, 30% while it was legal.
I want to see many more examples of this; if only other states would kindly oblige.

I'd like more data, also. However, all we have so far is one politician deleting a paragraph they shouldn't have. (The intent was to change prostitution from a felony to a misdemeanor. In the process they accidentally legalized what went on behind closed doors and nobody realized it until a lawyer was boning up on the law an realized what it really said.)

- - - Updated - - -

The idea of a mutual relationship being made up of 'transactions' is a weird one to me. Yes, relationships are often contingent on things like finances and genuine emotion, but the relationships where partner's actually treat each other like bank accounts they can debit from, are usually the shittiest relationships, with the shittiest people, who end up divorced.


I think strong relationships depend on establishing a deep line of credit. The currency is trust. Insisting on getting paid ahead of time isn't a sign of trust.

Deep line of credit, yes. The currency is being of benefit to the partner, though. This doesn't have to be money or things you buy with money. It can be simple things like her knowing I'll find her glasses when she loses them.
 
The thing is what else explains it? Neighbor states didn't see the decline. They didn't see a decline in other crime, only rape. Something cut the rape rate, and only the rape rate, 30% while it was legal.
I want to see many more examples of this; if only other states would kindly oblige.

I would think rape stats for Las Vegas (where prostitution is illegal but widely available) and Reno (where it is both legal and available) might be instructive...
 
In the process they accidentally legalized what went on behind closed doors and nobody realized it until a lawyer was boning up on the law an realized what it really said.

Was that intentional or was the lawyer just happy to see it? :hysterical:
 
The idea of a mutual relationship being made up of 'transactions' is a weird one to me.
Turn it around and think of it another way: a "transaction" is just an exchange of energy and resources. Drop a piece of sodium into a glass of water and a series of very explosive transactions will take place on the molecular level. Put a piece of raw meat on top of a slab of very hot metal and the meat will absorb some of that heat and be chemically changed by it; that's a transaction and an investment.

Communication is a transaction in its purest form. I make a noise that has a specific meaning, you hear the noise and it causes a reaction in your brain. The reaction causes you to make a noise that has a specific meaning and hearing that noise causes a reaction in my brain. It's just two people making noises in order to affect each other. Sex is similar as a form of communication; the way you touch each other, the way you respond to each other, the way you interact with each other moment by moment. If you aren't particularly expressive, then it's kind of boring, and if your partner isn't very receptive then she'll miss half of what you're tying to do. On a more basic level it is (or can be) a transaction of bodily fluids and genetic material and the interaction of the exchange can affect both partners, although it affects one more strongly than the other if you do things right.

Yes, relationships are often contingent on things like finances and genuine emotion, but the relationships where partner's actually treat each other like bank accounts they can debit from, are usually the shittiest relationships, with the shittiest people, who end up divorced.

Relationships are only as stable as the thousands and thousands of tiny transactions between the two people are still profitable for both of them. Sometimes the relationship is purely based on finances, but because that relationship remains profitable it can last a very long time. It's when OTHER forms of interaction between them become unprofitable that problems occur; maybe your relationship started out purely as financial convenience and you otherwise ignored each other. That's fine, but it's not sustainable; you have to talk to each other occasionally, and if there's kids involved you have to deal with each other more than occasionally. Those couples either find ways to interact that is beneficent to both of them, or they clash and wind up hating each other.

The point is, ALL of their interactions -- or at least the aggregate of them -- has to be profitable for both partners involved. In the case of prostitution, this is easy: I give you money, you give me sexual gratification. In the case of casual sex, this is also easy: I give you sexual gratification, you give me sexual gratification. The deeper the relationship, the more complex and less tangible the things being exchanged, the easier it is to get it wrong.
 
Turn it around and think of it another way: a "transaction" is just an exchange of energy and resources. Drop a piece of sodium into a glass of water and a series of very explosive transactions will take place on the molecular level. Put a piece of raw meat on top of a slab of very hot metal and the meat will absorb some of that heat and be chemically changed by it; that's a transaction and an investment.

Communication is a transaction in its purest form. I make a noise that has a specific meaning, you hear the noise and it causes a reaction in your brain. The reaction causes you to make a noise that has a specific meaning and hearing that noise causes a reaction in my brain. It's just two people making noises in order to affect each other. Sex is similar as a form of communication; the way you touch each other, the way you respond to each other, the way you interact with each other moment by moment. If you aren't particularly expressive, then it's kind of boring, and if your partner isn't very receptive then she'll miss half of what you're tying to do. On a more basic level it is (or can be) a transaction of bodily fluids and genetic material and the interaction of the exchange can affect both partners, although it affects one more strongly than the other if you do things right.

Yes, relationships are often contingent on things like finances and genuine emotion, but the relationships where partner's actually treat each other like bank accounts they can debit from, are usually the shittiest relationships, with the shittiest people, who end up divorced.

Relationships are only as stable as the thousands and thousands of tiny transactions between the two people are still profitable for both of them. Sometimes the relationship is purely based on finances, but because that relationship remains profitable it can last a very long time. It's when OTHER forms of interaction between them become unprofitable that problems occur; maybe your relationship started out purely as financial convenience and you otherwise ignored each other. That's fine, but it's not sustainable; you have to talk to each other occasionally, and if there's kids involved you have to deal with each other more than occasionally. Those couples either find ways to interact that is beneficent to both of them, or they clash and wind up hating each other.

The point is, ALL of their interactions -- or at least the aggregate of them -- has to be profitable for both partners involved. In the case of prostitution, this is easy: I give you money, you give me sexual gratification. In the case of casual sex, this is also easy: I give you sexual gratification, you give me sexual gratification. The deeper the relationship, the more complex and less tangible the things being exchanged, the easier it is to get it wrong.

I understand what you're saying, and agree.

I don't think one needs to get angsty about it, though. Affection/love/care etc is ultimately about what you do throughout that dance. In a relationship one has the choice to either genuinely care for their partner, or take advantage of their partner. That's the 'love' component of a relationship. Which you choose determines the outcome of your relationship.

For instance, it's your partner's turn to do dishes after dinner, but they're tired off of their ass. What do you do? It's moments like that which define how you actually feel about your partner. One could interpret that as just a 'transaction' to win affection, or one could also interpret it as what you should actually be doing when you agree to live with someone.
 
Turn it around and think of it another way: a "transaction" is just an exchange of energy and resources. Drop a piece of sodium into a glass of water and a series of very explosive transactions will take place on the molecular level. Put a piece of raw meat on top of a slab of very hot metal and the meat will absorb some of that heat and be chemically changed by it; that's a transaction and an investment.

Communication is a transaction in its purest form. I make a noise that has a specific meaning, you hear the noise and it causes a reaction in your brain. The reaction causes you to make a noise that has a specific meaning and hearing that noise causes a reaction in my brain. It's just two people making noises in order to affect each other. Sex is similar as a form of communication; the way you touch each other, the way you respond to each other, the way you interact with each other moment by moment. If you aren't particularly expressive, then it's kind of boring, and if your partner isn't very receptive then she'll miss half of what you're tying to do. On a more basic level it is (or can be) a transaction of bodily fluids and genetic material and the interaction of the exchange can affect both partners, although it affects one more strongly than the other if you do things right.



Relationships are only as stable as the thousands and thousands of tiny transactions between the two people are still profitable for both of them. Sometimes the relationship is purely based on finances, but because that relationship remains profitable it can last a very long time. It's when OTHER forms of interaction between them become unprofitable that problems occur; maybe your relationship started out purely as financial convenience and you otherwise ignored each other. That's fine, but it's not sustainable; you have to talk to each other occasionally, and if there's kids involved you have to deal with each other more than occasionally. Those couples either find ways to interact that is beneficent to both of them, or they clash and wind up hating each other.

The point is, ALL of their interactions -- or at least the aggregate of them -- has to be profitable for both partners involved. In the case of prostitution, this is easy: I give you money, you give me sexual gratification. In the case of casual sex, this is also easy: I give you sexual gratification, you give me sexual gratification. The deeper the relationship, the more complex and less tangible the things being exchanged, the easier it is to get it wrong.

I understand what you're saying, and agree.

I don't think one needs to get angsty about it, though. Affection/love/care etc is ultimately about what you do throughout that dance. In a relationship one has the choice to either genuinely care for their partner, or take advantage of their partner. That's the 'love' component of a relationship. Which you choose determines the outcome of your relationship.

For instance, it's your partner's turn to do dishes after dinner, but they're tired off of their ass. What do you do? It's moments like that which define how you actually feel about your partner. One could interpret that in just a 'transaction' to win affection, or one could also interpret it as what you should actually be doing when you agree to live with someone.

Sure, but in a stable relationship, you're looking for ways to make the transaction profitable for BOTH parties. How YOU feel about HER isn't as important as your ability to make judgement calls about how SHE feels.

So to take the dishes example: the house needs the dishes done because whoever is cooking needs to be able to use the pots, pans, cheese grater, cutting boards, etc. The whole reason you agreed to take turns is because it seems fair and a division of labor is a good way to distribute the expense (time and effort) of that particular task. Ultimately, though, getting the task done is profitable to the entire family so it doesn't really matter who does it; more importantly, if she doesn't have the time or energy to do it when it's her turn, then switching turns pays dividends to her on the "has energy to do stuff later" category. You can also use it as an basis to make "doing dishes" puns, or if you're into kinky stuff, a pretty good excuse break out the ropes and handcuffs the following weekend.

And I once had an aunt who gave me this oh so memorable advice: "Don't be afraid to argue with your wife. It helps keep communications open, and makeup sex is the best there is."
 
For instance, it's your partner's turn to do dishes after dinner, but they're tired off of their ass. What do you do? It's moments like that which define how you actually feel about your partner. One could interpret that as just a 'transaction' to win affection, or one could also interpret it as what you should actually be doing when you agree to live with someone.
"It is merely a coincidence, that on my days to do the dishes, I just happen to be too dead tired." "Sorry, but I accidentally posted a video of you with that donkey on YouTube, yet again."
 
For instance, it's your partner's turn to do dishes after dinner, but they're tired off of their ass. What do you do? It's moments like that which define how you actually feel about your partner. One could interpret that as just a 'transaction' to win affection, or one could also interpret it as what you should actually be doing when you agree to live with someone.
"It is merely a coincidence, that on my days to do the dishes, I just happen to be too dead tired." "Sorry, but I accidentally posted a video of you with that donkey on YouTube, yet again."

Is it wrong that I read that second part in a Mike Meyers voice?
fab78b60f9961b54a8afc63c95b64181--shrek-donkey-shrek-.jpg
 
I want to see many more examples of this; if only other states would kindly oblige.

I would think rape stats for Las Vegas (where prostitution is illegal but widely available) and Reno (where it is both legal and available) might be instructive...

There are considerable other differences, I don't think such a comparison would tell us much.

(Nitpick: It's not legal in Reno. It's just the county line is 10 minutes away and it's legal across the county line.)

- - - Updated - - -

In the process they accidentally legalized what went on behind closed doors and nobody realized it until a lawyer was boning up on the law an realized what it really said.

Was that intentional or was the lawyer just happy to see it? :hysterical:

Completely unintentional.
 
and innocent people get arrested for no good reason...

If you are breaking the law by soliciting a prostitute, then you are not "innocent" and you were arrested for a reason...

Just like those "thugs" you think should be shot and killed on sight because they once got arrested for having pot in their possession.
 
If you are breaking the law by soliciting a prostitute, then you are not "innocent" and you were arrested for a reason...
I would only be breaking an unjust law and would be no less innocent than a gay (or even straight, in some states) person engaging in "sodomy" pre-Lawrence.

Just like those "thugs" you think should be shot and killed on sight because they once got arrested for having pot in their possession.
Where did I ever say that somebody should be "killed on sight" just for having had a possession arrest?
 
I would only be breaking an unjust law and would be no less innocent than a gay (or even straight, in some states) person engaging in "sodomy" pre-Lawrence.
"unjust" in your opinion does not make you "innocent". It makes you a law-breaker.

If you don't like that fact, you should not try to denigrate other people for "breaking an unjust law"

Just like those "thugs" you think should be shot and killed on sight because they once got arrested for having pot in their possession.
Where did I ever say that somebody should be "killed on sight" just for having had a possession arrest?

You trot out alleged pot use as your evidence of criminality all the time when a white person or police officer shoots a black person.
 
"unjust" in your opinion does not make you "innocent". It makes you a law-breaker.
Again, I am as innocent as people engaging in illegal sodomy pre-Lawrence. Technically illegal, but it is an unjust law.

If you don't like that fact, you should not try to denigrate other people for "breaking an unjust law"
Laws against assault, robbery or carjacking etc. are not unjust by any stretch of the imagination. Unlike laws against consensual sex work.

You trot out alleged pot use as your evidence of criminality all the time when a white person or police officer shoots a black person.
Actually I used pot use as evidence of impairment.
And note that this version is very, very different from your original claim. Are you retracting it?
 
I understand what you're saying, and agree.

I don't think one needs to get angsty about it, though. Affection/love/care etc is ultimately about what you do throughout that dance. In a relationship one has the choice to either genuinely care for their partner, or take advantage of their partner. That's the 'love' component of a relationship. Which you choose determines the outcome of your relationship.

For instance, it's your partner's turn to do dishes after dinner, but they're tired off of their ass. What do you do? It's moments like that which define how you actually feel about your partner. One could interpret that in just a 'transaction' to win affection, or one could also interpret it as what you should actually be doing when you agree to live with someone.

Sure, but in a stable relationship, you're looking for ways to make the transaction profitable for BOTH parties. How YOU feel about HER isn't as important as your ability to make judgement calls about how SHE feels.

So to take the dishes example: the house needs the dishes done because whoever is cooking needs to be able to use the pots, pans, cheese grater, cutting boards, etc. The whole reason you agreed to take turns is because it seems fair and a division of labor is a good way to distribute the expense (time and effort) of that particular task. Ultimately, though, getting the task done is profitable to the entire family so it doesn't really matter who does it; more importantly, if she doesn't have the time or energy to do it when it's her turn, then switching turns pays dividends to her on the "has energy to do stuff later" category. You can also use it as an basis to make "doing dishes" puns, or if you're into kinky stuff, a pretty good excuse break out the ropes and handcuffs the following weekend.

And I once had an aunt who gave me this oh so memorable advice: "Don't be afraid to argue with your wife. It helps keep communications open, and makeup sex is the best there is."

Yea I agree, which would be part and parcel to the degree to which you actually care about your partner, and to an extent how intelligent and reasonable you are.

I'm convinced that a lot of relationships struggle because people never really learn to look outside themselves, or do things that suck for them, but which are beneficial for others. I'd think a part of being a rationally sound person is the ability to do things contrary to your own immediate self interest, or even sometimes your long-term self interest. If you can act for no other reason than to increase the overall happiness in the world, you've figured it out.
 
Back
Top Bottom