Even Crusoe can achieve a mere ejaculation and does not have to wait for “Friday” to come on board. Prostitution is about people seeking much more.
The conclusion is that it’s all about subjective values and nothing more. If the probitionists were consistent, then they would define your date to be also at least a potential prostitute. What is your intent on paying her dinner? Any response you give can be truthfully given by the client of a prostitute.
I see the point you’re making, but what if prohibitionists “are” consistent? What if they don’t ever pay for a woman’s dinner with sex as a goal?
I liked this from Defending the Undefendable (and I’m not sure how well-known this joke is because I never heard of it before listening to the audio of the book):
The following well-known joke illustrates this point. A good looking man asks an attractive and “virtuous” woman if she will go to bed with him for $100,000.00. She is appalled by the offer. However, after some reflection she concludes that as evil as prostitution is, she could use the proceeds of the offer for charity and good works. The man seems charming, not at all dangerous or repugnant. She shyly says, “Yes.” The man then asks: “How about for $20.00?” The woman indignantly replies, “How dare you, what kind of woman do you think I am!” as she slaps his face. “Well we’ve already established what kind of woman you are. Now, we’re trying to establish the price,” he replies.
Haha, that book is great.
But yeah my point is just that I don’t particularly like the argument that “well if you’re against prostitution then you should be against taking a woman out to dinner just to have sex”, not because its logically invalid but because I don’t think its well suited to convince prohibitionists that they’re in the wrong.
A prohibitionist could very easily believe that its wrong to spend money on a woman in terms of gifts and dinners to goad her into having sex.(I’m not a prohibitionist and I think it doesn’t make sense to do that myself) and maybe even propose a ban on that behavior one day, haha don’t give these people ideas!
I think its better to focus on the plight of women who are involved in prositution today- and why legalization is a million times more humane.
I think there is a kernel of truth in it that any peaceful interaction in life between humans is a transaction. If you become married, you both agree to do certain things for each other because you value each other’s company. If you don’t value a person’s company (which is the attitude I have towards 99.99% of people I have ever come into contact with on the street, at a mall, or on the road or something), then there’s nothing wrong with having the transaction done in terms of monetary benefit.
I basically agree with you that it is an attitude that may turn people off initially. For conservatives, they have to climb over a mental barrier and understand that it is a consensual agreement between adults. Plus I think exposing the nature of the State is also a good way to start. Basically they don’t view state action as an implicit death threat; if we libertarians elucidate that to them, perhaps they will change their view.
If they were consistent, they would have to outlaw any sexual activity that does not confer to their beliefs and personal [alleged] values.
And for most “Liberals” as well.
You are ignoring something. That it is the most charismatic persona that gets elected, not the persona with best policy points/political past. Dont believe me? Look at the presidential elections of the past century, every single one has been won by the more charismatic candidate. And because of that, Ron unfortunately cannot do anything more than fulfill the educator role.
As a Startrek fan you should know this. After all, it was Kirk and Picard who were running the show, and not Spock or Data, despite being more rational and capable.
yes, to us. But, unfortunately the general public will not see it the same way. And this is the kind of thing they will see, and have seen, about Paul, over and over again.