>but there is no way of telling how many sexual contacts my new partner had, whether paid for or not.

The same is true for their clients but they don't get the same treatment.

> If you sell your body, most societies will punish you. > Why though?

In stable families and societies, women use sex as control (power) over men. Younger women who sell sex are undermining that power structure. That is why they must be punished.

Another way to look at in economic terms: Female sex is a scarce resource. Female selling transactional sex is commoditizing this resource. In general, people don't like their valuable service getting commoditized.

>I wouldn't like to be with a prostitute because of possible hidden diseases and lack of trust

Why do you inherently distrust a former sex worker? What about sex work is distrustful? Do you think prostitutes have a habit of not delivering after payment or something?

same here, i think some people are just a little too submissive and uncritical to the so called rules of society. also engaging in porn or even prostitution isn't really "selling" of one's body.

People working in the mines, or the military, I wonder why that's a socially acceptable way of "selling" their body, but prostitution is not. Even we, behind a computer screen and getting back pain and wrist RSI, we also "sell" our bodies in a matter of speaking.

I can only imagine that the negative perception of prostitution as "selling" your body is coming from mainstream religions which are the great society moralizer.

Even coming from mainstream religions, that's annoyingly knee-jerk. Sure, prostitution is shameful and sinful and whatnot, but what about maliciously lying to your neighbor, trying to get rich off their misfortune? Even from a mainstream religious perspective, marketing gives prostitution a run for its money, and outside that framework, arguably it's less shameful to do OF than to be a "regular" influencer, or go into telemarketing. At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily.

> At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily

Beautifully put!

> Sure, prostitution is shameful and sinful and whatnot

Only according to some. Imo it's much more immoral to work in fossil fuels or the police/military (where you abandon morals to execute orders).

> At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily.

Haven't some OF creators come out admitting they were pressured into it, or at least doing it more than they'd like.

I can believe it. Sex work in general is fraught with various degrees of abuse. However, it's also clear that there is a large class of workers that's doing this work voluntarily, under no pressure (at least not beyond the pressures every employee in any field experiences); my comparison would apply to them.

I think you'll find that lots of people in non-sex-work, non-stigmatized, socially respected jobs feel like they were pressured into them and/or currently doing more of the work they are in than they'd like due to economic coercion.

It's whataboutism, isn't it? It surely hypocritical when someone only fights other's sin while ignoring own (and one mainstream religion has a special piece about it - speck in a brother's eye). But my harmful behavior still doesn't make your harmful behavior good, and vice versa

This is pretty illogical comparison. When we praise soldiers, we do it not for them getting paid for their bodies, but for hard work, and risks they take protecting us.

> and risks they take protecting us.

Considering the risk are bodily harm, there is some similarity to the risks of bodily harm that some sex workers take, and far more frequently, than soldiers. STDs, violent guys, etc etc.

> but for hard work

Do sex workers not work hard (pun potentially intended)? I don't see society praising them for their hard work and the risks they take.

>I wonder why that's a socially acceptable way of "selling" their body, but prostitution is not.

Probably because its not the same at all. Getting naked and spreading your legs is neither as productive nor difficult as serving your country. Neither should it have the same social status.

> Getting naked and spreading your legs is neither as productive nor difficult as serving your country

We have different moral compasses, I guess. To me, obeying military orders (which often result in killing people) is neither productive, nor difficult (as a big part of thinking/initiative is replaced by blindly following orders). Military personnel basically outsource a large chunk of thinking and assessing good/bad to a "higher power". In a way, that's very easy and comfortable life for a specific type of people: all higher order judgments are deferred to higher ups in the military chain. Besides, I wouldn't say military personnel are "serving" their country more than, say, plumbers, electricians, railway workers, postal service, healthcare workers, or, even sex workers.

> Neither should it have the same social status

I disagree. The fact that somebody who has no other skills and initiative but to be a death machine/robot blindly following orders, doesn't warrant them to be a hero, and sure as hell doesn't qualify them to a high social status in my book. And, at least to me, calling military service "productive" is just plain hypocrisy. Their only function is to either destroy things during war, or sit around looking menacing when there is no war.

Imo, money spent on weapons and the military could be better spent to build more social housing, solve healthcare problems, etc.

> Imo, money spent on weapons and the military could be better spent to build more social housing, solve healthcare problems, etc.

In an ideal world, 100% yes.

In our world, where every now and again a crazy power-hungry dictator appears and wages a war against a weaker country and is killing civilians - unfortunately it's a comfort we can't afford.

> again a crazy power-hungry dictator appears and wages a war against a weaker country

With the risk of being political, I see nothing "defensive" or moral about the military, even in the most advanced nations that are supposedly paragons of human rights.

Take the "dictator attacks weaker country" narrative. The NATO defensive alliance fits this narrative by providing weapons and military training to weaker Ukraine so it can defend itself against the aggression of bigger Russia. On the other hand, the same defensive alliance has no scruples to providing weapons to Israel so it can wipe out and cause immense suffering and casualties to Palestine, a weaker nation.

Which brings me to my conclusion that there is nothing inherently moral about the army, it's just a blunt instrument to do the government's bidding. Hence, I don't see military as our "protectors", but as the government's institutionalized thugs. I also don't see a reason for them to be lauded for their actions, as their actions are often immoral and sinister. I am talking things like the military secrets Assange unveiled, or the illegal treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, or the sometimes indiscriminate bombings of civilians to hit 1 potential target.

And since they are not protecting me but the government's interests, I don't see a need to thank them for their service more than I see the need to thank bouncers at a disco I don't own for theirs.

ath3nd did not write same social status, they wrote socially acceptable. Relevant username, I guess.

I guess I meant a bit of both.

We don't give high social status to killers, thugs, murderers and hired assassins, but when it's institutionalized killing, (which is the military) that's okay? The fact that an "official" gives the word, and the victims are not citizens of your country doesn't make the military be less about killing.

There also is nothing "productive" about paying for salaries, equipment and training to a bunch of grown men in the anticipation that you have to send them to do violence to your bidding.

If the military was not under the veneer of "official", wrapping it in an "institution" and all the language of "serving your country", we'd not been able to distinguish between military, militia and armed thugs.

Yet, our society at large reveres them as some heroes and they are mainly socially acceptable.

I bet that if we had a "Department of pleasure", with ranks, hierarchies, rules, promotion paths, etc, sex workers wouldn't be as marginalized as they are now. In fact, in many civilized countries, prostitutions is both legal and taxed, and less stigmatized than it is in the US, who are too puritanical/religion influenced in their views to want it to be otherwise.

> There also is nothing "productive" about paying for salaries, equipment and training to a bunch of grown men in the anticipation that you have to send them to do violence to your bidding.

I disagree. First and only rule of nature is might makes right, and being capable of dishing out the most violence (and hence also least likely to be the victim of it) is very “productive”. It is a huge contributor to the purchasing power of the US dollar, which is a referendum on the stability and productivity of US society.

For example, the oceanic transportation routes around the world are kept mostly safe and humming along because of militaries enforcing it.

Those rules aren't taken from the thin air though. It's really easy to argue that sexual gedonism is detrimental to society, and its online incarnation is even more so: as any addiction it steals productive time from people's lives, it puts hormones over culture which patently breeds violence, it leads to social atomization, and consequently to mental issues (which means violence again), economically bad on a level comparable to fentanyl imports, and the list goes on.

> as any addiction it steals productive time from people's lives, it leads to social atomization, and consequently to mental issues (which means violence again), economically bad on a level comparable to fentanyl imports, and the list goes on.

Well the same could be said of social media, mobile phones, netflix binge, computer games (although I don't agree with the violence part). So why single out sex then?

You are tying to make an argument for destigmatizing sex work, but for me I think it really points out how we should really increase the stigma towards those working for social media giants, sports gambling sites, and other tech companies whose main operating model is actively getting people addicted to something and then profiting off of it. Social media is one of the worst developments for society in recent history, and the people working for Facebook or TikTok absolutely deserve to be shamed for actively participating for personal gain.

While I agree with you in general, I see no way to actually sensibly enforce this. Whatever activity you take, it can be abused.

For example Google is abusing their position by feeding a stream of right-wing and related stuff to my mother because she clicked a Trump video a friend(?) sent her so that she watches more of this stuff, gets more negative emotions, and continues to spend her time on their site. Trying to regulate these things is terribly hard and whatever idea you come up with, the folks at big tech will find a way to go around them.

Use and particularly overuse of those things is definitely a relationship deal killer for many people. Ask around with the women you know what they think about men who spend most of their time playing video games.

Straw man. No one singled anything out, this thread is specifically talking about one topic. In many other threads you'll find people discussing the extreme negative consequences of social media.

Citation needed

It's a classic chesterton fence phenomena, It's just that we can't connect the externalities to the fence.

Leasing, then?

is a selfie leasing your head?