Thanks Kit for being so enlightening... and assertive.
Think about it, though: if this issue is still debated everywhere in the world, don't you think the issue is a bit more complex than your "series of truths"? Perhaps it is you who are ridiculous in thinking that you have all the answers.
With these kinds of issues unfortunately, it is a lot about "where you draw the line". If there was only one good answer, it would be applied everywhere already by politicians (which means by the way that your answer is an acceptable one too).

You're welcome :laugh:

Lot's of things are still debated everywhere in the world. As far as whether or not this 25-year-old woman having a sugar daddy is comparable to having sex with a 12-year-old in Thailand I don't think it's that complex. I think it's simple enough that you went to such an extreme as a comparison. You knew my reaction would be to disagree, even though I'm pretty sure you wouldn't go to another country to pay a child to have sex with you. One is a voluntary choice, one is a result of poverty and cultural issues that we don't have (to the same scale, rather).

Interesting.
So if I go to Thailand and get a 12 years old kid to suck my c0ck for $100, then because the child knows the deal and what's in it for it, it becomes OK.
Sounds good to me.

No. That's why I specified consenting adults. The girl in the article is 25 years old. A far cry from a 12 year old child.

I find 12 years old kids pretty mature these days. More so in Thailand since they have to go through a lot of hardship. To me he should be considered a consenting adult, so this is acceptable. Don't impose your arbitrary morals on me.
Is a 16 y.o. in America a far cry from a 12 y.o. in Thailand?

Yes. You are right that there are cultural differences. One is a country that tends toward protecting it's most vulnerable, the other has no problem leaving them to fend for themselves. If you still can't tell the difference I don't know how to spell it out for you. Obviously there's no way any place will ever be perfect - we have children here that have lived and experienced far more than they should have, does that mean we should treat them as adults? Aren't they usually damaged by such experiences? That says enough about the mentality of a child and what kind of treatment is okay vs. adults.

To save some time, here are the next steps of my reflection:
- Morally wrong vs Legally wrong: the fact that it is not legally wrong doesn't make it necessarily less morally wrong. So the fact that our girl in the article is an adult is legally OK, but does not make it necessarily morally OK.

I question your assertion that sex is morally wrong. I don't believe that people have the right to determine others morals.

You're barking at the wrong tree. People have never (and will never) have the right to determine others morals.
The only thing "morals" can do is: try to influence other people's morals and try to influence society when enough people think something is morally wrong and making it illegal by voting a law (e.g. homosexuality, zoophilia, pedophilia which haven't been or are illegal/not illegal depending on place and time).
You're confusing "morally wrong" and "legally wrong".

Morals guide individuals. While yes ultimately society's morals are what guide laws (The more individuals feel a particular way, the more ingrained it is), at the point where someone says "Well WHY is it morally wrong?" and the only answer is "Because it's morally wrong" it's time to challenge that assertion. That's why we have horrible horrible things in our past that seemed completely normal at the time. Slavery, genocide, legal rape, public canings, and so so so much more. Now we're seeing homosexuality finally being accepted but we're still shy about paid sex/companionship?

I don't consider it morally wrong to have a sexual relationship with someone in exchange for sex. Prostitution is illegal, and I believe that it shouldn't be. Why is sex any more wrong than bartending?

Because one makes you have "intimate"/"sexual" relationships with other people, and that while I could serve anyone in a bar, I wouldn't have sex with anyone in that same bar.

As a bartender, you wouldn't be expected to have sex with your clientele, because that's not the job that was signed up for. However in a society where prostitution is legal and the employees are protected, they still have the right to turn down clients, set their own hours, have access to healthcare and protection from customers that might get out of hand. They also have the opportunity to quit and get a bartending gig if they decide that this job just isn't for them. They're different, but I still don't see why bartending is a more viable career option. (I feel like we hit a language barrier on this one, I'm not comparing them as how they are different, but why one is considered "okay" when another is not).

I am glad to read that you hold the belief that your vagina belongs to the public space and that it could be used by anyone who pays you for an access to it,

I never said that. WTF. Even if I did decide to become a sex worker, I would still have the right to stop at any time, and have the choice about who I allow access to it. Ever see that sign up in businesses? "We reserve the right to refuse service to any customer at any time."

but I personally don't want to accept sex with strangers for money and I know a few other people who think the same (on a side note, I don't think "sex" is morally wrong but I imagine you meant "sex labour"). I suppose then, the balance of minds/morals is currently in my favour (thus the laws against prostitution - not that I am actually against prostitution but let's not even go there).

Where are you getting the impression that I'm saying everyone should be forced into prostitution? If you don't want to do it that's TOTALLY FINE. No one should be forced into doing that. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. That would be like me saying "Teaching should be legal" and you turning around and whining about how you don't want to be a teacher. What are you reading that gives any impression that I would say "YOU HAVE TO HAVE SEX WITH STRANGERS"?

- Ask yourself: then why is it morally wrong for someone to ask a child to perform a sexual act on them? What is the essence of the problem? It is because children (and for example mentally disabled adults) are not able to fully grasp the consequences of their actions, they don't have all the elements, the keyword is "vulnerable".

Why are children not allowed to have jobs? Why are children not allowed to drink? Smoke? Drive cars? Because they're CHILDREN, those things can be dangerous and it's easy to take advantage or manipulate. Children need to be protected and raised at an age appropriate level.

So it seems we agree, partly. When you say "easy to take advantage and manipulate", we agree. This is what I meant by "they don't have all the elements" and "they are vulnerable".
However, it's not just about waiting for children to be "old enough". Ageing in a non intellectually stimulating environment won't do a lot for our children unfortunately. So it's about educating the people/children so that they can make informed decisions, so that it becomes hard to take advantage of them and manipulate them. A brainwashed/unintelligent/uneducated/uninformed adult is as good as a child in terms of making the right decisions (and probably not very useful to society... although...).

You are right, this is something we can agree upon. But short of having an "Am I an adult now?" test to license people as adults we can only go with an average on when people in a society reach adulthood.

- Is the choice the girl is making in the article her own? Or is she part of a vulnerable population? At what level of vulnerability (or lack thereof) do we decide (arbitrarily) that the person is now a fully responsible adult and that all of their decisions are truly their own?

Depending on where you are, 16-21 years old. The girl in the article is 25 and broke.

Yes 16-21 y.o. Exactly, it is completely arbitrary. Because we have to draw the line somewhere (from a legal standpoint at least).

She's not being vulnerable. Sure she can't keep a job down, but why should she when she can get $3000 per month by doing something she's good at? No one is getting hurt, it's mutually beneficial. If she doesn't want to do it anymore, then she can stop at any point with no legal repercussions.

This is probably the only debatable point of the whole story. Do you think she is or isn't in a situation where she is vulnerable? I think she is. You think she isn't.
One of the girls said this though: Without the extra income, Cervantes said she'd be back at the homeless shelter she lived in for three months in 2009.. That, to me, doesn't look like someone who necessarily has a lot of choices (or maybe even the intelligence to make the right choices).

This is where we definitely differentiate. You consider her a product of the system, I think she's a product of her own bad choices. She earlier admits that she has difficulty keeping steady jobs - usually that's related to many things that aren't just "bad luck". Consistent tardiness, absenteeism, drug use, alcohol use, laziness on the job, etc. Her three month stint in a homeless shelter is very sad, and I don't like that it's something people have to do every single day and there's nothing we will ever be able to do about it, but in that same vein, some people just have different learning patterns than others. Some people learn from experience and hardship and some people learn by watching. She seems to be the hardship type. But I certainly don't think that she's being taken advantage of because she voluntarily signed up for a website where she could pick and choose her own clientele.

She can say all day about how it's not ideal and she wishes she wouldn't have to do it, but it smacks of a fat person saying for years that they want to lose weight and never doing anything about it. When you want something you do it. If she didn't want to do this, she would do what millions of college kids have done before her - get a job, keep a job and budget better.

That's also what all criminals should do. Unfortunately some people don't have all the elements to judge a situation, are sometimes out of options and cannot necessarily make the best decisions.

Yeah. And I don't think this situation is like that.

This is why I can't quite agree with this. I can't help thinking that, had she had a school without fees and an education she wouldn't have done that. Ignorance & poverty. Would this happen in a world with only rich educated people? I doubt it.
So in my view the "sugar daddies" are exploiting a vulnerable fringe of the population, this is exploitation and, before that, a failure of our system that couldn't prevent this from happening.

If education was free there would still be poor and uneducated people for a multitude of reasons. There can NEVER EVER be a utopian society where everyone is rich and smart because in the end someone is going to be richer and smarter and someone else is going to be the least rich and smart therefore being "poor and dumb" for it's society. There will be people who don't go to school. There will be people that are lazy. People that get caught up in drugs.

I agree, extremes are basically unattainable. But you can decide what direction you want the society to take, i.e. chose an ideal and get as close from a model as possible, and then you patch it here and there to fill the gaps. This is what we do all the time. Our current system is far from perfect in what it is trying to achieve/has achieved as well (so is as flawed potentially as any other model of society).

Yes. And I don't think "sugar daddies" and "sugar babies" are ruination of society.

Also, I agree with you that there will be always a proportion of "poor and uneducated people" (for example lazy), and so you are saying "I don't want to help anyone at all because some people will take advantage of that situation". And so you ask "decent people" who might have had a chance in another system to pay the same price as those "bad people".

Now you're just putting words in my mouth again

I'm saying that the other possibility is to accept that there will be a proportion of "bad people" who will take advantage of the situation regardless, and so accept this is a collateral damage, but that by helping as many people as we can we also maximise the chances of success for the "decent people". I suppose it depends on your outlook on life.

I don't disagree with this, I'm just saying that this woman isn't an example of a failed society. If anything she is a product of a society that judges her for her choice in career and that's what makes her feel guilty more than the job itself.

Last, my "utopian society" is not one where there is an "equality of results" as in everyone is "rich and smart". My utopian society is one where everyone has "equality of chances" of becoming rich and smart, as in everyone regardless of where they are born get the same chances to achieve success. Which is currently not the case at all - but I think this is wayyyyy outside of the scope of the issue at hand.

Yeah, and this is also another thing we agree on. I think we just differ in how we choose to accomplish such a society.

Which, again, is a debate for another place. :laugh:

While yeah, as a student I totally agree that it would be f*cking sweet to not have to pay tuition and get my books for free, the fact remains that there's no such things as a free ride.

This isn't true everywhere in the world. There are places where education is paid by taxes.

And who pays those taxes? See? Not free. (Gotcha on the technicality there). Basic education (K-12) is "free" in the US and even then there are plenty of people that don't complete it, don't take it seriously, or take it for granted. Quite a lot, actually. I actually had a whole lot here but I think this is also a debate for another place.

Last of the lasts... The whole article wasn't even about prostitution at all (well, at least not "openly") so we probably got sidetracked a lot. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

HAHAHA, yeah! I brought up prostitution as something that should be legal because a few people compared her situation to it and even made snide comments about how she was a "*kitten*".

My whole point is that selling sex should be a viable industry without people getting more uppity about it than they would about a lawyer, porn star (which, same thing. Think about it) or construction worker. *shrug*

There was actually a fairly recent article about this in a Vancouver newspaper (Jan 23, 2013) - I just pulled a couple of relevant points:

“The population of college sugar babies in British Columbia has steadily increased every year, with University of Victoria leading all major universities,” SeekingArrangement.com CEO Brandon Wade said in a news release. “It’s difficult to take out student loans when you aren’t sure when, or if, you will be able to pay them back. By seeking a mutually beneficial relationship while attending college, students will be more likely to find success later in life.”

The details of any arrangements, including whether sex is on the table, are entirely up to the people involved, SeekingArrangement.com spokesman Leroy Velasquez said in an email. The college market is just one subset of the U.S.-based website, which caters to wealthy men and women looking for attractive, younger partners.

UVic student society spokeswoman Lucia Orser said she wasn’t aware of the trend, but called it a predictable result of the high tuition fees and student debt levels in B.C.

“I think this speaks to the particular burden women are facing in British Columbia to pay off their post-secondary education, both throughout that education but also after.”
...
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/UVic+students+flock+sugar+baby+website/7862840/story.html#ixzz2OqlYDAlW

While I agree that student debt is a huge issue (and moreso in the US than Canada even), students choose this path, just like they could choose to apply for scholarships or get a job. A 12 year old (girl or boy) in Thailand coming from poverty who has likely been sold into the sex industry by a relative is not even remotely a similar comparison.

As the gap between rich and poor in America continues to increase, it's only natural that more women will seek out mutually beneficial relationships of this type.

It's certainly an additional motivator for the rich to continue to monopolize wealth at the expense of the poor. It opens up many more sexual options for older, more affluent males.

--P

As the gap between rich and poor in America continues to increase, it's only natural that more women will seek out mutually beneficial relationships of this type.

It's certainly an additional motivator for the rich to continue to monopolize wealth at the expense of the poor. It opens up many more sexual options for older, more affluent males.

--P

But is it really doing that if the sugar babies are using the funds to pay for an education to get a job that pays well?

As the gap between rich and poor in America continues to increase, it's only natural that more women will seek out mutually beneficial relationships of this type.

It's certainly an additional motivator for the rich to continue to monopolize wealth at the expense of the poor. It opens up many more sexual options for older, more affluent males.

--P

But is it really doing that if the sugar babies are using the funds to pay for an education to get a job that pays well?

Yes, the gap between rich and poor is large and growing. This is well documented.

It's true some women will use the money to finance an education and secure higher income. However, most women who turn to prostitution do it to pay their bills, not finance a second degree. Also, a college degree is no guarantee of an adequate income stream. But it certainly helps.

--P

Both!!!! More so the paying for sex, but the old creepy man factor comes heavily into play.

It bothers me, plain and simple. It probably has nothing to do with me, but a lot of things don't technically "concern"' us directly but I still care.

As a somewhat older gentleman (cough, cough), I'm not sure I like you describing sex I may be having with younger women "creepy" or "gross". Although I won't fixate on it, I promise.

--P

I think your brain is sexy, let's gross Christine out and giggle about it.

Act now and you'll get a whole month for only $1500!! (Not including S&H fees)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

As the gap between rich and poor in America continues to increase, it's only natural that more women will seek out mutually beneficial relationships of this type.

It's certainly an additional motivator for the rich to continue to monopolize wealth at the expense of the poor. It opens up many more sexual options for older, more affluent males.

--P

But is it really doing that if the sugar babies are using the funds to pay for an education to get a job that pays well?

Yes, the gap between rich and poor is large and growing. This is well documented.

It's true some women will use the money to finance an education and secure higher income. However, most women who turn to prostitution do it to pay their bills, not finance a second degree. Also, a college degree is no guarantee of an adequate income stream. But it certainly helps.

--P

I'm not disputing the expansion of the gap (okay that wording made me giggle. Maybe I should ask Flim is that disqualifies me from being considered an adult), I'm wondering at your assertion that this is monopolizing wealth. They're paying a good amount of money to "keep" these pretty young ladies. Unless I'm misunderstanding?

I'd like to see the clientele on this. Is it just "creepy old men"? Or attractive and desperate young college students? Hmm.. that is the stereotype..but I wonder.

Perhaps those involved in this don't see the same stigma or subversiveness in what they are doing - perhaps that older man truly enjoys spoiling a younger woman and sex is a natural part of an adult relationship. Maybe that younger woman enjoys older men who lavish gifts and attention on her.
I'd guess that those participate might not look at their actions as a straight exchange or in such commercial terms?

I dunno.

Personally I like older men. And if they happen to be kinky and wealthy, I could probably live with it.

Sure I understand that Danielle...if you enjoy older men that is fine, but if you only enjoy them for their money and you truly don't really have feelings for them, that is the problem! I absolutely understand if you're dating a man and he happens to have money, but when you only "date" him for his money...well then there's a different term for that!!!

P, I would only categorize you as a creepy old man if you were paying the girls for sex or trading something for their sexual or personal companionship. There's a difference. I've seen 40 year old men I think are attractive but I wouldn't date them for just their money.

There was an epsiode of Criminal Minds where a high-priced call girl was killing her clientelle. One of the scenes from that episode that sticks out to me is the question "What is a wealthy man paying thousands of dollars an hour for?" The answer in that show was that it was a lot more than just sex. It was counseling and a plethora of other things.

I imagine most of the men and women shelling out $3000+ a month aren't doing that on a $100,000 salary. These people are probably very busy, very stressed and are looking for some sort of companionship that falls in the range that makes it more than FWB and less than girlfriend. As long as it's a voluntary transaction, either party can leave when it's no longer beneficial to him/her. The talk seems to be centered on the idea that the wealthy person (presumably male) is exploiting the impoverished helpless female. Has it occured that if these guys are married, the helpless little waif is in a nice position to blackmail the man to keep the relationship discreet?

I wonder why when it is a woman it is exploitation and when it is a man it isn't?

I've had casual partners who have given me money to get home which was far more than the taxi cost. As long as nobody mistakes these interactions for emotional relationships then I don't see the problem.

In other words, it isn't true to say that because something happens between two "consenting adults" you are not entitled to judge (all drugs would be legal everywhere otherwise).

This made me laugh because I also think drugs should be legal for adults :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Sweetie, we are madly in sync today.

I know! Boobs, bacon and (sugar) babies... we agree on all three!

P, I would only categorize you as a creepy old man if you were paying the girls for sex or trading something for their sexual or personal companionship. There's a difference. I've seen 40 year old men I think are attractive but I wouldn't date them for just their money.

I suppose we could have the argument that marriage itself is kind of a trade off, where men provide financial security in exchange for regular access to sex. At least that's the stereotype from the 1950's. But I find that line of thought rather unconvincing, so I won't go there.

However, I don't think it's gross or creepy for a man (or woman) to pay for sex, so long as both parties are adults, and both enter into the arrangement willingly. It can be a great short term solution for many. Don't think it's a very viable long term arrangement, but what do I know? To each his own.

I tend to like the "hunt," so getting something without too much effort cheapens the process. I also want my partner to want me, not just my money. But having said that, if I'm lonely and horny in a far away land, miles to go before I sleep, a couple hundred bucks is a small price to pay for a night of great sex. Just call me creepy... :-)

--P

That age creeps up as I get older, for sure, but I laugh at my 40+ coworkers bragging about all the hot 22 year olds they can get. It's the rare 22-25yr old that truly is interested in a guy that much older.

We're an endangered species.