Poly Map

Ok, I see there's certainly a lot of feedback concerning this Poly Map. Because of this, I decided to email the producer of the chart, telling him about this thread; maybe he'll make some changes to it based upon what's been said here.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on him to acknowledge this site.
 
I think the second chart is much clearer. However if the purpose of the first one that in the OP is humor, then the mildly confusing/crazy set up makes sense.

I also think the Franklin chart would be much less offensive to some if it didn't have the odd statements in quotations. THAT part is what made me dislike it. The statements themselves seemed judgmental whereas the second chart included a definition instead of a statement that could come from someone that falls in the category.

@Scott - Why do you think commercial sex should be a part of the charts? Not trying to pick on you, but I feel like it would generally fall under one of the other categories (i.e. hiring a prostitute = promiscuity OR cheating, hiring a pro-dom/me = open relationship or cheating, etc). I'm curious how it could form it's own sub-group.

This whole chart thing has made me agree with those that think labels suck! :p
 
In my opinion, The whole thing should at least have the default of being in a 'non-monogamy' balloon. When we were swinging, if I said to a swinger I was in an open-relationship,.. I would be told ' Ohh, you want feelings, or some kind of relationship involved ?'
I say to poly people, 'open relationship' and I hear ' Ohhh, you just want to fuck ?'
I think we can all agree that friends with benefits, or having feelings and sexual times with people we care for, but maybe don't engage in a forward-moving relationship with, is not some small niche ? It`s a rather large chunk of dating.

So, some of the definitions are a little broader, and could actually be funnier, if there was some more well-rounded humour.

Why does any of this matter on a supposedly 'funny' chart ?

Because people use his labelling and opinion like its some type of poly-bible to go by. Newbies and even people that know better, tend to stick to his word.

I tried to deny this for a long time, but dating and conversing online, has proven otherwise. If only I made some kind of cash off of every Franklin link someone has sent me, trying to 'correct' me. :D

When you suggest to those people that it`s just an opinion, they seem very confused. 'THIS IS HOW POLY IS DONE DAMMIT !' :p

So my little jaded-self just figures if he is going to have all this in-depth, 'This is how we do it' stuff, that people recommend, then some accountability in both the humour and practical would be nice.

Makes sense. I still think we should edit his chart. As the old saying goes, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Ofcourse, by we I'm hoping someone other then me because I'm lazy ;-).
 
Wow SG,

I think you beating around the bush so speak ...why not just answer Scott directly.

Scott will eventually learn the truth. Its just a matter of looking back at some your old postings.

The truth is she pissed that the box ( pun intended) that she fits in (again pun intended) is not represented. Let just say it starts with F and rhymes with misting.

Also, I know she's probably too embarrassed to tell you but she is a huge sucker for song lyrics which is why she didn't respond....actually it all kind of embarrassing ....but we love her so what ya going to do.

See SG don't you better now?...I know do :D

I might have to come out of retirement for this.

Oh, I see. I think you're saying that she may have liked those song lyrics that I put up in a response to her, which is cool. And as to um.. the F thing, I think I get you.. I admit that I've never done something like that to a woman, but I'm willing to learn if a partner would want it. I miss having a girlfriend, laugh :).
 
I think the second chart is much clearer. However if the purpose of the first one that in the OP is humor, then the mildly confusing/crazy set up makes sense.

I also think the Franklin chart would be much less offensive to some if it didn't have the odd statements in quotations. THAT part is what made me dislike it. The statements themselves seemed judgmental whereas the second chart included a definition instead of a statement that could come from someone that falls in the category.

@Scott - Why do you think commercial sex should be a part of the charts? Not trying to pick on you, but I feel like it would generally fall under one of the other categories (i.e. hiring a prostitute = promiscuity OR cheating, hiring a pro-dom/me = open relationship or cheating, etc). I'm curious how it could form it's own sub-group.

This whole chart thing has made me agree with those that think labels suck! :p

This is one of those hot button topics, to be sure. Hiring a sex worker doesn't mean that you have to be cheating on anyone, although I have heard from someone who has been in the business that a lot of people do hire them for that purpose. I certainly don't think that cheating is a good thing, but it's certainly a form of non monogamy. I have spoken to people who are now polyamorous, but their first step was actually cheating. Sometimes, it's just too difficult to go from monogamy straight to ethical non monogamy, so a transition is required. I myself never needed such a transition, but I'm only 36 and I knew about polyamory since I was in my early 20s; since I hadn't even yet had a girlfriend at the time, when I finally found a girl who I wanted to be my girlfriend, I told her my mindset pretty much from the get go.

Ok, now on to sex workers; many of them are clearly in the non monogamy field. I found an article from a semi retired sex worker. Here's the portion that I found most interesting:

*********************
When people say prostitution is the world's oldest profession, they mean that since the beginning of time women have not given their love away for free. Men are the opposite. Not only are they inclined to give their love freely, they are prepared to do or give anything to obtain it. This is the principal characteristic of sexual reproduction, which we share with other animals.

Girls learn at an early age that many men, young and old, are attracted to her. This thrills and frightens her. Her biological task, however, is to be fertilised by one man who is not only as healthy and as possible, but is willing to help her raise and protect children he made with her.

As it turns out, young, strong, prosperous men with a high social status have always been the most wanted on the marriage market. Their qualities are, as it were, entrance tickets to vaginas. This makes marriage the most popular and acceptable form of prostitution.

In the wider market of sexual desire and the search for gratification, marriage may be the top attraction, but there is a wide variety of sexual liaisons beneath that pinnacle of respectability. Girls recognise themselves as sexually attractive and experience satisfaction from looking at their own image in the mirror. Fashion, the make-up industry and the soft pornography of advertising exert a strong attraction.

Some girls start having sex at a younger age than others, but all discover that they obtain favours in exchange for the sexual satisfaction they provide. They may be looking for Mr Right and marriage and a a family of their own, but in the meantime they also want to have fun. They have affairs and are helped by their partners to get a nice job, a fine apartment, a better living-standard. Usually this occurs so naturally that the idea of 'prostitution' doesn't even arise, especially when there is only one man and he is truly in love and she likes him. Such 'mistresses' or 'lady friends' are usually kept in the background, but they may also become influential advisers and hold a high position in society.

If the number of contacts increases, and the price per meeting is set more explicitly it becomes more recognisable as prostitution, but here, too, there are ranks to be distinguished. The higher class of professional lovers are called 'geisha', 'hostess', or 'escort'. Essential questions are, of course: does the woman decide with whom she has sex and in what way? Does she have self-confidence and is she educated? Does she have enough knowledge about sex to make smart decisions and does she have the freedom to decide for herself what she wants? Recently, conservative religious feminism has begun to condemn prostitution as a crime against women. To support this claim, every sexual act for payment is considered 'rape'. The 'escorts' claim that they act out of free will, is dismissed as self-deception.

There is, as always, a scale of distinctions between the higher and lower ranks of prostitution. At the bottom of the scale are the victims of sex-trafficking who are sold like slaves, are nothing but objects and don't have anything to say about their lives. They see themselves as failures, as opposites of the successfully married middle class wives and mothers, a status to which they aspire.

But both extremes are somewhat fictional, and figure mainly in moralist discourse about prostitution. In reality, there exist all kinds of gradations of 'sex in exchange for something' in the sexual market place...
*********************
 
This is one of those hot button topics, to be sure. Hiring a sex worker doesn't mean that you have to be cheating on anyone, although I have heard from someone who has been in the business that a lot of people do hire them for that purpose. I certainly don't think that cheating is a good thing, but it's certainly a form of non monogamy. I have spoken to people who are now polyamorous, but their first step was actually cheating. Sometimes, it's just too difficult to go from monogamy straight to ethical non monogamy, so a transition is required. I myself never needed such a transition, but I'm only 36 and I knew about polyamory since I was in my early 20s; since I hadn't even yet had a girlfriend at the time, when I finally found a girl who I wanted to be my girlfriend, I told her my mindset pretty much from the get go.

I agree that hiring someone for sexual purposes doesn't have to be cheating, but in almost every situation it easily COULD be (hence me putting OR in there). I also agree that to some, cheating is simply a step between monogamy and ethical non-monogamy. I'm glad it never came to that from me, but had I not fallen in love with someone as open-minded as Keith at a very early age (we started dating when I was 15), I probably would have cheated.

I've always been an avid believer that the general style of dating in America is just acceptable prostitution. In general the man is bringing the girl chocolates/flowers, buying dinner, paying for the tickets to the movie, driving, and basically taking all other fiscal responsibility for the time together and then the girl deep down believes she owes him something because he did all this (and most girls at some point or another do feel this way), so she kisses him goodnight. Or has sex with him. Or anything in between. It happens all the time. I'm still not seeing how actual, acknowledged commercial sex should be included in the charts, though.
 
I agree that hiring someone for sexual purposes doesn't have to be cheating, but in almost every situation it easily COULD be (hence me putting OR in there).

Yeah, a sex worker generally isn't going to ask if the person is cheating on someone I think.

I also agree that to some, cheating is simply a step between monogamy and ethical non-monogamy. I'm glad it never came to that from me, but had I not fallen in love with someone as open-minded as Keith at a very early age (we started dating when I was 15), I probably would have cheated.

Yeah, finding out about poly early on is the best way to prevent cheating I think, laugh :).

I've always been an avid believer that the general style of dating in America is just acceptable prostitution. In general the man is bringing the girl chocolates/flowers, buying dinner, paying for the tickets to the movie, driving, and basically taking all other fiscal responsibility for the time together and then the girl deep down believes she owes him something because he did all this (and most girls at some point or another do feel this way), so she kisses him goodnight. Or has sex with him. Or anything in between. It happens all the time.

True. In all honesty, I don't think there's anything wrong with it per se; I think that a lot of people, perhaps mainly women, would like some financial support from prospective partners. I think that this may come from the fact that women get pregnant and men don't; so women will look for men who would make good fathers; financial support early on would certainly look attractive from this perspective I'd think. I'm not saying that this has to be a conscious thing, nor am I saying that all women look for is good potential fathers, but I definitely think it can be a fairly important factor.

I'm still not seeing how actual, acknowledged commercial sex should be included in the charts, though.

It's a form of non monogamy. For that reason alone, I think it should be there.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I understand it being included in non-monogomy in general. My argument is that it would fall under other categories instead of having it's own category, I suppose.
 
It's a form of non monogamy. For that reason alone, I think it should be there.

No it's not. Non-partnered, single people partake of prostitution as well. So, sex as a profession is just basically a service provided... to anyone, not SOLELY partnered people as an alternative to monogamy. It is not a form of monogamy nor of non-monogamy, and is definitely outside the realm of intimate relationships. If a partnered person avails him/herself of the sex trade, then that person would be non-monogamous as an individual choice he or she made, BUT by itself, prostitution is not a form of non-monogamy per se. It is a business transaction. If we include that, then might as well include buying dildos as a form of non-monogamy.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I understand it being included in non-monogomy in general. My argument is that it would fall under other categories instead of having it's own category, I suppose.

Hm. Why do you think this should happen? Personally, I admit that I kind of like it having its own category, if only because sex work is so maligned in our society. I think it deserves to be discussed, and burying it in other categories won't really do that. I recently researched and discussed this issue in another poly forum that, perhaps because of this, decided to remove me from their group. During the course of my research, I came up with 2 movies that discuss the issue. Here are the previews:
‪X 2011 Trailer‬

Student Services - Official Trailer

I haven't seen either movie yet. I have the opportunity to see one of them as it's on Netflix which I have access to, it's just that there's a dark side to this subject, and it's something that's very hard for me to deal with. I probably would have never even researched the subject if I hadn't met someone who has been (and perhaps still is) in the business. But I really liked her and I wanted to understand more about this issue so I did.
 
Scott said:
It's a form of non monogamy. For that reason alone, I think it should be there.

No it's not.

Not everyone agrees with your stance there, as the Poly Map clearly includes this.

Non-partnered, single people partake of prostitution as well.

That is true. However, I'm talking about the sex workers themselves, not who they're with.

So, sex as a profession is just basically a service provided... to anyone, not SOLELY partnered people as an alternative to monogamy.

I think that when it comes to sex, it may not always be so easy to call it simply a service. There was a play in Toronto called "Love is a poverty you can sell". I never saw the play, but the title got to me. You could say that people can express love in many ways, but few doubt that many express it when they have sex. I'm fairly sure that the term "make love" was created because of this. In this world, especially for men, getting to the point where you can find a woman who would like to have sex with you can be a challenge, especially if you're not upwardly mobile. Paying for it can thus seem to be an attractive option. I myself did so, the first time I ever had sex, at 20. I never did so again, in large part because I felt it was very dangerous to mix up money with love; you run the risk of being with people who want your money, not you, and I never thought that was a good idea. Nevertheless, I can't say that I haven't been tempted, to the point that I even asked someone I knew if she knew someone who did sex work (she didn't). And then, in a poly meet, I met someone; after getting to know her a bit, I found out that she did some sex work, atleast part time. The high end, not something I could afford, but it once again got me to think about this aspect of non monogamy. I felt that I'd fallen in love with her. At the same time, I felt afraid. I actually had a dream of her. In the dream, I saw her a woman on the ground level from high up in an apartment building. I knew it was her and that she was approaching. I was afraid for my money; I didn't have much cash on me but I had plastic. I actually told this woman my dream, she never responded and now that I've been removed from that group, I think it's safe to say that our relationship, such as it was, has ended. Ever since I had the dream, I've been thinking of what this dream meant. I've come to the conclusion that in a way, for many (including myself to some extent), money is an expression of what you're owed in life. It can be seen as favours that you can call upon. It can even be seen as your very soul. I was afraid of losing myself to her. In the ending, I decided that I could no longer ignore this. The fact of the matter was, this wasn't just about her. As I mentioned in another thread (the porn thread perhaps), I've definitely seen porn, and there are sex workers involved there as well. There is a saying: "‪All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.‬" So I'm trying to do something, with my writing. Maybe one day I'll go further then this, do some investigating like the type in the Millenium series of films. But one step at a time.

It is not a form of monogamy nor of non-monogamy, and is definitely outside the realm of intimate relationships.

I wouldn't be so certain about that. People can develop intimate relationships with their dentists; I think it's safe to say that they can definitely develop between a sex worker and his or her client.

If a partnered person avails him/herself of the sex trade, then that person would be non-monogamous as an individual choice he or she made, BUT by itself, prostitution is not a form of non-monogamy per se. It is a business transaction. If we include that, then might as well include buying dildos as a form of non-monogamy.

I don't believe sex workers should be compared to dildos.
 
It is not a form of monogamy nor of non-monogamy, and is definitely outside the realm of intimate relationships.
I wouldn't be so certain about that. People can develop intimate relationships with their dentists; I think it's safe to say that they can definitely develop between a sex worker and his or her client.
Oh, I knew you or someone would say that. I'm not so stupid to think that intimate relationships cannot grow out of business relationships, but that just simply means it is an added quality to the interactions between the person selling and the person buying. The actual transaction of selling sex is.. well, I'll correct myself here, as it may be intimate (by some people's definitions), but it is not a romantic relationship and it isn't based on love or developing relationships to grow together but on business/making money. You can always say that in some cases, this or that can happen, but in looking at prostitution as a whole, it is a business in the modern world. Now, sacred temple prostitutes were a different story.

You can say the prostitutes themselves are non-monogamous by virtue of the fact that they have sex with multiple people; in some instances, I'm sure you could also say they are serial monogamists (if they do not have a relationship in their personal life and have one customer right after another). However, I was referring specifically to the practice of sex as commerce, not the practitioners or sellers themselves.

I don't believe sex workers should be compared to dildos.
Oh, please. I wasn't talking about the people, but of the business transaction. You buy something to get off in both cases.

In this world, especially for men, getting to the point where you can find a woman who would like to have sex with you can be a challenge, especially if you're not upwardly mobile. Paying for it can thus seem to be an attractive option. I myself did so, the first time I ever had sex, at 20. I never did so again, in large part because I felt it was very dangerous to mix up money with love; you run the risk of being with people who want your money, not you, and I never thought that was a good idea. Nevertheless, I can't say that I haven't been tempted, to the point that I even asked someone I knew if she knew someone who did sex work...
To be honest, you seem a tad obsessed with the whole idea of sex for money and how/if it ties into poly relationships, especially considering that you say you discussed this on another group and were banned for harping on it. You also seem really focused on the notion that women want men to support them financially. So, are you here just to push buttons? If so, that'll get old really quickly.
 
Last edited:
Ok... I had all of this typed out and then my internet died, but I'm back! lol My thoughts on all of this sex work/non monogamy business...

I mostly agree with nycindie. I don't think it needs to be included. Whether it is considered ethical non-monogamy (a person in an open relationship hiring a prostitute with the permission of the SO(s)) or unethical non-monogamy (a person hiring a prostitute WITHOUT permission, i.e. cheating), it isn't a RELATIONSHIP. A relationship (to me) goes two ways. Even if a person develops feelings for their sex worker (prostitute, porn star, phone sex operator, or other) it is still a business transaction. If the feelings are mutual, then it shouldn't be considered sex work anymore. It should be two people who have feelings for one another having sex and one of those people helping to support the other. I wouldn't sell sex to anyone I love, but I would let them help me with my bills if absolutely necessary with the understanding that they are doing it for ME not for SEX.

If you did want to include it, I still thing it would fall under another category... Non-monogamy in the form of cheating, non-monogamy in the form of a sexually open relationship, etc.

@Scott - you do seem VERY focused on sex work. Maybe you should find a group who shares that interest instead of trying to include commercial sex acts in a different group (in this case non-monogamy). I'm a former and probably future social work student so I have met many former prostitutes. Some have been perfectly satisfied with their lives, but MOST have felt forced into the situation or feel like once in they couldn't escape for some reason or another. It isn't something that I am particularly interested in discussing, and it really isn't something that most people WANT to learn about unless they are interested in getting involved in the business somehow (either as a customer or a service provider).
 
It is not a form of monogamy nor of non-monogamy, and is definitely outside the realm of intimate relationships.

I wouldn't be so certain about that. People can develop intimate relationships with their dentists; I think it's safe to say that they can definitely develop between a sex worker and his or her client.

Oh, I knew you or someone would say that. I'm not so stupid to think that intimate relationships cannot grow out of business relationships, but that just simply means it is an added quality to the interactions between the person selling and the person buying. The actual transaction of selling sex is.. well, I'll correct myself here, as it may be intimate (by some people's definitions), but it is not a romantic relationship and it isn't based on love or developing relationships to grow together but on business/making money. You can always say that in some cases, this or that can happen, but in looking at prostitution as a whole, it is a business in the modern world. Now, sacred temple prostitutes were a different story.

Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the equivalent of sacred temple sex workers exist somewhere even today, but I haven't seen evidence of this. Anyway, I think a question really has to be asked here; why do people (and by people, I mean mostly men) pay for sex workers?

You can say the prostitutes themselves are non-monogamous by virtue of the fact that they have sex with multiple people;

Yes, that's what I'm saying. By the way, I'm not sure if you know this, but people who sell sexual services for money prefer the term sex workers.

in some instances, I'm sure you could also say they are serial monogamists (if they do not have a relationship in their personal life and have one customer right after another).

I suppose, although because of the fact that customers can frequently be repeat, I think it would stretch the definition to the breaking point, if not beyond.

However, I was referring specifically to the practice of sex as commerce, not the practitioners or sellers themselves.

Yes, and I think this is the problem; we refer to it as a service, and forget that there are people who are providing it. It's something that I think people forget when they demonize the practice.

I don't believe sex workers should be compared to dildos.

Oh, please. I wasn't talking about the people, but of the business transaction. You buy something to get off in both cases.

Again, I think that this separation of what you are buying isn't helping anyone. You're buying services from a person in one case; in the other you're just purchasing a soul-less object.

In this world, especially for men, getting to the point where you can find a woman who would like to have sex with you can be a challenge, especially if you're not upwardly mobile. Paying for it can thus seem to be an attractive option. I myself did so, the first time I ever had sex, at 20. I never did so again, in large part because I felt it was very dangerous to mix up money with love; you run the risk of being with people who want your money, not you, and I never thought that was a good idea. Nevertheless, I can't say that I haven't been tempted, to the point that I even asked someone I knew if she knew someone who did sex work...

To be honest, you seem a tad obsessed with the whole idea of sex for money and how/if it ties into relationships, especially considering that you say you discussed this on another group and were banned for harping on it.

It's a subject that I found to be worth my attention due to the factors that I've already mentioned, or I wouldn't be discussing it. I mentioned the fact that I was removed from another poly group to point out how controversial this subject still is in modern day society, even within the polyamory movement.

You also seem really focused on the notion that women want men to support them financially.

I'm giving my impression based on my personal experiences. Ofcourse, there are women who earn more then their partners, and some who are even the sole bread winners. I'm just saying what seems to be the norm, but if you have statistics or even anecdotal evidence showing otherwise, by all means, present them.

So, are you here just to push buttons?

No. That would suggest that I like being removed/banned from places. I don't. I'm just want to talk about things that matter to me. The fact that these things are controversial is just the way it is.
 
Ok... I had all of this typed out and then my internet died, but I'm back! lol My thoughts on all of this sex work/non monogamy business...

I mostly agree with nycindie. I don't think it needs to be included. Whether it is considered ethical non-monogamy (a person in an open relationship hiring a prostitute with the permission of the SO(s)) or unethical non-monogamy (a person hiring a prostitute WITHOUT permission, i.e. cheating), it isn't a RELATIONSHIP.

Personally, I think that if sex is involved, it can definitely be thought of as a relationship to some, which is why I think Franklin included it in his Poly Map. We don't all have to agree on this, however.

A relationship (to me) goes two ways. Even if a person develops feelings for their sex worker (prostitute, porn star, phone sex operator, or other) it is still a business transaction.

I think that most relationships do go 2 ways (unless you count people who have a crush on some movie star). That being said, there are many cases where one end is much more interested then the other. Furthermore, you can have a relationship with someone you work for.

If the feelings are mutual, then it shouldn't be considered sex work anymore. It should be two people who have feelings for one another having sex and one of those people helping to support the other.

Makes sense. However, I think the distinction between these 2 states of affairs (feelings/no feelings) can get mighty gray sometimes.

I wouldn't sell sex to anyone I love, but I would let them help me with my bills if absolutely necessary with the understanding that they are doing it for ME not for SEX.

Yes, I understand where you're going there. I'm a guy so it's highly unlikely I'd ever be in the same situation, but I'd want to do the same if I was ever in such a situation.

If you did want to include it, I still think it would fall under another category... Non-monogamy in the form of cheating, non-monogamy in the form of a sexually open relationship, etc. @Scott - you do seem VERY focused on sex work. Maybe you should find a group who shares that interest instead of trying to include commercial sex acts in a different group (in this case non-monogamy).

Well, Franklin already included it.. and because of all the cultural attention on this particular line of work, I think it's a good thing. However, it may be that I and even Franklin change our minds on this.. who knows. As to finding another group, I suppose that's possible.. as a person who identifies as polyamorous, I just wanted to share my views here, but perhaps they're not wanted here.

I'm a former and probably future social work student so I have met many former prostitutes. Some have been perfectly satisfied with their lives, but MOST have felt forced into the situation or feel like once in they couldn't escape for some reason or another.

Ok.

It isn't something that I am particularly interested in discussing, and it really isn't something that most people WANT to learn about unless they are interested in getting involved in the business somehow (either as a customer or a service provider).

How about as someone who has cared for one or someone who'd like to research the subject? Anyway, I never forced you or anyone else to discuss anything with me. I just brought up the subject and responded to the responses.
 
How about as someone who has cared for one or someone who'd like to research the subject? Anyway, I never forced you or anyone else to discuss anything with me. I just brought up the subject and responded to the responses.

That would be another reason to want to learn about it. And I still think of this as a discussion on non-monogamy, not on sex work in general. When I said I wasn't interested in learning more about it, I meant the day-to-day practices and such.

Also, when I said relationship, I meant a romantic relationship. I have relationships of varying degrees with everyone I work with, for, and around but it doesn't make it romantic. I would think it is much the same for sex workers.
 
I can't get the quote to do what I want (I'm a bit of a dunce when it comes to technology stuff lol), but based off of nycindie saying sex workers could be thought of as non-monogamous since they have sex with different people I was wondering...

Would most sex workers identify themselves as poly/non-monogamous (assuming they were aware of the options)? I doubt it. Most I've met would love to find "the one" and get married and do that whole monogamy thing. Having sex with person after person is a JOB for them, not a LIFESTYLE. I'm not counting them as a product or forgetting that they are people, I'm counting what they do as a service and not a personal interaction.
 
By the way, I'm not sure if you know this, but people who sell sexual services for money prefer the term sex workers.
You don't need to educate me, dear. You have no idea of my background. I do have some familiarity with this arena, but that is all I will say. Furthermore, I see prostitution as one specific "job description" within the realm of sex workers, so chill. I don't really need to be PC for anyone else.

It's something that I think people forget when they demonize the practice.
I wasn't demonizing, so I don't appreciate the implication. Nowhere did I say anything negative about sellers of sex.

Again, I think that this separation of what you are buying isn't helping anyone. You're buying services from a person in one case; in the other you're just purchasing a soul-less object.
Why should this discussion help anyone? People are entitled to their opinions and to express them. I think the sex act as commodity is directly comparable to a dildo being sold. That is not to say that the people who sell sex and the people who sell dildos are not human beings. But to be able to sell the act of sex separates that act from the person and any "soul" involvement, much the same as many people who can have recreational sex without emotional attachment. I see selling a fuck the same as selling a dildo. So, shoot me.

I'm giving my impression based on my personal experiences. Ofcourse, there are women who earn more then their partners, and some who are even the sole bread winners. I'm just saying what seems to be the norm, but if you have statistics or even anecdotal evidence showing otherwise, by all means, present them.
I don't really feel the need to present any data to prove a point here; this conversation has already become tedious for me. Suffice it to say that it sounds like your experiences have been limited. I'm probably much older than you and have more experiences to draw from. In my own personal life, most women I know, including myself, do not seek out a man who makes more money than they do, nor expect a man to support them. And valuing their own independence has nothing to do with how much money a woman makes. I am just barely surviving financially right now, and my bf is poorer than me. I don't care how much he makes, and I never base my attraction to someone on that. In fact, another guy I'm interested in is very unemployed right now. I don't care one iota. I've never really known many women who have that as a criteria. 'Nuff said, I'm done.
 
Back
Top