this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
156 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
1454 readers
58 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Now that you mention it, isn't it odd that it feels weird? I wonder exactly where the line starts to come into focus between something as innocuous as paying for a meal and something as taboo as paying for sex? Obviously that's a question of culture, but it's entertaining to think about nonetheless...
Like, there's definitely something kind of unusual about this specific taboo. Speaking from the perspective of modern western culture, I'd say that the following things which share some characteristics with prostitution are all individually qualified as being relatively socially acceptable:
I posit that there's something uniquely specific about the direct intersection of service, money, and sexual pleasure which makes prostitution uniquely uncomfortable for (modern western) people to think about. I might be overthinking it, though. Perhaps these three things are already uncomfortable topics to really think about so we naturally want to resist the idea of combining them?
Some people view sex as a means of expressing affection and connection, rather than as a means of having an orgasm. They would have no issue buying a sex toy to get their physical needs met, however hiring a person wouldn’t make sense to them because of the lack of emotional connection.
And some people don't view sex that way. And sex work isn't just about having an orgasm. That's what masturbation is for. My understanding is that people who frequent sex workers do it for the human connection. That doesn't mean an emotional connection, but human touch and physical intimacy are important for all human's mental health. I've heard stories from sex workers where the customer doesn't even end up wanting sex but to talk a bit and have someone hold them for a bit. Usually they prefer the respectful ones who just want sex with a human and leave though.
Yes, this is what I was getting at.
Rest assured, it is not necessary to explain the concept to me. I just like exploring the underlying why that leads to the how. My intention was to provide food for thought, not provoke the internet into explaining for me the joys of sharing romantic sex.
I think the reason is that for some people sex is not the same as any other activity you can do with your body and I think it’s not just culture but actually a neurobiological reaction.
It’s probably just odd because we know awfully little about how our brains, our hormones and whatever feelings are work. And sex is really one thing that taps into all three of these areas we don’t understand yet.
To give you another example, we can’t really explain why some types of torture are so devastating to us.
We value interactions differently because we intuitively want to be careful with things that could potentially influence us in major ways. Personally I believe buying sex feels so uncomfortable for some people because for them bonding and intimacy is connected with it. That clashes with buying it from a stranger. Also it seems kinda pointless or deranged then. Like buying a birthday party or a Christmas Eve with strangers.
Well sure, we can take it as a given that sex basically exists in its own special category. Biologically speaking, it's an impulse older than almost any other. I think that's self-evident enough without any need to tap into mysticism.
(Content warning: sexual violence in human history, abstract)
With that being said, it could also be argued that r-word is also deeply ingrained within human biology, particularly in the context of warfare. Even if we discount the (extensive) evidence within the anthropological record demonstrating this, there are clues baked into human physiology which seem to indicate that the human species itself is uniquely adapted to perpetrating r-word when compared amongst the other hominid species.
(Content warning concluded)
I apologize for bringing such a nasty subject up at all, but it's useful to weigh such things when talking about the deep biological roots of sex and how it makes us think/feel. I personally believe that it's too limiting to describe sex as an implicitly pure thing which only becomes wrong when certain impure people corrupt it. Please don't take that as a doomer statement! I personally see it as a triumpth that, through culture, we can collectively transform an act as ambiguous as sex into an idealized and pure expression of interpersonal love. I nevertheless do still try to be mindful of the capacity for sex to exist outside of the box we've crafted for it, though.