This reminds me an experiment made with capuchin monkeys, where the researchers were using small discs as some sort of currency. They could use it to buy stuff like pieces of cucumber (they eat it, but it’s meh), jell-o (they like it), grapes (they love it)…
One of the things that they reported is that a female exchanged sex for a disc. Then used said disc to buy a grape.
Conclusion: sex for goods is likely a human behaviour that predates humankind itself.
Or maybe it’s not really unique from other animals, we just have fictional currency and choosy morality. Every animal I can think of has the male doing all the courting work. Male spiders dance, birds sing and survive with brighter colors, bugs may lose their heads, giraffes punch females in the bladder to see if they’re even ready for sex, straight female prostitution drastically outweighs straight males, etc. It seems like the one who has to actually develop the offspring has the option to be much choosier. So did the capuchin prostitute herself or is that our morality being imposed on godless creatures who likely see no difference between sex, cleaning, or feeding each other as each is some type of need?
The capuchin engaged in sexual activity for payment, call it what you want but that pretty much the dictionary definition of prostitution. It’s not a moral or god question it’s semantics.
You can pay someone to pretend to be romantic on a date, to give you a massage, or to use their bodies for labor tasks. What exactly makes sex different?
The authors of dictionaries tell you what a word means in common usage. They don’t set the rules. If you don’t beleive there’s flexibility in definitions, look up your own word: literally. Meriam has a second definition of “virtually”
To your point, I think it’s acceptable to call selling your body in a variety of ways prostitution. South Park has an episode from an early season about Kenny, Johnny Knoxville, and Tom Green doing gross stuff for money, in the episode Jesus calls the boys out for helping to make Kenny a prostitute. All that doesn’t change the dictionary definition of prostitution which is what the capuchin was participating in. From the Wikipedia article called “Prostitution”:
Prostitution is the business or practice of engaging in sexual activity in exchange for payment. The definition of “sexual activity” varies, and is often defined as an activity requiring physical contact (e.g., sexual intercourse, non-penetrative sex, manual sex, oral sex, etc.) with the customer.
Thanks for a reasonable response that cites a similar argument that I clearly didn’t deliver well. Maybe I sent the wrong message with the borderline incel line about males doing all the courtship work. I’m aware of how it’s defined but people here are acting incredibly blunt because everyone “knows” prostitution’s meaning. My point was it is sort of vaguely defined if you try to define each component in different regions. So if there’s flexibility there, then what other variation is there? The dictionary’s authors don’t make the rules - they write down how the population agrees to use it. Prime example: Meriam has a a 2nd definition for “literally” that defines it as “virtually”.
I thought we could have a reasonable discussion here but instead I managed to get a bunch of reddit knowitalls. I thought, within a secular crowd, we could reduce the meaning of “prostitution” without morality, but I could certainly agree with South Park’s expansion of the term.
The root of my comment stems from the conservatives around me being totally OK with the intrusion of religious principles into public life, regardless of their own religious stance. From my point of view, they are totally unaware that Christian or atheist, they live life by Christian morals. On the other side of the world, bacon and bare female skin is immoral but prayer is more organized. Between those two geographically, bare boobs are perfectly fine. So this is part of my own exploration into finding how much of my agnostic beliefs only exist because of my local dominant religion.
I’ll be honest, I had to read your comments a couple of times to get the crux of what you were getting at. It’s tough trying to translate our depthless thoughts to a quick comment on a website so a lot of times I don’t comment. Or, if I do, I preface it by stating that I agree with the problem/issue, then I state my case/thought and then reiterate that agree again at the end because it doesn’t matter if it’s Lemmy, Reddit, or some other part of the internet, people read quick and then type something to get a response or make themselves feel better, unfortunately most people aren’t looking for a discussion. And, a lot of time the best discussions come from situations like this where a couple of back and forth comments gets to the real point.
Also good point on dictionary definitions and the use of literally.
Thank you for that. I added a paragraph to the end but might not have been quick enough. Just about why I questioned it at all. Anyway, I’ve certainly [tried to] cut down on the knee-jerk dismissal of comments. We can’t make progress if we only shut down the other side of a debate because they’ll just fortify their position. But I get it, when you interpret someone’s stance a certain way, it can lead to a pretty strong non-constructive emotional response.
I just read your last paragraph and the recent comment and I agree there’s room for discussion in a lot of areas but people retreat to their tried and true positions because it’s comfortable and safe to think like everyone else around them. I wish you luck on your journey, self reflection and growth from a strong religious upbringing/society isn’t easy. I was raised Catholic but thankfully my parents and Catholic School weren’t the hardcore evangelical types so I was able to make my own mental/religious path pretty early in life.
At no point was “godless” meant as an insult. I have no god. Doesn’t change the fact that a large portion of my definitions of moral behavior are rooted in my local dominant religion’s opinion.
This reminds me an experiment made with capuchin monkeys, where the researchers were using small discs as some sort of currency. They could use it to buy stuff like pieces of cucumber (they eat it, but it’s meh), jell-o (they like it), grapes (they love it)…
One of the things that they reported is that a female exchanged sex for a disc. Then used said disc to buy a grape.
Conclusion: sex for goods is likely a human behaviour that predates humankind itself.
Or maybe it’s not really unique from other animals, we just have fictional currency and choosy morality. Every animal I can think of has the male doing all the courting work. Male spiders dance, birds sing and survive with brighter colors, bugs may lose their heads, giraffes punch females in the bladder to see if they’re even ready for sex, straight female prostitution drastically outweighs straight males, etc. It seems like the one who has to actually develop the offspring has the option to be much choosier. So did the capuchin prostitute herself or is that our morality being imposed on godless creatures who likely see no difference between sex, cleaning, or feeding each other as each is some type of need?
The capuchin engaged in sexual activity for payment, call it what you want but that pretty much the dictionary definition of prostitution. It’s not a moral or god question it’s semantics.
You can pay someone to pretend to be romantic on a date, to give you a massage, or to use their bodies for labor tasks. What exactly makes sex different?
Your argument is shit and you know it. Jog on.
Literally the definition of the word.
The authors of dictionaries tell you what a word means in common usage. They don’t set the rules. If you don’t beleive there’s flexibility in definitions, look up your own word: literally. Meriam has a second definition of “virtually”
To your point, I think it’s acceptable to call selling your body in a variety of ways prostitution. South Park has an episode from an early season about Kenny, Johnny Knoxville, and Tom Green doing gross stuff for money, in the episode Jesus calls the boys out for helping to make Kenny a prostitute. All that doesn’t change the dictionary definition of prostitution which is what the capuchin was participating in. From the Wikipedia article called “Prostitution”: Prostitution is the business or practice of engaging in sexual activity in exchange for payment. The definition of “sexual activity” varies, and is often defined as an activity requiring physical contact (e.g., sexual intercourse, non-penetrative sex, manual sex, oral sex, etc.) with the customer.
Thanks for a reasonable response that cites a similar argument that I clearly didn’t deliver well. Maybe I sent the wrong message with the borderline incel line about males doing all the courtship work. I’m aware of how it’s defined but people here are acting incredibly blunt because everyone “knows” prostitution’s meaning. My point was it is sort of vaguely defined if you try to define each component in different regions. So if there’s flexibility there, then what other variation is there? The dictionary’s authors don’t make the rules - they write down how the population agrees to use it. Prime example: Meriam has a a 2nd definition for “literally” that defines it as “virtually”.
I thought we could have a reasonable discussion here but instead I managed to get a bunch of reddit knowitalls. I thought, within a secular crowd, we could reduce the meaning of “prostitution” without morality, but I could certainly agree with South Park’s expansion of the term.
The root of my comment stems from the conservatives around me being totally OK with the intrusion of religious principles into public life, regardless of their own religious stance. From my point of view, they are totally unaware that Christian or atheist, they live life by Christian morals. On the other side of the world, bacon and bare female skin is immoral but prayer is more organized. Between those two geographically, bare boobs are perfectly fine. So this is part of my own exploration into finding how much of my agnostic beliefs only exist because of my local dominant religion.
I’ll be honest, I had to read your comments a couple of times to get the crux of what you were getting at. It’s tough trying to translate our depthless thoughts to a quick comment on a website so a lot of times I don’t comment. Or, if I do, I preface it by stating that I agree with the problem/issue, then I state my case/thought and then reiterate that agree again at the end because it doesn’t matter if it’s Lemmy, Reddit, or some other part of the internet, people read quick and then type something to get a response or make themselves feel better, unfortunately most people aren’t looking for a discussion. And, a lot of time the best discussions come from situations like this where a couple of back and forth comments gets to the real point.
Also good point on dictionary definitions and the use of literally.
Thank you for that. I added a paragraph to the end but might not have been quick enough. Just about why I questioned it at all. Anyway, I’ve certainly [tried to] cut down on the knee-jerk dismissal of comments. We can’t make progress if we only shut down the other side of a debate because they’ll just fortify their position. But I get it, when you interpret someone’s stance a certain way, it can lead to a pretty strong non-constructive emotional response.
I just read your last paragraph and the recent comment and I agree there’s room for discussion in a lot of areas but people retreat to their tried and true positions because it’s comfortable and safe to think like everyone else around them. I wish you luck on your journey, self reflection and growth from a strong religious upbringing/society isn’t easy. I was raised Catholic but thankfully my parents and Catholic School weren’t the hardcore evangelical types so I was able to make my own mental/religious path pretty early in life.
Lmao godless The only difference between you & them is you got a stick up your ass
At no point was “godless” meant as an insult. I have no god. Doesn’t change the fact that a large portion of my definitions of moral behavior are rooted in my local dominant religion’s opinion.
FFS. Are you 12?
So many logical fallacies to unpack, and no formatting to assist in legibility? Nah, I’m good.
No wonder I’m still single.