You’re cool.

From Conservative Grapevine, 20) Buikhu: An awesome retouched photo of blogger Kit Lange (this is really cool) 19) Cassy Fiano: “We all know you’re jealous because she has bigger cha-cha’s and gets fame from it!!!!” 18) Best Week Ever: The……

Thanks for the reply.

I can see where you would arrive at that conclusion. I welcome your comments let me explain my take on this.

The real world is meesy and trashes many elegant theories. I was using economic theory to explain human action but as usual when applied to the open ended real world it gets messy. Love can infiltrate and blow away perfect economic theory but the basic principle can remain.

When comparing sex in a committed relationship that is not desire balanced you are still engaging in an economic behaviour. Instead of common prostitution fee for service you have a long term investment or retirement account strategy.

You are building up a nest egg of good will and accomadation that can be returned or drawn upon. That this may result in deepening of love is like having your stock split or winning the lottery.

So yes this is not a simple purchase but in my opinion is still covered by the theory of economic behavior.

Steve

I have come to believe and understand that having or engaging in sex for any other reason than the enjoyment of sex is prostitution.

I don’t believe this is always true, and I hope I can make my case intelligently and clearly enough.

Outside of a committed relationship (marriage), I can see your point. In that situation, where there is no intention to build a lifelong relation, there must instead be an expectation of a short-term payoff: either mutual short-term pleasure, or, otherwise, one partner is giving pleasure in trade for another kind of short-term payback.

But if a couple is working on building an expected lifelong relationship, I think there can be *many* things one might do — which one does not immediately anticipate enjoying — but which might be done to build and strengthen the relationship. A woman might have sex with her husband when she’s not really interested in it — but simply might do so for him. Likewise, a man might hold or otherwise act romantic or emotionally intimate towards his wife even when he has no such natural inclination, and is only “simulating” romance.

(And sometimes, the real thing follows afterwards anyway.)

By doing so, she is no more being a prostitute than he is being a gigolo. They’re both doing something selflessly for the other (in the short term) — and yet also doing something which will most like also benefit themselves (and possibly their whole family) in the long term.

Just a thought.

I can see why you would think that. However the economic exchange angle was the second point and I was trying to get at the idea of honest trade. I wholeheartedly agree with you that marriage should not be economic in nature but we live in an imperfect world and many relationships are not the model of romantic purity at all times.

What is horrible is when an implied contract is offered and then the terms of the contract are assumed to be null and void only after services have been recieved. ie: the implication of make me happy and you will earn my love and attention. This may not apply to your relationship but observe many out there and you will see the signs of these principles at work.

You stated “To suggest that there’s some sort of contractual status to sex in marriage is to utterly cheapen the union”
This is for those who still are able to understand that this cheapens the union, many are not. Even some ideologically sound conservatives cannot grasp this.

So in short you are correct in the second point but missed my frist point.

Steve

While you are 100% correct in your observations here, I kept thinking to myself that Margaret Cho is simply unworthy of your time.

sounds like she wanted to get married and he didn’t want to.

Guy really dodged a bullet there, didn’t he…

Steve, I just wanna say this: If you feel as though you are doing X to get sex from you SO, you’re doing it wrong.

I don’t buy things for girlfriends, take them to dinner, spend time with them, do things for them, just so they will have sex with me. I do them because I care about them.

The day you start viewing that exchange as “banking up for sex” is the day you need to end the relationship, because you’re not acting out of caring, you’re acting out of sense of indebtedness.

To suggest that there’s some sort of contractual status to sex in marriage is to utterly cheapen the union.

COnsidering you utterly negate Cassy’s point, I find it unlikely you actually agreed with her on anything she said.

I understand and agree with the main thrust of your argument, however let me add this.

I have come to believe and understand that having or engaging in sex for any other reason than the enjoyment of sex is prostitution. One can have many levels of prostitution some so high and cultured that they are stratospheric in class but in the end are still prostitution. Marriages that use sex to snare or maintain a marriage are forms of prostitution. Sex for marital duty is also a form of prostitution. I have a hard line; have sex because you want to have sex not because of ANYTHING you may get in exchange for it. On the other hand you can live with certain occasional high forms of prostitution just be clear with yourself as to what you are doing, and why.

Also if you don’t like sex or it is a chore do not pretend it is not, be honest. Intimate politeness does not hide the truth but rather when properly used either lubricates it so it will go down easier or schedules it for the right moment.

Also if one engages in marital or other high forms of prostitution if you are honest you should treat it like any other contract.

I provide X service for Y result. Modern Feminism, I have seen often will promise X service for Y result, and then believe that breaking the implied contract is a moral sanctified right.

I believe this is one of the basic underlying differences between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives keep their contractual obligations whereas Liberals seek ways to claim moral justification in getting the benifit then ignoring the contractual obligation and then calling any attempt to collect (regardless of how civilzed or polite) a form of rape. To make this easier they lay the groundwork of arguing all heterosexual intimate contact is a form of rape.

I would like to here your thoughts on this.

Steve