I think there are sufficiently obvious reasons that no longer apply for traditional sexual mores that most rationalists think they understand why the fence is there, and see why it’s now worth removing.
Lack of birth control and danger of sickness are now trivial concerns, so there is less reason for traditional sexual mores.
Lack of birth control and danger of sickness are now trivial concerns, so there is less reason for traditional sexual mores.
For the people who don’t want to have children, and who won’t change their minds later, maybe this is indeed the whole story.
For the rest of us, it’s a bit more complicated. It could be politically difficult to discuss, because male sexuality is nowadays usually shamed or dismissed as “patriarchy”, but the short version is that many men have a preference for things that in the ancient evolutionary environment would be evidence that the child is biologically theirs… and let’s just say that a history of sex with strangers for money feels like an evidence in the opposite direction.
RE: danger of sickness being a trivial concern, let me look at Wikipedia:
Genital HPV infections have an estimated prevalence in the US of 10–20% and clinical manifestations in 1% of the sexually active adult population. (...) About 80% of those infected are between the ages of 17–33. Although treatments can remove the warts, they do not remove the HPV, so warts can recur after treatment (about 50–73% of the time). Warts can also spontaneously regress (with or without treatment).
Certainly better than dying, but some people may feel like their lives (including their sexual lives) would be better without having itchy genitals.
For the rest of us, it’s a bit more complicated. It could be politically difficult to discuss, because male sexuality is nowadays usually shamed or dismissed as “patriarchy”, but the short version is that many men have a preference for things that in the ancient evolutionary environment would be evidence that the child is biologically theirs… and let’s just say that a history of sex with strangers for money feels like an evidence in the opposite direction.
But, if some men have a politically incorrect preference for virgins, how is a history of whoreing any different from a history of casual sex?
There seems to be a general rule that interactions involving money feel different than interactions not involving money. Not sure what exactly is the mechanism of the underlying feelings.
An interesting point. Off the top of my head I would probably say that money interactions are associated with interactions with strangers, while no-money ones are associated with family/friends, but I’m not sure about this.
Yes, it’s about whether the transaction has (also) a social dimension, or whether it is the kind of interaction we do with faceless strangers.
It would be misleading to try divide the transaction into economical and non-economical. Because many social interactions are on some level economical, at least in a wider sense of the word. We build relationships with people, because we expect to get some value back, but there are many different types of value. People can provide goods (food) or services (advice, emotional support, babysitting); either on regular basis on in case of emergency (i.e. insurance).
But by interacting with someone socially, we accumulate social capital in form of “things we could reasonably expect from these people in the future”. It’s the difference between “what you can expect from your friend” and “what you can expect from a random stranger” that we build when we build a friendship. If today I bring you a plate of my home-made cookies, and tomorrow you bring me a plate of your home-made cookies, on the economical level it balances out, but on social level we both gained something.
On one hand, there needs to be a balance: despite the plate of cookies nominally being a gift, if I keep bringing you the cookies and you never reciprocate in any form, I will probably stop bringing you the cookies, and probably also stop trying to initiate other forms of social interaction. But when a balance is achieved, both sides gain an information that “the other side is able and willing to engage in social interactions with me”. This opens a door to more complex interactions between us in the future. The fact that you reciprocated my gift of cookies is a Bayesian evidence that if tomorrow you borrow my hammer, you are likely to return it; and for the same reasons, if I need a hammer, it will be less awkward to ask you for help, than to ask a person I don’t have such history of interactions with. Today a cookie, tomorrow a hammer, next year it could be a car; as long as neither of us breaks this chain of mutual trust, or we reach a level where one of us is not comfortable with going further.
With money, the general rule is that the money captures all value of the transaction, now. If I sell you cookies, and I see that you like them too much, the price goes up. If a competitor starts selling better or cheaper cookies next door, you stop buying my cookies. If you prefer my cookies to my competitor’s cookies, e.g. because based on previous experience you believe I am more careful at baking them, or because you like my face, then again, the price goes up. I am trying to capture all the value of my cookies, because even if I wouldn’t, you would have no obligation to cooperate with me tomorrow.
(And yeah, some companies try to subvert this process using various tricks such as member cards. Which only proves that these relations are supposed to be one-off by default.)
Back to the cookies example: if I sometimes give you a plate of cookies, and you sometimes give me a plate of cookies, the balance doesn’t have to be exact. Maybe one of us brings the cookies more often. Maybe one of us bakes better cookie. As long as the perceived value of having the social relationship exceeds the differences in the cookies, it’s okay. So, within certain limits, the exact value of the cookies remains unknown.
But if I’ll try to sell you the plate of cookies for $5, you will judge harshly whether $5 is the right price, or whether you could buy the same kind of cookies for $4 at next door. Now the exact value of cookies is explicitly debated and made public knowledge.
...returning to the original example, once a girl sells her virginity for $120k, it becomes public knowledge that the value of her virginity is $120k and not a penny more. Now we have an anchor for further thinking about sex with her. Actually, maybe it is an upper bound of the value. It shows that there was exactly one customer willing to pay $120k; but it also shows that other potential customers thought the price was too high. (We don’t even know whether the customer was satisfied afterwards.) How many potential candidates there were (i.e. how many heterosexual men have heard the offer)? What did the bell curve of their perceptions of the value look like? It is subjective, so probably the variance was very high. Is it plausible that the average was e.g. $10k, and the $120k value was an outlier? How does the fact she is no longer a virgin change the value? Does it drop to a half, i.e. $5k? If I invite her for a date, what is the probability she will afterwards have sex with me? It’s just one date and I am not trying too hard, so maybe 1%. Then, mathematically speaking, my total expenses for the date (the money paid, the value of my time, etc.) should not exceed $50. Hey, I am just taking publicly known information and making some Fermi estimates with it. But it seems like spending an hour dating the girl and buying her more than one Big Mac might be more than she’s worth. (Btw, if I look attractive and give her an orgasm, do I get a discount? I mean, she also received some value from the interaction. Maybe she should also buy me a Big Mac.)
This could be the reason why many girls don’t want to start this chain, and prefer to keep the whole “value of sex and other related interactions” deep in the realm of mystery and plausible deniability.
EDIT: And we could go even further than this. Would you marry this girl? Suppose that marriage means repeated sex, but also with the novelty gone, suppose the value of sex with her drops from $5k to maybe $500 or less per intercourse. On the other hand, she may be a great cook! You know that about 50% of marriages end up with divorce. You own a $200,000 house, and it is realistic to expect that in case of divorce she will get a half; or maybe not, but on the other hand, maybe you will have to pay her alimony. How often do you expect to have sex with her after the wedding? You should be aware that it is in her interest to try to exaggerate this number, but after the wedding she has no obligation to make it greater than zero, and there is nothing you can legally do about it. All numbers considered, how do you feel about rationality of this transaction?
Again, it’s better not to go there, and keep the whole thing in the realm of social interactions. But it takes two to tango. Let’s say you prefer the long-term building of social capital. Does she, though? What is your evidence in either direction? “All I know is she sold her virginity on eBay.” Uhm, let me think about it for a minute...
(Disclaimer: Just in case it isn’t obvious, there are also things men can do that can irrepairably fuck up their value on the dating market. But here I react to a specific proposal aimed at women.)
on the economical level it balances out, but on social level we both gained something
Yep. You basically gained trust and goodwill.
But I’m not sure that the defining characteristic of money transactions is that the money captures all the value. I have a feeling it has more to do with establishing (or not) some obligation for the future.
If you come to my door with a plate of cookies, by accepting it I signal that (1) I am willing to enter into a social relationship with you and (2) I now have a tiny social debt to you. Rejecting a gift is rejecting an offer of a relationship, that’s why it’s an insult in most cultures.
Notice, however, that all this does not apply when money is involved. If I buy something for money, I neither enter a relationship, nor incur a social debt. It’s a transaction without first-order social consequences.
once a girl sells her virginity for $120k, it becomes public knowledge that the value of her virginity is $120k and not a penny more
I don’t know about that. It’s an illiquid market for an idiosyncratic good, not sure you can trust the values to be exact X-D A more important point is that it’s a consumption good so its value post-sale is irrelevant: it does not exist any more.
I think the issue has more to do with the concept of things (and services :-D) that money can’t buy. If you look at it from meta heights, this concept functions as a limit on the power of money in a society. If you can buy everything, a sufficiently rich person can have everything. But if there are things money can’t buy, the power of the super-rich is constrained. This operates on both the legal level and the Overton window levelsl.
It would be wise to think carefully about consequences before saddling up to go tear down that constraint.
Another funny detail is that—although not everyone agrees with this—when something is in the category “a service provided for money to strangers”, various anti-discrimination laws can apply.
Like, if I bring cookies to some randomly selected neighbors, but I “coincidentally” ignore all black people… people may notice, but there is nothing they could legally do about it. On the other hand, if I start selling the cookies on the street, and then refuse to sell them to black people, there may be a problem.
Similarly, a girl who dates a few guys who all happen to be white is nothing to be debated. But if she happens to have a prejudice against black guys, and she publicly offers to provide sex for money, and a black customer shows interest in the offer, and she refuses… it could become quite interesting, if the offended customer decides to take legal action. (Or, what if the customer is a lesbian?)
when something is in the category “a service provided for money to strangers”, various anti-discrimination laws can apply.
Depends on the local laws, obviously, but I don’t think it’s a function of “for money”, instead it’s a function of being a public business. To clarify, I believe that in the US a private club can discriminate as much as it wants—it’s perfectly legal for a private club to admit, say, only black Christian women under the age of 30. And the club can charge money for what it does. The critical difference is that it doesn’t offer its services to the general public.
it could become quite interesting, if the offended customer decides to take legal action
There’s also this theory, which suggests that prostitution and marriage tend to be incompatible alternatives—prostitution is relatively lucrative because the marriage “market” provides a competing option that puts a floor on the prices women are willing to accept.
I agree that this is the common “rationalist” attitude to this question, but I think it is nonetheless extremely naive. Rather like saying, “The dangers of drunk driving are sufficiently well known that we can solve them with the simple expedient of driving slowly when you are drunk.”
I think there are sufficiently obvious reasons that no longer apply for traditional sexual mores that most rationalists think they understand why the fence is there, and see why it’s now worth removing.
Lack of birth control and danger of sickness are now trivial concerns, so there is less reason for traditional sexual mores.
For the people who don’t want to have children, and who won’t change their minds later, maybe this is indeed the whole story.
For the rest of us, it’s a bit more complicated. It could be politically difficult to discuss, because male sexuality is nowadays usually shamed or dismissed as “patriarchy”, but the short version is that many men have a preference for things that in the ancient evolutionary environment would be evidence that the child is biologically theirs… and let’s just say that a history of sex with strangers for money feels like an evidence in the opposite direction.
RE: danger of sickness being a trivial concern, let me look at Wikipedia:
Certainly better than dying, but some people may feel like their lives (including their sexual lives) would be better without having itchy genitals.
But, if some men have a politically incorrect preference for virgins, how is a history of whoreing any different from a history of casual sex?
There seems to be a general rule that interactions involving money feel different than interactions not involving money. Not sure what exactly is the mechanism of the underlying feelings.
An interesting point. Off the top of my head I would probably say that money interactions are associated with interactions with strangers, while no-money ones are associated with family/friends, but I’m not sure about this.
Yes, it’s about whether the transaction has (also) a social dimension, or whether it is the kind of interaction we do with faceless strangers.
It would be misleading to try divide the transaction into economical and non-economical. Because many social interactions are on some level economical, at least in a wider sense of the word. We build relationships with people, because we expect to get some value back, but there are many different types of value. People can provide goods (food) or services (advice, emotional support, babysitting); either on regular basis on in case of emergency (i.e. insurance).
But by interacting with someone socially, we accumulate social capital in form of “things we could reasonably expect from these people in the future”. It’s the difference between “what you can expect from your friend” and “what you can expect from a random stranger” that we build when we build a friendship. If today I bring you a plate of my home-made cookies, and tomorrow you bring me a plate of your home-made cookies, on the economical level it balances out, but on social level we both gained something.
On one hand, there needs to be a balance: despite the plate of cookies nominally being a gift, if I keep bringing you the cookies and you never reciprocate in any form, I will probably stop bringing you the cookies, and probably also stop trying to initiate other forms of social interaction. But when a balance is achieved, both sides gain an information that “the other side is able and willing to engage in social interactions with me”. This opens a door to more complex interactions between us in the future. The fact that you reciprocated my gift of cookies is a Bayesian evidence that if tomorrow you borrow my hammer, you are likely to return it; and for the same reasons, if I need a hammer, it will be less awkward to ask you for help, than to ask a person I don’t have such history of interactions with. Today a cookie, tomorrow a hammer, next year it could be a car; as long as neither of us breaks this chain of mutual trust, or we reach a level where one of us is not comfortable with going further.
With money, the general rule is that the money captures all value of the transaction, now. If I sell you cookies, and I see that you like them too much, the price goes up. If a competitor starts selling better or cheaper cookies next door, you stop buying my cookies. If you prefer my cookies to my competitor’s cookies, e.g. because based on previous experience you believe I am more careful at baking them, or because you like my face, then again, the price goes up. I am trying to capture all the value of my cookies, because even if I wouldn’t, you would have no obligation to cooperate with me tomorrow.
(And yeah, some companies try to subvert this process using various tricks such as member cards. Which only proves that these relations are supposed to be one-off by default.)
Back to the cookies example: if I sometimes give you a plate of cookies, and you sometimes give me a plate of cookies, the balance doesn’t have to be exact. Maybe one of us brings the cookies more often. Maybe one of us bakes better cookie. As long as the perceived value of having the social relationship exceeds the differences in the cookies, it’s okay. So, within certain limits, the exact value of the cookies remains unknown.
But if I’ll try to sell you the plate of cookies for $5, you will judge harshly whether $5 is the right price, or whether you could buy the same kind of cookies for $4 at next door. Now the exact value of cookies is explicitly debated and made public knowledge.
...returning to the original example, once a girl sells her virginity for $120k, it becomes public knowledge that the value of her virginity is $120k and not a penny more. Now we have an anchor for further thinking about sex with her. Actually, maybe it is an upper bound of the value. It shows that there was exactly one customer willing to pay $120k; but it also shows that other potential customers thought the price was too high. (We don’t even know whether the customer was satisfied afterwards.) How many potential candidates there were (i.e. how many heterosexual men have heard the offer)? What did the bell curve of their perceptions of the value look like? It is subjective, so probably the variance was very high. Is it plausible that the average was e.g. $10k, and the $120k value was an outlier? How does the fact she is no longer a virgin change the value? Does it drop to a half, i.e. $5k? If I invite her for a date, what is the probability she will afterwards have sex with me? It’s just one date and I am not trying too hard, so maybe 1%. Then, mathematically speaking, my total expenses for the date (the money paid, the value of my time, etc.) should not exceed $50. Hey, I am just taking publicly known information and making some Fermi estimates with it. But it seems like spending an hour dating the girl and buying her more than one Big Mac might be more than she’s worth. (Btw, if I look attractive and give her an orgasm, do I get a discount? I mean, she also received some value from the interaction. Maybe she should also buy me a Big Mac.)
This could be the reason why many girls don’t want to start this chain, and prefer to keep the whole “value of sex and other related interactions” deep in the realm of mystery and plausible deniability.
EDIT: And we could go even further than this. Would you marry this girl? Suppose that marriage means repeated sex, but also with the novelty gone, suppose the value of sex with her drops from $5k to maybe $500 or less per intercourse. On the other hand, she may be a great cook! You know that about 50% of marriages end up with divorce. You own a $200,000 house, and it is realistic to expect that in case of divorce she will get a half; or maybe not, but on the other hand, maybe you will have to pay her alimony. How often do you expect to have sex with her after the wedding? You should be aware that it is in her interest to try to exaggerate this number, but after the wedding she has no obligation to make it greater than zero, and there is nothing you can legally do about it. All numbers considered, how do you feel about rationality of this transaction?
Again, it’s better not to go there, and keep the whole thing in the realm of social interactions. But it takes two to tango. Let’s say you prefer the long-term building of social capital. Does she, though? What is your evidence in either direction? “All I know is she sold her virginity on eBay.” Uhm, let me think about it for a minute...
(Disclaimer: Just in case it isn’t obvious, there are also things men can do that can irrepairably fuck up their value on the dating market. But here I react to a specific proposal aimed at women.)
Yep. You basically gained trust and goodwill.
But I’m not sure that the defining characteristic of money transactions is that the money captures all the value. I have a feeling it has more to do with establishing (or not) some obligation for the future.
If you come to my door with a plate of cookies, by accepting it I signal that (1) I am willing to enter into a social relationship with you and (2) I now have a tiny social debt to you. Rejecting a gift is rejecting an offer of a relationship, that’s why it’s an insult in most cultures.
Notice, however, that all this does not apply when money is involved. If I buy something for money, I neither enter a relationship, nor incur a social debt. It’s a transaction without first-order social consequences.
I don’t know about that. It’s an illiquid market for an idiosyncratic good, not sure you can trust the values to be exact X-D A more important point is that it’s a consumption good so its value post-sale is irrelevant: it does not exist any more.
I think the issue has more to do with the concept of things (and services :-D) that money can’t buy. If you look at it from meta heights, this concept functions as a limit on the power of money in a society. If you can buy everything, a sufficiently rich person can have everything. But if there are things money can’t buy, the power of the super-rich is constrained. This operates on both the legal level and the Overton window levelsl.
It would be wise to think carefully about consequences before saddling up to go tear down that constraint.
Another funny detail is that—although not everyone agrees with this—when something is in the category “a service provided for money to strangers”, various anti-discrimination laws can apply.
Like, if I bring cookies to some randomly selected neighbors, but I “coincidentally” ignore all black people… people may notice, but there is nothing they could legally do about it. On the other hand, if I start selling the cookies on the street, and then refuse to sell them to black people, there may be a problem.
Similarly, a girl who dates a few guys who all happen to be white is nothing to be debated. But if she happens to have a prejudice against black guys, and she publicly offers to provide sex for money, and a black customer shows interest in the offer, and she refuses… it could become quite interesting, if the offended customer decides to take legal action. (Or, what if the customer is a lesbian?)
Depends on the local laws, obviously, but I don’t think it’s a function of “for money”, instead it’s a function of being a public business. To clarify, I believe that in the US a private club can discriminate as much as it wants—it’s perfectly legal for a private club to admit, say, only black Christian women under the age of 30. And the club can charge money for what it does. The critical difference is that it doesn’t offer its services to the general public.
So if the customer is a dick… X-D
Except some people do sleep with strangers without charging money.
There’s also this theory, which suggests that prostitution and marriage tend to be incompatible alternatives—prostitution is relatively lucrative because the marriage “market” provides a competing option that puts a floor on the prices women are willing to accept.
(Sorry about the paywalled article.)
I agree that this is the common “rationalist” attitude to this question, but I think it is nonetheless extremely naive. Rather like saying, “The dangers of drunk driving are sufficiently well known that we can solve them with the simple expedient of driving slowly when you are drunk.”