NSFW Any Indians who have been to an escort and can help with some leads? Want to have some good time at least once before I CTB.

[thefinalfavour]

My CTB date is getting close. Don't really wanna die a virgin and want to experience some intimacy and fun for once. Easy to get in trouble and scammed here if you are not careful. Would appreciate if anyone can help with some trusted leads.

 

[martyrdom]

Prostitution is paid rape. You can't buy consent. Don't do this

 

[thefinalfavour]

Prostitution is paid rape. You can't buy consent. Don't do this

I don't see anything wrong with it if you are going to independent girls who do not have a pimp to manage them. They are free to provide the service, set their own rates and do things as per their terms.

 

[martyrdom]

I don't see anything wrong with it if you are going to independent girls who do not have a pimp to manage them. They are free to provide the service, set their own rates and do things as per their terms.

You are having sex with someone who does not want to and would not have sex with you unless she were being paid. That's not consent. You also never know if she is being trafficked or has a pimp, it's never obvious at all. But even if she wasn't being trafficked and you could be sure of that, you don't know if she's doing it because she has no other option financially and she's not going to tell you.

 

[thefinalfavour]

You are having sex with someone who does not want to and would not have sex with you unless she were being paid. That's not consent. You also never know if she is being trafficked or has a pimp, it's never obvious at all. But even if she wasn't being trafficked and you could be sure of that, you don't know if she's doing it because she has no other option financially and she's not going to tell you.

You're treating "not wanting sex without payment" as the same as "not consenting," but that's not how consent works. Consent is about choice, not desire. People do all kinds of jobs they wouldn't do for free, payment doesn't automatically mean coercion.

If an independent adult chooses sex work because it pays well or suits their life, that's still a valid choice. Independent escorts charging $500–$1000 an hour are clearly not the most exploited people in society. And many independent workers operating at high rates very clearly are in control of their choices.

 

[martyrdom]

You're treating "not wanting sex without payment" as the same as "not consenting," but that's not how consent works. Consent is about choice, not desire. People do all kinds of jobs they wouldn't do for free, payment doesn't automatically mean coercion.

Consent is about both choice and desire. It's extremely disingenuous to pretend that having sex you don't want for money is the same as flipping burgers.

If an independent adult chooses sex work because it pays well or suits their life, that's still a valid choice. Independent escorts charging $500–$1000 an hour are clearly not the most exploited people in society. And many independent workers operating at high rates very clearly are in control of their choices.

How the fuck do you know they're "clearly" not exploited? There is no way for you as an outsider and as a client to know anything about their situation and what's going on behind the scenes. You're either being purposefully obtuse or you're lying to yourself to avoid guilt and shame.

 

[thefinalfavour]

Consent is about both choice and desire. It's extremely disingenuous to pretend that having sex you don't want for money is the same as flipping burgers.


How the fuck do you know they're "clearly" not exploited? There is no way for you as an outsider and as a client to know anything about their situation and what's going on behind the scenes. You're either being purposefully obtuse or you're lying to yourself to avoid guilt and shame.

You're mixing up desire with consent. They're not the same thing. People routinely do difficult, unpleasant, or emotionally draining jobs they don't desire but still consent to because the compensation, boundaries, and conditions make it worthwhile. Pretending sex work is uniquely invalid because "they wouldn't do it for free" ignores how all labor works.

And yes, no outsider can know every detail of anyone's situation. But that uncertainty applies to any job. You don't know whether your delivery driver is in debt bondage, whether the maid at a hotel is being abused, or whether a construction worker is being threatened by a contractor. The possibility of exploitation doesn't mean every instance is exploitation.

The point isn't to claim "all escorts are safe and empowered," it's that you can't claim the opposite either. You can't treat an entire group as victims by default just because the job makes you uncomfortable. Blanket statements like "it's all rape" don't help real victims, they erase the distinction between coercion and consensual adult work, which makes actual exploitation harder to identify.

 

[martyrdom]

Ok Chatgpt

 

[thefinalfavour]

Ok Chatgpt

Ok Ignorant simpleton

 

[martyrdom]

Your response boils down to "I can't know if anyone is exploited for sure so it's fine to have sex with a woman who may be trafficked and sexually exploited because that's life and you never know". And you couldn't even come up with this nonsense by yourself, chatgpt had to do it for you. You're just making excuses because you prioritize your pleasure over another person's well being. I'm done with the conversation

 

[thefinalfavour]

Your response boils down to "I can't know if anyone is exploited for sure so it's fine to have sex with a woman who may be trafficked and sexually exploited because that's life and you never know". And you couldn't even cope up with this nonsense by yourself, chatgpt had to do it for you. You're just making excuses because you prioritize your pleasure over another person's well being. I'm done with the conversation

The fact that in this day and age, you are still stuck with the dumb nonsense of every escort is being raped told me all about how stupid you are from your very first message. So, I did go to ChatGPT to just have some fun with as you are not even worth having a real conversation with.. Props to you on bringing this deadbeat argument to a person who is actually planning to die as you don't have the balls to confront people who have the actual jobs of exploiting trafficked women every day.

 

[Dejected 55]

Some sex workers are abused and exploited. This is true... and it can be hard to tell.

But on this very forum are LOTS of women who post about their depression and how they punish/torture themselves by going and having sex with random people. They do this for free, no money exchanged, but their "consent" comes from a place of wanting to be hurt and abused... but I don't see the person claiming all sex workers are being raped standing up in the same way to defend these depressed women who are having sex for free just to hurt themselves. Those women are being hurt and not truly consenting and not being paid, but everything about what they are doing is harmful to them.

Meanwhile... the "if you pay for it it isn't consent" argument falls apart very quickly when you consider the ins and outs of dating. Men are typically expected to pay for dates, which can be expensive dinner and movies or some event or experience or whatever... and if that woman goes back and has sex with him later, did she get paid to do it? I mean, had the man not paid for the expensive dinner and show/experience would she have "wanted" to go back and have sex with him? It's doubtful... so did she also get "paid" for sex? I mean, where are you drawing lines?

The OP was seeking genuine assistance, which I unfortunately cannot help with... but jumping in with the one-sided "all prostitution is bad because I think it is bad" argument isn't helping anyone. Not the OP and certainly not any actually trafficked women in the world.

 

[martyrdom]

But on this very forum are LOTS of women who post about their depression and how they punish/torture themselves by going and having sex with random people. They do this for free, no money exchanged, but their "consent" comes from a place of wanting to be hurt and abused... but I don't see the person claiming all sex workers are being raped standing up in the same way to defend these depressed women who are having sex for free just to hurt themselves. Those women are being hurt and not truly consenting and not being paid, but everything about what they are doing is harmful to them.

Not sure why you thought I don't defend those women. I do, and I consider that exploitation as well.

Meanwhile... the "if you pay for it it isn't consent" argument falls apart very quickly when you consider the ins and outs of dating. Men are typically expected to pay for dates, which can be expensive dinner and movies or some event or experience or whatever... and if that woman goes back and has sex with him later, did she get paid to do it? I mean, had the man not paid for the expensive dinner and show/experience would she have "wanted" to go back and have sex with him? It's doubtful... so did she also get "paid" for sex? I mean, where are you drawing lines?

No? That's not how sex or how mutual attraction works at all.

 

[Dejected 55]

Not sure why you thought I don't defend those women. I do, and I consider that exploitation as well.


No? That's not how sex or how mutual attraction works at all.

But how are you defending those women? If you met one of them, how would you "know" the difference between a woman who had sex with you because she consented Vs because she wants to hurt herself through sex? Unless you are able to read minds, how are you going to know you didn't just victimize a woman yourself?

Meanwhile... Are you saying men and women don't go out on dates and then have sex? And that the sex that happens after those dates would not have happened except for the date beforehand? And that on some level, that kind of makes the sex non-consensual (by your definitions) since it came as a result of a transaction where the man paid for a date and the woman felt on some level obligated to give that man sex as a result?

Women speak of this all the time... feeling like society tells them they "owe" men sex after a date that he pays for... part of the transaction in the social marketplace and all that.

I mean, if you get right down to it, what even is "consent"? I mean, we are all made up of chemicals and biological urges that sometimes drive us to say and do things we otherwise wouldn't... so do any of us truly consent to sex with another person? Or are we driven by our body chemistry to "mate" beyond our ability to actually consent?

If we're actually talking defense of people who are victims of abuse and human trafficking... then I'm with you 100%. But when you declare arbitrarily that ALL sex workers are being raped and never consent... that's a bridge too far, and you're actually not defending women anymore. In fact, you're attempting to control those women who want to do the work either for pleasure or money or both. You've decided how you feel, and that's fine for you, but when you declare your view is the be-all only correct view and that all sex work is rape... you're trying to be controlling and abusive in your own way. I don't know how you can't see that.

 

[martyrdom]

But how are you defending those women? If you met one of them, how would you "know" the difference between a woman who had sex with you because she consented Vs because she wants to hurt herself through sex? Unless you are able to read minds, how are you going to know you didn't just victimize a woman yourself?

Social intuition, empathy, discussion, knowing the other person before doing anything. Basic social skills and connection.

Meanwhile... Are you saying men and women don't go out on dates and then have sex? And that the sex that happens after those dates would not have happened except for the date beforehand? And that on some level, that kind of makes the sex non-consensual (by your definitions) since it came as a result of a transaction where the man paid for a date and the woman felt on some level obligated to give that man sex as a result?

If a woman felt OBLIGATED to have sex with a man because he paid for some dinner, that's not consensual either. It's completely different if there is mutual attraction that evolved into sex because they like each other and both want to do it.

Women speak of this all the time... feeling like society tells them they "owe" men sex after a date that he pays for... part of the transaction in the social marketplace and all that.

Yeah it's part of female oppression and misogyny.

I mean, if you get right down to it, what even is "consent"? I mean, we are all made up of chemicals and biological urges that sometimes drive us to say and do things we otherwise wouldn't... so do any of us truly consent to sex with another person? Or are we driven by our body chemistry to "mate" beyond our ability to actually consent?

This is a thought experiment completely disconnected from real life. You can philosophize about it all day but it won't change what happens in real situations when consent is violated or was never given.

If we're actually talking defense of people who are victims of abuse and human trafficking... then I'm with you 100%. But when you declare arbitrarily that ALL sex workers are being raped and never consent... that's a bridge too far, and you're actually not defending women anymore. In fact, you're attempting to control those women who want to do the work either for pleasure or money or both. You've decided how you feel, and that's fine for you, but when you declare your view is the be-all only correct view and that all sex work is rape... you're trying to be controlling and abusive in your own way. I don't know how you can't see that.

I'm not criticizing or trying to control any woman. I take issue with the johns who want to have sex with someone who doesn't want it. I never once focused on what women should and shouldn't do, I focused on why a man feels he has the right to do this to a woman.

 

[sadman1897]

www.skipthegames.com

 

[nobody_oac]

www.skipthegames.com

1up for providing an answer. Glad I stuck around till the end.

 

[sadman1897]

Happy to help lol

 

[Dejected 55]

I'm not criticizing or trying to control any woman. I take issue with the johns who want to have sex with someone who doesn't want it. I never once focused on what women should and shouldn't do, I focused on why a man feels he has the right to do this to a woman.

So... the "john" is evil and taking advantage of the woman in all cases according to you... but you're somehow not criticizing or trying to control a woman having the freedom to decide to sell herself in this way if she wants? You realize that makes no sense, right? If you're going to criticize all her potential customers, then you're saying she has no right to her chosen profession... which is de facto attempting to control her.

You're speaking in absolutism that declares no woman could ever be in charge of herself and her body to the point of choosing this as a way to make money. And you really don't see this as just another kind of misogyny?

 

[martyrdom]

So... the "john" is evil and taking advantage of the woman in all cases according to you... but you're somehow not criticizing or trying to control a woman having the freedom to decide to sell herself in this way if she wants? You realize that makes no sense, right? If you're going to criticize all her potential customers, then you're saying she has no right to her chosen profession... which is de facto attempting to control her.

So if I hate sweatshops, that means I'm criticizing and attempting to control the workers and remove their "right" to be exploited in a sweatshop? I don't care about whatever reason a woman has for doing it because she's not the one at fault. I care only about the johns and why they think they have a right to dehumanize, commodify and buy sexual access to a woman. Selling and buying human beings is the height of consumerism. I fundamentally don't believe in a society where men can buy women. You're deflecting to "but what if the woman wants it" and trying to call me misogynistic because you have no answer to this very simple question: why is a man okay with having sex with someone who does not want to and would not do it if she were not being paid, and why is that okay or acceptable to you?

 

[gunmetalblue11]

If you met one of them, how would you "know" the difference between a woman who had sex with you because she consented Vs because she wants to hurt herself through sex? Unless you are able to read minds, how are you going to know you didn't just victimize a woman yourself?

Communication and social skills mostly. Read body language and the general context of the situation and how it lead up to there. Some may think that "well I shouldn't have to do that", I believe it's necessary when being an empathetic, semi decent human who sees the person they are going to engage in intimacy with as a complex being with feelings rather then an object.
And if that isn't possible, for whatever reason, or you remain insure of the person's consent you can just walk away.
Also, I think this is a particularly complicated example. Because for example, people can be lead to join kink communities to find other like-minded people to play out such desires, and all that under usually very long, detailed and extensive discussion about boundaries and consent within what they decide will be a safe space. (When kink is done properly obviously...). But also, if a person wishes to engage in intimacy with the intention of self harm, are they able to give consent, is their state of mind or struggles not clouding their judgement as one would have if under the influence of substance.

And that on some level, that kind of makes the sex non-consensual (by your definitions) since it came as a result of a transaction where the man paid for a date and the woman felt on some level obligated to give that man sex as a result?

Obviously inviting someone out for a meal and evening, paying for everything does not make anyone entitled to perform any sexual act in return. You mentioned this above and I agree, it is wrong. I'd also add that yes, if a person feels pressured to repay through sex, that is a form of coercion, that is SA.

I mean, if you get right down to it, what even is "consent"?

"Consent is the act of voluntarily giving permission to a specific action. For consent to be valid, the individual must be fully informed of what they are consenting to, and give their consent without coercion."
Under the GDPR consent must be granular (= Granular means the component parts of a whole are easy to observe. For consent to be granular, the consenting party must be aware of each specific action they are consenting to.)

Consent requires voluntary, informed, mutual, honest, and verbal or non verbal agreement.
Consent is ongoing and must be asked for every step of the way of a intimate encounter, in any way the people involve choses.
Consent can be withdrawn at any time, and consenting to one intimate activity does not automatically mean consenting to another.
All this is why children cannot give their consent for example. And if you want to be daring and push it, animals too.

I mean, we are all made up of chemicals and biological urges that sometimes drive us to say and do things we otherwise wouldn't...

Humans have lost connection with most biological impluses for a long time now. We no longer have a mating cycle (estrus cycle). Animals operate on instinct, humans on the other hand usually act on executive function. Instinct is not determant, cognition is.
For example, some chose a life of complete celibacy. It can be because of religious beliefs, psychological hindrance, or simply the way their cognition is wired. Asexual and aromantic people for example. Humans can override reproductive impulses and have for decades, that proves that decision making in most cases overrides biological impulses. Also during intimacy, humans negociate and generally share preferences for intimacy, set boundaries and share past trauma at times. Animals who are closer to biological impluses don't.
I can go on.

so do any of us truly consent to sex with another person?

Yes. Absolutely.

Or are we driven by our body chemistry to "mate" beyond our ability to actually consent?

Consent exists because as humans we are capable of saying both "yes" and "no" from a position of mutual awareness. And either can be stated or withdrawn at any point in any intimate encounter. "Modern" humans like us, the term might not be correct, are not guided or blinded by mating impluses, but rather reflective decision making.

 

[nobody_oac]

1up for providing an answer. Glad I stuck around till the end.

Happy to help lol

I'm so inconsiderate. I'm sorry, this is not the website to hand out extra lives. (Too dark?)

 

[sadman1897]

I'm so inconsiderate. I'm sorry, this is not the website to hand out extra lives. (Too dark?)

You wanted access to an escort , there you are

 

[Dejected 55]

So if I hate sweatshops, that means I'm criticizing and attempting to control the workers and remove their "right" to be exploited in a sweatshop? I don't care about whatever reason a woman has for doing it because she's not the one at fault. I care only about the johns and why they think they have a right to dehumanize, commodify and buy sexual access to a woman. Selling and buying human beings is the height of consumerism. I fundamentally don't believe in a society where men can buy women. You're deflecting to "but what if the woman wants it" and trying to call me misogynistic because you have no answer to this very simple question: why is a man okay with having sex with someone who does not want to and would not do it if she were not being paid, and why is that okay or acceptable to you?

You're equating all sex workers to a sweatshop. But not everyone is happy with their job. Many people are overworked and underpaid but are still not working in a sweatshop. You, however, have declared that it is impossible for a woman to perform as a sex worker of her own voluntary and with consent. Therefore, you have decided that all sex workers are in a sweatshop, but there is nothing but your own opinion to validate this assertion.

I would not defend conditions in a sweatshop. But *I* don't believe all manufacturing operations are sweatshops. I agree there are far too many (one would be too many) but I don't declare all manufacturing operations to be sweatshops just because I don't like sweatshops. You, however, don't like sex work and are declaring all sex workers to be involuntary slaves who are being exploited. You've offered exactly zero evidence to support this beyond your own opinion to be unfavorable to anyone accepting pay for sex.

I don't know at this point if you are being stubborn or genuinely do not see why what you are asserting has no basis in reality.

"Consent is the act of voluntarily giving permission to a specific action. For consent to be valid, the individual must be fully informed of what they are consenting to, and give their consent without coercion."
Under the GDPR consent must be granular (= Granular means the component parts of a whole are easy to observe. For consent to be granular, the consenting party must be aware of each specific action they are consenting to.)

Consent requires voluntary, informed, mutual, honest, and verbal or non verbal agreement.
Consent is ongoing and must be asked for every step of the way of a intimate encounter, in any way the people involve choses.
Consent can be withdrawn at any time, and consenting to one intimate activity does not automatically mean consenting to another.
All this is why children cannot give their consent for example. And if you want to be daring and push it, animals too.

Humans have lost connection with most biological impluses for a long time now. We no longer have a mating cycle (estrus cycle). Animals operate on instinct, humans on the other hand usually act on executive function. Instinct is not determant, cognition is.
For example, some chose a life of complete celibacy. It can be because of religious beliefs, psychological hindrance, or simply the way their cognition is wired. Asexual and aromantic people for example. Humans can override reproductive impulses and have for decades, that proves that decision making in most cases overrides biological impulses. Also during intimacy, humans negociate and generally share preferences for intimacy, set boundaries and share past trauma at times. Animals who are closer to biological impluses don't.
I can go on.

Consent exists because as humans we are capable of saying both "yes" and "no" from a position of mutual awareness. And either can be stated or withdrawn at any point in any intimate encounter. "Modern" humans like us, the term might not be correct, are not guided or blinded by mating impluses, but rather reflective decision making.

You describe consent accurately, as far as I understand it... but note that nowhere in the accepted definition you cite does it say that someone cannot be paid for consent. That's the assertion of the person I've been debating with here... he is asserting that IF money is exchanged then there is no real consent. I've said that assertion is absurd. You don't appear to be arguing with my position. You seem to be supporting it here, but I don't think the other person is going to see it.

I agree with most of your points... but we are still animals and we still act on chemical and biological impulses. Our moods determine our actions sometimes, and our chemical levels in our brains and bodies do as well. This is undeniable science. Sure, some can choose to act on those impulses... just like we can choose to starve ourselves to death or otherwise commit suicide (as in the forum we are participating) but that doesn't mean the urges and impulses aren't there. It isn't "natural" to wear clothes... but we do... but our choices sometimes against our nature doesn't mean the nature isn't there.

 

[nobody_oac]

You wanted access to an escort , there you are

My apologies, I wasn't trying to be rude. I was making a dark joke about my original comment and not trying to sleight you. I was going to throw you points but being an older gamer, I chose poorly.

As for the original comment, it is certainly useful information. I commented because I was amused by the situation. While the whole thing is an interesting read, I found it refreshing to see someone just give a direct answer.

I only intended to give kudos. The joke was an afterthought, in general, and not meant to be at your expense. I will be more cautious in the future.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

Communication and social skills mostly. Read body language and the general context of the situation and how it lead up to there. Some may think that "well I shouldn't have to do that", I believe it's necessary when being an empathetic, semi decent human who sees the person they are going to engage in intimacy with as a complex being with feelings rather then an object.
And if that isn't possible, for whatever reason, or you remain insure of the person's consent you can just walk away.

I'm interested on your thoughts regarding people who cannot rely on these "social skills" having consensual sex with a potentially self-harming partner. Those with alexthymia due to autism or dissociation, those who were born without empathy or lost it later, etc.

If we can only rely on our words to communicate, and said self-harming partner chooses to lie, how can we avoid that? Consent is paramount, but if this person lies and someone cannot read any body language signs of that lie, it leaves us with a bit of an issue.


I truly believe that sex workers can consent—as much as consent is currently defined in a capitalistic world. In a world without the need to work for money, things might be different for many, as there is less of a difference between sex work and normal work than people seem to think.

But I have actually befriended people who have enjoyed sex work (with very strict boundaries for each client) on the idea that, for them, it is a win-win. The client gets sex, the worker gets sex and money. It is different for many, but those who enjoy their job do exist.

 

[gunmetalblue11]

I'm interested on your thoughts regarding people who cannot rely on these "social skills" having consensual sex with a potentially self-harming partner. Those with alexthymia due to autism or dissociation, those who were born without empathy or lost it later, etc.

Of course. Well for people who lack "social skills", alexthymia or low cognitive empathy first of all i do see them more generally in the risk lense themselves of being a victim of sexual abuse.

I can't talk about every example you said because I don't have the knowledge on every subject. But if we take the case of a person on the autism spectrum, i'll speak about this briefly from what people on the spectrum have shared with me through discussion in the past. Often they would have spend their entire life masking, especially if with a later diagnosis. Which makes them often, from what i've been told, ignore their own consent constantly. Whether it be what they want to do, what they want or their bodily functions, often denying themselves to conform. So it can be very confusing for them that their consent is only placed in the spotlight during for example intimacy. Because navigating the world as an autistic person is a very non consentual experience. Learning to honour and listen to their inner voice is often a struggle, like a muscle that needs to be trained?
(In this case i am obviously not talking about a person who has comorbid intellectual disability, that is an entire different story.)

So when faced with a sexual partner who is "lying" and engaging in intimacy for self harm, they are at risk of themselves being SA'D. But then again, for this example it's tricky and case based. Does the person with low cognitive empathy or social struggles know beforehand that the person they are engaging with is going through mental pain to place themselves in this situation? If yes, I do still believe they are capable in general of asking for verbal consent, they are capable of logical reasoning.
Does the person engaging in reckless or self harming intimacy know about the other's potential impairment and so therefore the consent is blurred and untrustworthy and continue anyway? If yes, they are in the wrong and using the other person.
Forgive me if I didn't see explain this clearly.

If we can only rely on our words to communicate, and said self-harming partner chooses to lie, how can we avoid that? Consent is paramount, but if this person lies and someone cannot read any body language signs of that lie, it leaves us with a bit of an issue.

So in this situation both parties can be in fault. But i will agree that the person engaging in the act as a form of self harm with a person who would be more vulnerable to that type of deception is more concerning. They could find a partner that would agree with full known consent and being informed beforehand of their true intentions, even though again, their own consent is questionable.
But also, a person lacking cognitive empathy or such isn't an excuse to ignore the others consent either, it can be integrated in a logical way and through rational thinking and that person doing their own research.
How it could be avoided i'm not exactly sure and i won't give comment on something i'm not extremely informed on. It's a messy situation.

I truly believe that sex workers can consent—as much as consent is currently defined in a capitalistic world. In a world without the need to work for money, things might be different for many, as there is less of a difference between sex work and normal work than people seem to think.

I have the same opinion as @martyrdom on the subject. Through the people I have met in the industry it is often not a choice. I'll link this article that mostly is my opinion: https://nomas.org/trafficked-women-prostitution-sex-workers/

But I have actually befriended people who have enjoyed sex work (with very strict boundaries for each client) on the idea that, for them, it is a win-win. The client gets sex, the worker gets sex and money. It is different for many, but those who enjoy their job do exist.

I am truly happy if that is the case for them and they are happy with what they are doing. I wish them luck and safety.

That's the assertion of the person I've been debating with here... he is asserting that IF money is exchanged then there is no real consent.

I do also believe that. Not just with money, any currency. But we can agree to disagree that is okay.

This is undeniable science.

Absolutely. But like i stated humans have very little touch with their biological impulses anymore. And certainly not in any way shape or form enough to use it as justification.

It isn't "natural" to wear clothes... but we do... but our choices sometimes against our nature doesn't mean the nature isn't there.

Well, we wear clothes to avoid the harsh conditions since we don't have furr of a thermo protecting seal over our skin. It was part of the early human survival, born from migration and climate. And now is so implemented in our lives/society in so many manners i'd also argue that not wearing them seems unnatural or at least out of place ha.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

So in this situation both parties can be in fault. But i will agree that the person engaging in the act as a form of self harm with a person who would be more vulnerable to that type of deception is more concerning. They could find a partner that would agree with full known consent and being informed beforehand of their true intentions, even though again, their own consent is questionable.
But also, a person lacking cognitive empathy or such isn't an excuse to ignore the others consent either, it can be integrated in a logical way and through rational thinking and that person doing their own research.
How it could be avoided i'm not exactly sure and i won't give comment on something i'm not extremely informed on. It's a messy situation.

I don't really understand this part? I mean if the self-harmer chooses to lie, the neurodivergent (using as the proper broad term meaning having neurological difference, not just autism/ADHD) cannot know it is a lie from body language or context clues. They may go into the sexual situation consenting, thinking the other person is consenting too.

 

[gunmetalblue11]

I don't really understand this part? I mean if the self-harmer chooses to lie, the neurodivergent (using as the proper broad term meaning having neurological difference, not just autism/ADHD) cannot know it is a lie from body language or context clues. They may go into the sexual situation consenting, thinking the other person is consenting too.

Yes, neurodivergent is a better term thank you for correcting me.

Does the person engaging in reckless or self harming intimacy know about the other's potential impairment and so therefore the consent is blurred and untrustworthy and continue anyway? If yes, they are in the wrong and using the other person.

I agree with you. I think i basically replied to that here, yes the person engaging in the sexual activity as a form of self harm would be at fault in this context.
But again, the example is broad. And the situation would be a disaster for both parties.

 

[Dejected 55]

The problem I see with the absolutism-based assertions in this thread are... they could be applied to most professions, and yet no one would.

I suspect if you surveyed most adults and asked them would they like to quit their jobs, most would say yes. Similar to asking most prostitutes if they wish they didn't have to work their "jobs." But does that mean everyone is being abused and coerced to work? I mean, most folks would not work if they were millionaires, so does that mean they are being forced to work? Sure, you can argue "quit and find a different job" but what if they feel "pressure" to work at all? I mean, nobody wants to work and be "controlled" by their boss and paid money in exchange for that coerced servitude... and many studies exist that say a sizeable portion of the population suffers depression as a result of feeling trapped in their jobs and seeing no way to change things.

But... there are no people equating jobs at the Post Office or retail stores or an office with sex work. But, take a cross-section of most people in any walk of life and you'll find a good chunk of people dissatisfied in their jobs, feeling taken advantage of, and admitting to only doing the work because they need money.

I think you have to separate all that from the specific job of sex work.

Then, of course, you separate out all the legitimate trafficking and forced work by sex slaves... and there is SADLY a LOT of that going on in the world... so no defense or support for that shit. But that's in the category of the sweatshops and illegal slave labor (immigrants, etc.) where people and companies are abusing people to make money. That shit is not defensible.

I just don't like the absolutism declaring to the OP who asked a simple question about finding someone to pay for sex so he doesn't die without the experience at least once... the absolutism of telling him that he is a "rapist" if he pays for sex. It's insensitive at best, and intentionally false and hurtful at worst.