The Instigator
bsergent
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
wingnut2280
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

The typical American ‘date' is simply a social work around for prostitution being illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,677 times Debate No: 2067
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (12)

 

bsergent

Pro

-=Batch debate disclaimer v.01=-

To my opponent:
I am not attacking you, I don't know you, I am attacking your ideas. I am not trying to convince you of anything, therefore do not expect me to sugar coat anything for you with manners or any other euphemism for deception. I am writing for the record and for the future. If I say something unflattering about one of your ideas or your style of debate and you choose to be insulted that is your problem not mine. The very core of a debate could be seen as an insult because at the very least we question each other's minds.

Some things are not a matter of opinion, some things are provable fact. The world being round is not the same as who you think it hottest on Lost. Also, some ideas flow logically from others. Your opinion can be attacked as if it were factual if it is in conflict with a previously stated opinion.

If you make a claim that is in conflict with one of mine please try to demonstrate how you arrived at it logically. Simply stating your opinion wastes time and proves nothing.

Do not think that simply because I reject your proof I reject all proof. I've debated these concepts my whole adult life, your arguments are probably not new, and nor are mine. Respect for your opinion is not the same as doubt in my own.

To my audience and the voters:
I'm not trying to convince you either. I expect you to vote as if this were a poll, or other equally unrelated reasons. I already know my skill level and I don't need your approval. I do this because my ideas flow best when I'm challenged. And I seek to be proven wrong if possible. Proven. In short the votes totally don't matter to me.

To those who would comment:
Please do not try to debate me in the comments, if you wish to bring up a point my opponent missed, feel free, but do not see my lack of answer as a concession of defeat. If you feel strongly enough, challenge me to a separate debate.

To the author of the site:
Can we have a separate place for disclaimers? Much like an email signature?

-=The Debate=-

The first and clearest similarity between dating and whoring is that the male is typically the initiator. This is because men have a higher sex drive than women. This is because testosterone is the sex drive hormone for both genders and obviously men have more. This is also because men were the ones with power for a long time.

The man selects a woman he finds sexually attractive. This is virtually the only thing of consequence he can discern about a stranger at a distance. It is also a gateway trait since if the woman is physically atrocious the man typically has no initial reason to explore for other traits.

The typical process for a John seeking a Pro is cruising a known area, or finding a brothel, in search of a candidate of sufficient sexual attractiveness with the intention of spending a given amount of money for a given level of sexual satisfaction. This may or may not include haggling with a pimp, which becomes about impressing the pimp with the idea that the amount of money he's offering is more than sufficient for what he is asking.

The typical process for the date is very similar. A man cruises just as before, only now he selects areas such as concerts, bars, or sporting events. He again selects a woman based on physical attractiveness for the same reasons. Today the pimp cannot be worked around in most cases.

The primary difference between dating and whoring, other than the duration of contract, and where my contention comes from that it is a legal work around, is that instead of giving the money directly to the date/pro/pimp, and then getting straight to the sex act, the date/pro has the male spend the money for or on her, rather than spending it herself at a later time.

This is related to the fact that female ownership of property was restricted. This is also related to why jewelry is a traditional romantic gift for a woman. Giving a woman jewelry was also a social and legal work around because while they could not own money or property outright they could own adornments, and making those adornments out of gold, which at the time, was money, gave the woman power she would otherwise not have had. The family jewels ironically were literally the final economic fall back in times of crisis, in an era when banks were not as they are today, and social setting were unstable. I'm sure the some of the most jewel encrusted of female aristocrats survived the French revolution because of the money around their necks.

Also many typical date activities are ones normally only used for pure recreation, a dinner out, a movie, a concert etc. This becomes part of the fee for sex, and an excuse to be in prolonged contact, so that A, coupling can potentially take place, and that B, the male has time to spend the money on/for her without arousing suspicion of honest prostitution.

Previous eras were so encumbered by rules about manners and such that it was common practice to have layers of meaning. Which is related to an ankle being exposed being seen as lewd. This is also related to flowers. As many of you may or may not be aware flowers were actually at one time a covert language. The red rose meaning ‘passion', which meant raw lust. We have adopted these traditions and forgotten their meaning. Some have not forgotten however and continue to profit from the lie, such as FTD, Kay, Ticketmaster, and every other third party (or pimp) that profits from American mating rituals.

This is just the begining. Virtually every aspect of a traditional date has an analogy in organized prostitution.

For the record, my position is that whores are a valid and needed occupation. Further, there is nothing wrong with demanding compensation of goods for services, or vice versa.

When I attack traditional sexual systems I often am accused of calling all women whores, or hating women. I am not, and I do not. If I were to call all women whores, I would be unfairly complimenting many of them. honest whores are deeply strong and pragmatic people. I have deep respect for whores and even more for sluts. And I wish to remove the negative stigma of these words from our language for all time.

I advocate the total deregulation of the sale of sex, on par with any other personal service. I want buying sex to be the legal and social equivalent of buying a sandwich from a friend. But I do not wish to debate that in this debate.

Thank you all for your time.
wingnut2280

Con

I'm not going to address your disclaimers.

That said, I think you miss some critical aspects of the dating process, which are HUGE distinctions from whoring.

First, potential. While I agree that the first thing men base their 'choices' on is sexual chemistry or attraction, in whoring that is the sole reason. In dating, other aspects of the woman come into play. I guess the main distinction that you miss is that whoring is strictly for this sexual attraction, whereas attraction only plays the most initial of roles in dating.

Another difference is compensation. A whore would not have sex with a guy if it weren't for the compensation (money) he provides. Sex in dating isn't correlative to money at all. A girl having sex with you isn't dependent on you spending any money. If she likes you and you like her, birds and the bees, etc. While the compensation plays a pivotal role in whoring, it has no relation to dating.

Perhaps the biggest difference is desire of the woman. In dating, women choose to have sex with their guy based on personal desire. In whoring, women are virtually forced to have sex with pretty much any guy who has enough money. You might argue that the money creates this desire. But, that is the fundamental difference on this point. There is no basis for the sex act until money is involved, this is not the case in dating.

Also, dating requires a degree of romantic connection, no matter how small. Even if people are dating strictly for sex, their has no be a level of personal desire involved in order for the sex act to occur because the direct exchange of money is absent. Whoring is void of this.

While jewelry and flowers may have had certain connotations in the past, the gifts now are meant to have a romantic meaning, rather than serving as an indirect prostitution system as you claim. The intent is a clear distinction between whoring and dating.

I guess there are some fundamental differences that you miss in your assessment. The romantic intent, potential, and process, as well as the absence of payment and presence of female desire are critical distinctions that you overlook. These distinctions are what seperate dating from whoring.
Debate Round No. 1
bsergent

Pro

"In dating, other aspects of the woman come into play."

No, in relationships other aspects come into play, not dating. A date by definition is short term. A significant difference between whoring and a relationship as I've already stated is duration of potential contact, and the longer duration naturally requires different concerns to be addressed, much like packing for one day is different than packing for a month.

You attempt to divert the argument is noted. Obviously whoring is not like a long term relationship typically, I could not win such a debate because I would be incorrect.

"I guess the main distinction that you miss is that whoring is strictly for this sexual attraction, whereas attraction only plays the most initial of roles in dating."

Semantically speaking I could question your use of the word attraction as sexuality is merely a reason for attraction. Yes I'm aware of the myth that sexuality it's of little or no concern in the long run when it comes to relationships but the fact is sexuality is a relationship. That's why gay men don't have relationship with women. Sexuality is first and foremost, it is the entire point of a relationship in this context. Even the word relations is a synonym for sexual contact.

The cry that sexuality is of little ‘true' significance to me is the same as "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

"A whore would not have sex with a guy if it weren't for the compensation (money) he provides."

That's a false assumption. Logic tells us that correlation does not denote causation. Obviously sexual repulsion is correlated with the Pro servicing the John, After all that the nature of a job as opposed to a hobby, but one can also enjoy one's work at times, and ideally even most of the time, which is why certain people choose certain occupations. The fundamental assumption that being a whore is unpleasant may only be true because of the legal and social ramifications. Just look at other by choice sex workers such as porn stars stripper, professional dommes and the like. Many of these people are quite happy and proud of their professions and find them empowering. Your false assumption is based on the age old puritanical myth that sex is dirty and wrong and bad.

"Sex in dating isn't correlative to money at all."

Then why is sex on prom night as clich� as limo rentals tuxes and expensive dresses? I refuse to believe that you believe that likelihood of sexual fulfillment at the conclusion of a date is unrelated to the amount of resources spent. Romance in the American sense is by and large series paid for from dinner on the beach to serenading mariachis to lobster and chilled champagne.

Offer to take your next date to taco bell, show up in your cheapest clothing, walk instead of drive, and then tell me money isn't an issue.
"If she likes you and you like her, birds and the bees, etc."

And in our culture if she ‘likes you' depends in an absurdly large part on a demonstration of interest, primarily accomplished by the expenditure of funds. Simply watch TV for 30 seconds and you'll see this. We're told time and again that love is money. From the massive diamond, to the new car, you're expected to express your affection with the dollar, anything else is miserly. Virtually every date movie or "romantic comedy" is utterly drowning in this concept of hoop jumping and spending for the favor of a pretty girl. Friends and Seinfeld both feature it nearly constantly and they are among the top most popular shows of all time. And I won't even start on all the dating shows.

"In dating, women choose to have sex with their guy based on personal desire."

Personal desire is a function of profit. Sure the currency is different in the long run. But we're not talking about the long run we're talking about dating.

"In whoring, women are virtually forced to have sex with pretty much any guy who has enough money."

That's false logic again. You're assuming a certain economic condition which is not by definition inherent to prostitution. In a balanced economic situation a whore could choose her clients just as lawyers, plumbers, mechanics, and the like do now. Obviously some people are desperate and for economic (largely caused by legal) reasons and thus can't afford to be so choosey, but this is by no mean assured. There are many high price escorts, and as Nevada has shown us the business model can and does allow for tremendous levels of personal freedom for the whores. Desperation does not come into effect, because it's as variable in both situations. In fact the antics of men and women desperate for a date are quite common also in media.

"There is no basis for the sex act until money is involved, this is not the case in dating."

Wrong, women hunt affluent men just and men hunt sexually appealing women. That is the entire point of our media, to keep this system and all the horrors stemming from it alive and well. We were all born into a slave market, but again, this is not the point of the debate.

"Also, dating requires a degree of romantic connection, no matter how small. Even if people are dating strictly for sex, their has no be a level of personal desire involved in order for the sex act to occur because the direct exchange of money is absent."

Direct exchange of money is not required, the concept of the groupie is proof of this in and of itself. Many women use sex as a tool, and they don't require direct payment to see the profit of their actions. Sexual control of men is one of the most ubiquitous concepts of our entire culture. Romance as you call it is also largely commerce.

"While jewelry and flowers may have had certain connotations in the past, the gifts now are meant to have a romantic meaning, rather than serving as an indirect prostitution system as you claim."

What about when you give flowers to your mother? Is that also romantic? Or is that different? Is romance not inherently sexual?

"The intent is a clear distinction between whoring and dating."

Romance as the difference between whoring and dating is your best point so far and has required a great deal of thought to nail down just exactly how it relates. And I would have had no argument save for the obvious fact that romance by definition is sexual in nature. Now I'll grant that romance can occur between people who are currently or have never been sexual to each other such as the idea of late life relationships or extremely long term marriages, but the potential for sexuality must have been an option or must currently be an option for romance to exist. This is why late life romances between straight men do not occur.

"The romantic intent, potential, and process, as well as the absence of payment and presence of female desire are critical distinctions that you overlook. These distinctions are what seperate dating from whoring."

And I hope I've answered them. In summary, the intent is still sexual, potential is a matter of scale, process is just a work around(as was my core point), the payment is not absent, and female desire can be present or absent in both situations.

I haven't over looked them I just left them out of my initial argument. Splendid round, Please keep it up. :)
wingnut2280

Con

I'm not trying to divert the debate, so stop the arrogant charade, just like your witty disclaimer in the first round.

Anyway, dating is composed of more elements than sexuality. As I said, sexual attraction is a pretext. But, the distinction is in the exclusive involvement of sexual attraction in whoring versus the other elements of both involved in dating. Despite your cynical lens, you have to have at least some deeper connections with someone to have even a single date with them. Having conversation, getting along, etc. All of this is a subsequent step from sexuality. While is does play a critical role in dating, it is not the sole player, as in whoring.

I realize that some people enjoy sexual proffesions, but this doesn't mean that compensation plays a role. Your to assume that the sex act in whoring would take place strictly on the grounds that the women enjoys it. If this is the case, whats the need for the compensation. The man wouldn't have to pay if she was going to do stuff anyway. Direct compensation is what causes the sex act in whoring, this is by its very definition. This isn't the case in dating.

There is no correlation between money and sex in dating. you complained about me using stereotypes earlier, whos the hypocrite? While money does play a factor in extreme examples, the money factor is simply an indication of quality. Women don't want to date men who have signals of slothfulness and irresponsibility. This isn't a correlation to money itself, but a reflection of the type of guy you are dating.

I agree that companies encourage you to spend, but this isn't a reflection of dating. Usually the poor hero makes some grand romantic gesture that has little or nothing to do with money. i.e. standing in the rain with a jukebox. Dating has no direct correlation with money, you have provided me with no proof to think otherwise.

You have done nothing but prove that people who date are sexually attracted to each other and spend money. I don't disagree. The distinguishing factor is that in whoring money is mandated and sexual attraction is the lone object. Even if whores can choose who they associate with, the compensation is still mandatory by definition. In dating, money is spent, but it doesn't have a correlation to sex. Some dates, believe it or not, don't end in sex, no matter how much you spend. All whoring sessions end in some kind of exchange, otherwise they weren't whores. So, the lack of correlation between sex and money spent on dates and the deeper level of attraction are the clear differences.
Debate Round No. 2
bsergent

Pro

"I'm not trying to divert the debate, so stop the arrogant charade, just like your witty disclaimer in the first round."

MY disclaimer is arrogant? It's based on actual events, go read my other debates. I'm tired of wasting time explaining the obvious. How is that arrogant?

"Despite your cynical lens, you have to have at least some deeper connections with someone to have even a single date with them."

No you don't since you've made that claim, prove it or at least demonstrate it. You've obviously never worked on a college campus for any length of time. Dates are for sex, the end. Going to dinner with someone you already know is not a date in the traditional sense, if you already know the person it becomes just dinner.

"Having conversation, getting along, etc. All of this is a subsequent step from sexuality. While is does play a critical role in dating, it is not the sole player, as in whoring."

Heh all of two things? Well, getting along is a little vague s I'll ignore that as is conversation.. both are required between a whore and a john as well, they must get along to the same degree any customer and sales person must get along. And as for conversation the point of conversation is to exchange pertinent data about the intentions of the other, this also is present in both situations.
"Your to assume that the sex act in whoring would take place strictly on the grounds that the women enjoys it."

Straw man. What I said was what I said, and this is not what I said.

"Direct compensation is what causes the sex act in whoring, this is by its very definition. This isn't the case in dating."

Yes it is. That would be my whole point. Again just saying your position is not a defense of it. I've already demonstrated (among other obvious similarities) that a male's chance of sexual fulfillment on a date is directly related to the amount of money he spends, Robert Redford fantasy aside.

"There is no correlation between money and sex in dating."

Again saying it doesn't make it so.

"While money does play a factor in extreme examples, the money factor is simply an indication of quality. Women don't want to date men who have signals of slothfulness and irresponsibility. This isn't a correlation to money itself, but a reflection of the type of guy you are dating."

So poor people are all worthless, is that it? As much as I'd love to tear that Horatio Alger myth down it's off topic so I'll just say that I should not have to pay a third party to prove myself to anyone.
"Usually the poor hero makes some grand romantic gesture that has little or nothing to do with money. i.e. standing in the rain with a jukebox."

Which retails for 199.95 at best buy, or court costs should the girl consider it stalking instead of romantic.

"Even if whores can choose who they associate with, the compensation is still mandatory by definition."

Not so, every heard of a "freebie"?

"In dating, money is spent, but it doesn't have a correlation to sex."

Keep repeating it, maybe I'll believe it eventually.

"Some dates, believe it or not, don't end in sex, no matter how much you spend."

No matter how much? So you're telling me that the majority of American women would not sleep with me if I offered them 1 billion dollars. I think you're radically underestimating the power of currency.

"So, the lack of correlation between sex and money spent on dates and the deeper level of attraction are the clear differences."

There is a correlation between sex and money, and to ignore it is your problem not mine. Everyone would agree that spending increases your chances, all this shoes is that whores are actually more honest because at least with a whore you'll get what you're actually trying to pay for.

Guys typically don't spot a girl across a room and say "Man I'll bet she's a great conversationalist, I think I'll ask her out."

There is no deeper level of attraction at the outset of typical American date. It's about the bling and the booty, period. I know it sucks and I wish it weren't that way but to continue the metaphor, don't hate the playa hate the game.

Please, try to show logical cause and some form of evidence for your opinions next time, I understand your opinion, now you must Demonstrate it. Rather than doing a cd on repeat impression.
wingnut2280

Con

There exist two big distinctions between dating and whoring that you either admit, devalue, or deny. First, the IMMEDIATE and DIRECT relationship between compensation (money) and the sex act. Second, the connection, conversation, or romantic and deeper relationship developed during the date itself versus the purely business nature of whoring.

I don't deny that spending more money gives you a somewhat better chance or that physical attraction is the initial player in dates.

Still, therein lies your problem. Merely increasing your chances isn't analogous to whoring. There is no direct connection between the money I spend on a date and the sex I get. That 'whore's honesty' that you talk about is the very distinction I prove. When I give a whore money, I am virtually gauranteed sex. This is undeniably not the case during dating. Sure, I can give a girl a billion dollars to sleep with me, but isn't that whoring, not dating? The fact is, I can rent nice cars and take her out to the fanciest dinners and buy tickets to the best show in town and still go home at the end of the night.

My 'poor hero' example wasn't to show that poor people are of some lesser quality. It merely proves that romantic gestures are not tied to money. When the girl looks out the window, her thought process isn't 'Wow, thats a nice stereo. I bet he is rich.' The romanticism of the date and the gesture goes far beyond the dollar amount.

While sexual attraction is what gets you noticed across the room, this doesn't correlate to sex at the end of the date. A guy could be the hottest one in the room and if the two's personalities don't mesh well, he goes home empty handed. In dating, dissimilar to whoring, personalities must play even the most basic of roles during the course of the date in order for the date to be 'sucessful'. This isn't so in whoring. A whore and a john can have all but contempt for each other and the exchange still occurs.

What business world are you living in? Does the sales clerk at the hardware store get to pick and choose who he sells to? Do personalities or emotional exchange have anything to do with a sale? When I go into the grocery store, am I required to get along with the cashier in order to purchase my products? My point is that the whore is strictly a businesswomen, while, in dating, certain fulfillments, beyond the money, must be met in order for sex to occur.

While college frat houses may be filled with a purely sexual pursuit, the topic entails the 'typical' American date. Your jaded description is hardly typical.

I would ask you not to demean my argument structure, especially in the case where you have committed the very errors you chide me for. Where is your evidence? Where is your logical cause? You have merely presented your infinitely jaded view of what MTV and your likely terrible experiences tell you the dating world is about. Why do we have any reason to believe your view of the world? Have you offered me some kind of proof that spending money gaurantees you sex on dates or that physical attraction can overcome the most disgruntled daters?

Again, I don't deny that physical attraction plays an initial role or that more money gives you a better CHANCE. But, whoring isn't an instance of trying to get laid. Its very nature is to be a workaround for the dating process, not the other way around. Your points are heard, but they function to prove my very point.
Debate Round No. 3
bsergent

Pro

"First, the IMMEDIATE and DIRECT relationship between compensation (money) and the sex act."

So if I pay a hooker a week in advance or run a tab that means it was a date?

"Second, the connection, conversation, or romantic and deeper relationship developed during the date itself versus the purely business nature of whoring."

Those things Can develop after a series of dates but they are by no means part of a date by definition, else people wouldn't need to date so much. People date looking for those things but only in a secondary capacity, because after all, you date people you don't know in order to get to know them. If you don't know them in the first place, then odds are you're going to be interested in what you Do know right away, namely if you find someone sexually attractive or not.

"Still, therein lies your problem. Merely increasing your chances isn't analogous to whoring."

Yes it is. Even when you pay a hooker you only have a chance, the hooker can refuse you once she finds out what you want etc, or she can simply rip you off.

"There is no direct connection between the money I spend on a date and the sex I get. That 'whore's honesty' that you talk about is the very distinction I prove."

No, all it means is that while a date may take your money and sleep with you for it if she seems fit, she's not gunna tell you her terms, a whore will.

"When I give a whore money, I am virtually gauranteed sex. This is undeniably not the case during dating."

But that doesn't matter, because the point is the purpose of dating. Not how often the date is consummated. Granted a date is a huge rip off compared to just paying a hooker, but see a date is legal and finding a hooker typically isn't and that's the whole point. A date is a legal workaround for the explicit sale of sex being legal. The fact that the Pro in a date doesn't provide her end of the bargain is just added cover. That's like saying that because a drug dealer sold you a bag of salt instead of coke that you weren't trying to buy coke. That doesn't hold up, it's about what you intended to do, not what you actually did. The vast majority of dates the man is intended to buy sex, and the woman is intended to sell it, just because she backs out once she gets paid does not change the nature of the encounter.

Read an issue of any Cosmo type magazine, women between the ages of 13-20 are trained on how to get what they want using false promises of, or actual delivery of, sexual satisfaction. Even the children on the Disney channel are put in spiky hair baseball caps and shorts and/or lip gloss tight designer jeans and bare midriff.

"Sure, I can give a girl a billion dollars to sleep with me, but isn't that whoring, not dating?"

It would she been a date if you spent the billion dollars on her, and took her to dinner. Any payment can be made over dinner as a gift.

"The fact is, I can rent nice cars and take her out to the fanciest dinners and buy tickets to the best show in town and still go home at the end of the night."

Again, just because she reneges does not mean that you were trying to buy sex and thus giving her the offer of selling it. Again, just because the hippy sold you a bag of tea leaves does not mean you weren't trying to buy pot.

"My 'poor hero' example wasn't to show that poor people are of some lesser quality."

Don't try to divert what you said, the readers can scroll up. And just so they don't have to, here's what I was referring to…

You said… "the money factor is simply an indication of quality. Women don't want to date men who have signals of slothfulness and irresponsibility"

So, being poor is a "signal of slothfulness and irresponsibility" and your income level is "an indication of quality." So yes, you were trying to "show that poor people are of some lesser quality." There is no ambiguity. You should at least have the sand to claim that rather atrocious and disgusting sentiment.

"When the girl looks out the window, her thought process isn't 'Wow, thats a nice stereo. I bet he is rich.'"

No her thought is typically "wow if I can make him stand out in the rain, I wonder what else I can get" or "I'll bet this psycho has a shrine to me in his basement, and if I'm not careful that's where I'll end up." But that's really germane. Except that the gesture is a promise of future income.

"dissimilar to whoring, personalities must play even the most basic of roles during the course of the date in order for the date to be 'sucessful'."

Wrong, again you try to sell this incorrect idea of whores as slaves. That is not the case, a whore typically has a choice. And if what the john wants is outside what she's willing to give, then there is no exchange which is a form of personality meshing, at least a whore will let you walk away with your money.

"A whore and a john can have all but contempt for each other and the exchange still occurs."

Women date men they hate all the time for personal gain.

"What business world are you living in? Does the sales clerk at the hardware store get to pick and choose who he sells to?"

The sales clerk is not analogous to the whore. The whore is a sole proprietor or the service professional, not a mere adjunct or intermediary. And the owner of the hardware shop or the carpenter hired out by the shop can indeed refuse to go along.

"Do personalities or emotional exchange have anything to do with a sale?"

Ask anyone who works for commission that question.

"When I go into the grocery store, am I required to get along with the cashier in order to purchase my products?" To a degree yes, but again, the cashier is a facilitator not the whole deal.

"My point is that the whore is strictly a businesswomen, while, in dating, certain fulfillments, beyond the money, must be met in order for sex to occur."

So just because the price is different it's not whoring? It's still a price.

"Your jaded description is hardly typical."

Back that up.

"I would ask you not to demean my argument structure"

I would ask you not to make rampant undemonstrated claims and logical errors.

"Why do we have any reason to believe your view of the world?"

Because I've shown my position to be accurate through consideration of evidence and logic. Your rejection of it is irrelevant. What you believe has no bearing on what is.

"Have you offered me some kind of proof that spending money gaurantees you sex on dates or that physical attraction can overcome the most disgruntled daters?"

There are no guarantees of any sort in life, this does not destroy definition. A whore may receive her money and then be smooshed by an asteroid from space thus terminated the encounter, this does not mean that she was any less engaged in the sale of sex. You keep trying to make the claim that consummation and guarantees influence the definitions here. They Don't.

"Again, I don't deny that physical attraction plays an initial role or that more money gives you a better CHANCE."

Then I should be able to rest my case.

"Its very nature is to be a workaround for the dating process, not the other way around."

The fact that you grant that one is a substitute for the other bolsters my point, yet you seem to think it damages it.

"But, whoring isn't an instance of trying to get laid."

… heh, Coulda fooled me.
wingnut2280

Con

My argument for direct relationship and immediacy was not a time-table argument. To be sure, the direct exchange of money for sex is whoring. This means I pay for sex in some form at some time, whether its on a tab or not. The relationship lies in the directness of the correlation between the two in whoring and the absence of it in dating. While, by its very definition, whoring is the direct exchange of money for sex, the mere possibility of spending money on a date and not receiving sex ensures your position is incorrect. I'll address that point more at the bottom.

The deeper relationship in dating is certainly there during the first date. You are missing the entire time-table of the date. Dates, even a single one, are not instaneous. Over the course of even a single date, conversation and a deeper level of attraction, which transcends the purely physical, becomes vital. The social aspect is vital because it is what the sex act is contigent on. As I stated earlier, the 'typical' dater is not going to engage in sex acts with a socially revolting person no matter how attractive they are. You can feed me examples of women having sex for a billion dollars or even large gifts, but that would be whoring then, not dating.

"Merely increasing your chances isn't analogous to whoring." In whoring you are guaranteed the sex act by definition. If the sex act doesn't take place in exchange for some monetary gain, than no whoring took place and your argument doesn't function.

How often the date is consummated is exactly the issue! Just because a guy is looking to get laid on a date doesn't mean the date is a sale of sex. In order for dating to be a workaround there has to be a DIRECT correlation between consummation and money paid. You argue that because I spend money and then get laid, that it was a sale of sex. However, the two aren't related. The millions of cases of daters not consummating proves that there is no relation. The fact that I could spend as much as I want and still go home means that money doesn't buy you sex on dates. If dating was a workaround, the daters would be virtually mandated to have sex after money is spent. This is the case with the 'whore's honesty'. You give the whore money and you get a sex act. You spend money on a date and don't get laid. The fact that this can occur proves the distinction.

Your drug dealing examples aren't analogous. I bought the tea leaves. This means there was a connection between the money and the product. The reason dating is different is because I can spend an infinite amount of money and receive no product at all.

Here is my argument for the poor hero, so you don't continually take it out of context in a pathetic attempt to cast me as the villian. "My 'poor hero' example wasn't to show that poor people are of some lesser quality. It merely proves that romantic gestures are not tied to money. When the girl looks out the window, her thought process isn't 'Wow, thats a nice stereo. I bet he is rich.' The romanticism of the date and the gesture goes far beyond the dollar amount" It was actually quite the opposite of what you claim. My claim is that romanticism outweighs financial stature.

"No her thought is typically "wow if I can make him stand out in the rain, I wonder what else I can get"" This is just a reflection of your cynical outlook and not a relfection of the 'typical' dater that your claim is about.

"Wrong, again you try to sell this incorrect idea of whores as slaves. That is not the case, a whore typically has a choice. And if what the john wants is outside what she's willing to give, then there is no exchange which is a form of personality meshing, at least a whore will let you walk away with your money."

Whoring is no more a personality mesh than any other business transaction. If the man doesn't agree on the price for the product(sex) the transaction doesn't occur. Just like if I think the price of an item is to high, I don't buy it.

The certain fulfillments are not monetary. Therefore, dating isn't whoring. Now you are trying to claim that fulfilling emotional requirements is a price that I pay a girl to have sex with me? Who's diverting the debate?

Your jaded description isn't typical. The only way for the point to be won is by experience. So, if more people think that typical women are money-grubbing sluts, you win.

Again, where is this logic and evidence? Because you say your arguments are somehow more logical doesn't make it so. Posturing your jaded opinion of the dating scene is hardly evidence. "What you believe has no bearing on what is." Ditto. Just because you make rampant claims doesn't mean you have backed them up with any PROOF. Tell me the conrete, non-opinionated evidence you have provided us all with.

Consummation and guarantees are the very distinctions between the definitions. With dating, spending money doesn't ensure you sex. It does in whoring. Thats the very defintion, an exchange of money for sex. Without that exchange it wasn't whoring. Dating doesn't have this direct correlation between money and sex. The lack of consummation is exactly the difference. The fact that I can spend infinite amounts of money and come away empty-handed is why dating is different. In whoring, I pay and the sex happens.

You seem to have this notion that dating is somehow instantaneous. That people see each other from across the room, the man leaves some money at a restaraunt and they go consummate. This isn't the case. The date takes place over a period in which deeper social connections are made and fulfilled. Yes, sex can be an intent, but money isn't a precondition for it in dating as it is in whoring.

The fact that whoring is a substitute for dating doesn't bolster your point at all. People choose to skip the rigamorole of dating in order to pursue the purely sexual that you point out. This proves dating transends the pure sex-monetary exchange. Why would there be a need for whoring if dating were simply a legal substitute? Your argument has been that the dater will simply not put out and I will have wasted my money. So, my question to you is...how is it whoring without sex? If the hooker gets crushed or killed, she took your money and you didn't get laid, so no whoring occured. The sex HAS TO HAPPEN in order for it to be whoring, otherwise you just gave money to a women who happens to be a whore.

Whoring isn't an instnace of TRYING to get laid because you don't have to TRY. You simply pay and get some. Dating is much more complex and has no relation to money.

The mere possibility that I can spend money and not get any wins me the debate. It proves that money isn't correlative to sex in dating. The intent of the guy to score doesn't bear any weight. A husband can intend to have sex with his wife, does that make it whoring? The sex act has to occur in order for it to be any form of whoring. Your missing the connection between money and whoring. Until you can prove some kind of correlation that isn't a direct sex-money exchange (i'll pay you x for sex aka whoring) you can't ever prove that dating is a workaround. The millions of empty handed and empty pocketed guys prove that there isn't a relationship between money and sex in dating.

I could get laid without spending a dime on a date and I could also go home lonely after turning out my pockets. Whoring, by definition guarantees sex for money. If the sex-money transaction doesn't occur than it wasn't an instance of whoring, regardless of intent.
Debate Round No. 4
bsergent

Pro

"While, by its very definition, whoring is …"

I guess you're just going to repeat yourself and hope I give up from frustration.

Lack of return means nothing, intention is everything. If the woman intends to profit from her sex appeal and the man intends to try and buy sex, then it's whoring, and as such the typical American date is a legal work around for whoring being illegal.

I know you love this argument and repeat it dozens of times, and my response will remain the same. They were removed for space. Stupid Char limit.
"Over the course of even a single date, …"

That's a big assumption how can you know this? Sure it would be nice if this were the case and sometimes it is, but it usually isn't. Half of all marriages end in divorce, how many dates end in non-marriage?

"The social aspect …"

And the social aspect is boiled down to a series of priorities with sex appeal and money being at the top. How many men do you know date absolutely vapid women because they are attractive, and how many women do you know that date total monsters with money? Tons as we all know.

"Just because a guy is looking to get laid on …"

So, if I go to a crack house intending to buy crack and I bring a playstation 3 I bought to give to the dealer as a gift and he decides to give me some crack as a gift I didn't just buy crack?

Intention is everything.

"In order for dating to be a workaround …"

There is. That's my whole point. The majority of women who go on typical dates can be bought. The amount of money spent by men on women at bars, movies, restaurants, on gifts, clothing, and cars all prove my point. We spend more on beauty products then health care. If spending money didn't buy you sex, the whole American economy would collapse. Almost all male expenditures are directly or indirectly sexually motivated. Precisely because selling sex directly is illegal.

"If dating was a workaround…"

And they are. Ask any girl the pressure she is under to submit to sexual advances as the number of dates mount.

"Here is my argument for the poor hero…"

You cast yourself as the classist villain, don't blame me.

You said… "the money factor is simply an indication of quality. Women don't want to date men who have signals of slothfulness and irresponsibility"

So, being poor is a "signal of slothfulness and irresponsibility" and your income level is "an indication of quality." So yes, you were trying to "show that poor people are of some lesser quality." There is no ambiguity. You (still) should at least have the sand to claim that rather atrocious and disgusting sentiment.

Also, don't call me or my arguments pathetic. I took nothing out of context, you clearly don't know what the phrase means other than it's a common response.

"My 'poor hero' example wasn't …"

Nor did I claim it was, (straw man) your statement of income equating to character was what you used to show that poor people are of lesser quality. Your poor hero concept is meant to show that people can get laid for free, and I do not dispute that. But that has no impact on the nature of the typical American date.

"This is just a reflection of your cynical outlook …"

My cynicism is irrelevant so long as my facts are straight, and again stop trying to make this personal. The typical date does not occur in the rain, or at zero cost.

"Whoring is no more a personality mesh …"

Agreed. But the fact is business transactions are very personal. Hence the cloying sycophantic clich� used car salesman. Image and impression are everything, ask any sales rep. Take a business or marketing class, and if you have, do it again and pay attention this time to personal interaction chapters. People skills are business skills.

"Just like if I think the price …"

Which is also why I don't date. (Feel free to turn this into a high school insult, but rest assured I've heard it before.)

"Therefore, dating isn't whoring. Now …"

If fulfilling the emotional requirements come with a dollar amount price tag, then yes. Tricking the public into turning money issues into emotional issues is a big part of our problem as a society. Diamonds do not equal love, despite what Kay would have you believe.

"The only way for the point …"

You, and all those that think like you seem to, make my skin crawl, just a personal note. For one, statistical analysis and sociological surveys could confirm my position, assuming people responded and were honest. Ask people about first dates, ask how much they spend, how often the dates resulted in sex and the initial goal for each member. You'll find a correlate between expenditure with consummation, you'll find that overwhelmingly the initial motivator on the part of men is sexual attraction and for women its income career security concerns etc, when it's not just lust in return. I'm already convinced I don't need to do the research, if you wish to prove me wrong feel free, I'm sure there's a sociology paper here no matter who is right.

For two, and this is the part that makes my skins crawl, sluts give it away, we're talking about whores. I see no negative connotation in anything that costlessly brings pleasure to another human being. The word slut the way you use it is ugly. It's like a racial slur. People have a right to sleep with who they please so long as they do so responsibly and you have no right to defame women for doing the very thing men are lauded for. Sex is a human right. I've already won that debate.

"Because you say your arguments …"

Logic is not a matter of opinion.

"Posturing your jaded opinion …"

I've provided logical conclusions stemming from observation of real events; you refuse to acknowledge them because they are unpleasant for you. I am sorely tempted to theorize why but again that would merely be a personal attack until it becomes germane to the debate.

"Just because you make …"

Do you really want to get into epistemology with me? How much can I prove with mere text? All I can do is show logical cause to draw certain conclusions, and I feel of course that I've done that. But if you really want to play then prove to me that your definition of proof is valid. :)

"Tell me the conrete, …"

How for example am I expected to prove that spending more means more sex without following around millions of couples with a camera all the way into the bedroom?

I would simply say that it seems very likely that expenditure is linked with consummation. Certainly there are thousands of cultural examples, the most recent and common of which being dating shows and rap videos. Even if you had a point, just because I cannot prove it in this forum does not mean that it cannot be proven.

"Why would there be a need for whoring …"

The same need you have for money laundering when you buy a ton of cocaine.

"So, my question to you is…how is it whoring without sex?"

The same way attempted murder is still a crime. Intent.

"The sex HAS TO HAPPEN …"

See above. And, since you're so keen on definitions, I'd suggest you look up the legal ones related to solicitation and then revise your argument.

"Dating is much more complex …"

None at all? They why do the vast majority of dates cost the man something other than time?

"A husband can intend …"

Oh boy new can of worms finally! Yes, most marriages are long term sexual contracts, that's why extra martial sex ends marriages. Trust is not sex, love is not sex, sex is sex. But that's a whole other debate, one which I am happy to have with you if you're up to it at a later date, it's off topic here.

In summation I'm just going to say that I'm very disappointed. You wasted a great deal of time. And I fully expect more pedantic nonsense in the final round.

I suppose there is an upside, those who actually read the debates will grow as weary of your arguments as I am.

P.S.

This was much more complete but the character limit sucks.
wingnut2280

Con

I'll adress the most important point first. You miss the intent/consummation argument. I agree, daters go on dates initially for sexual and physical reasons. But, the intent isn't to spend enough money in order to get laid. This is true because it is founded in all of the arguments I made about rich guys going home empty handed. The guy doesn't intend to spend money in order to get laid. The typical dater knows they have to be charming and funny and socially well constructed in order to get some. Again, it would hold that a girl wouldn't have sex with the richest guy if he was socially revolting. This proves that money isn't the sole factor in dating as it is in whoring. Therefore, a deeper construct is present in dating making it an entirely different scenario than prostitution.

To sum, men ARE trying to get laid. But, they know they can't accomplish this simply buy spending money. Looking at the typical dating scene, along with every media-portrayed, popularized instance, the dater must be romantic and socially agreeable, at least to a degree. Whoring is solely dependent on money-sex exchange, by definition. The involvement of another player in dating is what makes the two distinct.

I'm not claiming that there has to be some miraculous hallmarkesque moment where the two daters are spiritually connected. But, there does have to be at least a degree of social connection. This isn't the case in whoring. Haggling prices is not a social connection. The slightest presence of sex being dependent on social connection disproves your point.

"statistical analysis and sociological surveys could confirm my position"

Oddly, you couldn't find any? This is just you posturing your personal opinion...again. What happened to logical structure and concrete evidence?

"So, my question to you is…how is it whoring without sex?
The same way attempted murder is still a crime. Intent."

This proves my point. If intent was whoring or attempted murder were equivalent to murder wouldn't they be prosecuted similarly? Why does society and the law make a distinction if they are analogous?

You're right. Your argument structure and logical base and evidenciary support have been so superior to mine its unbelievable. Throwing out a claim and then presenting your own personal views and cynical "facts" is hardly more logical than mine. I don't know where you get the arrogance, but usually people at least pretend to respect one another in the context of the debate.

In short, yes men and women are attracted and spend money on dates. The whole question of the debate is how they go about consummating. The man spends money in order to increase his chances, sure. But, there are numerous other factors that are not present in whoring that precondition sex on a date. The fact that a man can spend a boatload and go home lonely proves that there are other conditions for sex than money in dating. Whoring, on the other hand, doesn't have these, it is strictly a money-sex deal. No matter how much you try to equate price haggling to social connection, its simply not the case. The relationship between a business person and his/her client is not similar to that of daters. The daters seek sex, but how they go about getting it is entirely different than whoring.

In future debates, I would suggest being a little more humble and more respectful. Its probably why so many people vote against you. I have had this problem in past debates as well. I realize you don't care what people think or whatever, but it should give you some insight into your actions, at least on a base level. Thanks for the debate/insult of my arguments. Sincerly hope it goes better for you next time.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
This is amazing.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
I would agree. Besides I was talking about studies that could be done, not studies that have been done.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
NEG argues "dating".
PRO argues "typical American dating".
Topic is "typical American dating".
Therefore, I vote PRO.

One point I'd like to comment about.

"Oddly, you couldn't find any? This is just you posturing your personal opinion...again. What happened to logical structure and concrete evidence?"

I think there's enough in culture without specific citations to prove PRO correct.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Dammit this stupid page wont let me post my argument because it has "profanity". But of course i'm talking about hookers.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Well wait till this one is done and feel free to have a go at me. :)

Give wingnut a chance he may just trounce me.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
I debate I really would have liked to debate you on. Sad =/
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TonyX311 9 years ago
TonyX311
bsergentwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrmazoo 9 years ago
mrmazoo
bsergentwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by TheOster 9 years ago
TheOster
bsergentwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by CP 9 years ago
CP
bsergentwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
bsergentwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by malmal16 9 years ago
malmal16
bsergentwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
bsergentwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
bsergentwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
bsergentwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
bsergentwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03