Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Compensated dating

Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:09:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A spin-off from this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Compensated dating is when a girl (or, more recently, a boy) offers, for money, dating services to a (usually older, but again, can also be of the same age or younger) guy (or girl) desperate for a date. Sometimes, there's no sex involved, but there often is. It is one of the more common forms of teen deviant behaviour in Hong Kong (along with drugs and premarital sex). I'm sure it's also a problem in some other places as well, including its origin, Japan.

This is not the same as renting a girlfriend/boyfriend, which is for having someone to bring to occasions like going home to visit parents. Clients of compensated dating services simply want to be in a relationship and offer money for it.

The issue has gotten much attention lately. This year, the police in Hong Kong recently shut down a compensated dating site for prostitution. Then a 13-year-old (IIRC) misrepresented her age and offered services to several men, who were later arrested for having sex with an underage girl. Earlier, a girl involved in compensated dating was brutally murdered by her client. Compensated dating is certainly a growing problem here.

The first and foremost problem with compensated dating is that its participants see nothing wrong with it. A few years ago, I watched an interview in one of Hong Kong's several social issues shows (I forgot which), and a girl involved in compensated dating said she was merely trying to make money, and didn't understand why should faced this kind of social stigma.

Thus to curb this trend, we must start by education. Governments in affected areas can launch campaigns similar to the fight against drugs so that people are aware that compensated dating is no different from prostitution when sex is involved. (In the same show, the interviewee mentioned that she had contracted an STD from compensated dating, and this caused her boyfriend to leave her...)

Then of course, social workers should aid in the anti-compensated dating campaign as well. Students found to be engaged in this kind of work should see a social worker (though I'm pretty sure that's happening already).

If that doesn't work, there will have to be tougher laws regarding compensated dating. A separate law could possibly be passed, outright banning compensated dating instead of arresting people involved with prostitution or other sex-related offences (especially since anti-prostitution laws are very, very lax in Hong Kong; it's possible to offer sexual services legally if they work alone).

Of course, it will in practice be hard to implement such laws as AFism has pointed out in our previous thread. There will be definition problems, and it will be hard to prevent loopholes. It may just force such services to go even deeper underground.

What's your opinion?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 10:32:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:09:34 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

If that doesn't work, there will have to be tougher laws regarding compensated dating. A separate law could possibly be passed, outright banning compensated dating instead of arresting people involved with prostitution or other sex-related offences (especially since anti-prostitution laws are very, very lenient in Hong Kong; it's possible to offer sexual services legally if they work alone).

Correction (I'm not a native speaker, as you can tell)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:03:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't understand why marriage in the case where one spouse earns more than another, yet assets are applier equally, is not viewed as legalized prostitution.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 12:02:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 10:09:34 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
A spin-off from this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Compensated dating is when a girl (or, more recently, a boy) offers, for money, dating services to a (usually older, but again, can also be of the same age or younger) guy (or girl) desperate for a date. Sometimes, there's no sex involved, but there often is. It is one of the more common forms of teen deviant behaviour in Hong Kong (along with drugs and premarital sex). I'm sure it's also a problem in some other places as well, including its origin, Japan.

This is not the same as renting a girlfriend/boyfriend, which is for having someone to bring to occasions like going home to visit parents. Clients of compensated dating services simply want to be in a relationship and offer money for it.

The issue has gotten much attention lately. This year, the police in Hong Kong recently shut down a compensated dating site for prostitution. Then a 13-year-old (IIRC) misrepresented her age and offered services to several men, who were later arrested for having sex with an underage girl. Earlier, a girl involved in compensated dating was brutally murdered by her client. Compensated dating is certainly a growing problem here.

The first and foremost problem with compensated dating is that its participants see nothing wrong with it. A few years ago, I watched an interview in one of Hong Kong's several social issues shows (I forgot which), and a girl involved in compensated dating said she was merely trying to make money, and didn't understand why should faced this kind of social stigma.

Thus to curb this trend, we must start by education. Governments in affected areas can launch campaigns similar to the fight against drugs so that people are aware that compensated dating is no different from prostitution when sex is involved. (In the same show, the interviewee mentioned that she had contracted an STD from compensated dating, and this caused her boyfriend to leave her...)

Then of course, social workers should aid in the anti-compensated dating campaign as well. Students found to be engaged in this kind of work should see a social worker (though I'm pretty sure that's happening already).

If that doesn't work, there will have to be tougher laws regarding compensated dating. A separate law could possibly be passed, outright banning compensated dating instead of arresting people involved with prostitution or other sex-related offences (especially since anti-prostitution laws are very, very lax in Hong Kong; it's possible to offer sexual services legally if they work alone).

Of course, it will in practice be hard to implement such laws as AFism has pointed out in our previous thread. There will be definition problems, and it will be hard to prevent loopholes. It may just force such services to go even deeper underground.

What's your opinion?

Exactly what I'm saying. I think that all of the bad outcomes that you have listed that have been caused by Compensated dating: Spread of STD's, People being killed and maye even possibly abducted, are all separate issues that need to be addressed separately, not in the compensated dating campaign that you speak of. Let me pose a question: If it was 100% safe, no murders, rapes, abductions, disease, etch. would you still be opposed to compensated dating?

What I'm eluding to is that sexual and mental health education should be pushed more. If people know how to stay safe, we will definitely curb the spread of disease period, regardless of whether they were compensated or not. Obviously you are always going to have a lawless crazy that is murderous, but why not promote body positivity and mental health in workshops etc. for both men and women. It wouldn't hurt. In these workshops you could talk about the psychological affects of prostitution and compensated dating, if there are any.

My point is all of the issues that you brought up with compensated dating, happen with regular courtship and even marriage. Are these issues suddenly 10 times more wrong when someone monetizes off their relationship?

I thin addressing this problem more fervently through increasing sexual health education in schools, s well as providing workshops for adults and start encouraging the cultivation of a healthy sex life and eventually holistic life in general that it wouldn't matter if people asked for money for their services or not. We can't govern people's personal choices just because we feel like it is morally wrong. Obviously this preposition won't happen over night either but supplanting this campaign: one centered around a healthy sexual and overall lifestyle in honk kong and all over the world would reach out to a bigger audience and to those who may have wanted try compensated dating.

Now for human trafficking, tat is a whole different issue. Addressing the corruption and policy in the affected countries would be a step but not for compensated dating, something that one party does one his or her own volition.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 12:11:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 11:03:12 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I don't understand why marriage in the case where one spouse earns more than another, yet assets are applier equally, is not viewed as legalized prostitution.

It is maybe because they are both legally bound equals under contract, have joined families, and upheld their covenant of marriage. I kind of find it absurd that you think so because both parties "pay" each other in a sense. It isn't like that one person is simply financing the other for sexual pleasure. You have other factors like maybe i dot know love or family or just happiness. The other party that makes less may very well be bringing in money too. Just because the other spouse has more money does it really cancel out the fact that the spouse with less money is also contributing to their JOINED funds? It isn't viewed as legalized prostitution because it isn't.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 12:57:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 12:02:59 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:09:34 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
A spin-off from this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Compensated dating is when a girl (or, more recently, a boy) offers, for money, dating services to a (usually older, but again, can also be of the same age or younger) guy (or girl) desperate for a date. Sometimes, there's no sex involved, but there often is. It is one of the more common forms of teen deviant behaviour in Hong Kong (along with drugs and premarital sex). I'm sure it's also a problem in some other places as well, including its origin, Japan.

This is not the same as renting a girlfriend/boyfriend, which is for having someone to bring to occasions like going home to visit parents. Clients of compensated dating services simply want to be in a relationship and offer money for it.

The issue has gotten much attention lately. This year, the police in Hong Kong recently shut down a compensated dating site for prostitution. Then a 13-year-old (IIRC) misrepresented her age and offered services to several men, who were later arrested for having sex with an underage girl. Earlier, a girl involved in compensated dating was brutally murdered by her client. Compensated dating is certainly a growing problem here.

The first and foremost problem with compensated dating is that its participants see nothing wrong with it. A few years ago, I watched an interview in one of Hong Kong's several social issues shows (I forgot which), and a girl involved in compensated dating said she was merely trying to make money, and didn't understand why should faced this kind of social stigma.

Thus to curb this trend, we must start by education. Governments in affected areas can launch campaigns similar to the fight against drugs so that people are aware that compensated dating is no different from prostitution when sex is involved. (In the same show, the interviewee mentioned that she had contracted an STD from compensated dating, and this caused her boyfriend to leave her...)

Then of course, social workers should aid in the anti-compensated dating campaign as well. Students found to be engaged in this kind of work should see a social worker (though I'm pretty sure that's happening already).

If that doesn't work, there will have to be tougher laws regarding compensated dating. A separate law could possibly be passed, outright banning compensated dating instead of arresting people involved with prostitution or other sex-related offences (especially since anti-prostitution laws are very, very lax in Hong Kong; it's possible to offer sexual services legally if they work alone).

Of course, it will in practice be hard to implement such laws as AFism has pointed out in our previous thread. There will be definition problems, and it will be hard to prevent loopholes. It may just force such services to go even deeper underground.

What's your opinion?

Exactly what I'm saying. I think that all of the bad outcomes that you have listed that have been caused by Compensated dating: Spread of STD's, People being killed and maye even possibly abducted, are all separate issues that need to be addressed separately, not in the compensated dating campaign that you speak of. Let me pose a question: If it was 100% safe, no murders, rapes, abductions, disease, etch. would you still be opposed to compensated dating?
Yes.

The urgency of fighting compensated dating will certainly be lessened, but it's still a problem nonetheless.

What I'm eluding to is that sexual and mental health education should be pushed more. If people know how to stay safe, we will definitely curb the spread of disease period, regardless of whether they were compensated or not.
Teaching safe sex to teenagers is like a soldier hit by an arrow removing the portion of the arrow sticking out from the body. Granted, nobody can see you were hit, but the arrow's still in your body.

France would be a case in point. Safe sex is taught extensively in France, and while they have much lower teen pregnancy rates than the US, moral decadence is much more serious there.

Obviously you are always going to have a lawless crazy that is murderous, but why not promote body positivity and mental health in workshops etc. for both men and women. It wouldn't hurt. In these workshops you could talk about the psychological affects of prostitution and compensated dating, if there are any.
I fully support teaching such things, and I think they are 100% compatible with the campaign against compensated dating.

My point is all of the issues that you brought up with compensated dating, happen with regular courtship and even marriage. Are these issues suddenly 10 times more wrong when someone monetizes off their relationship?
Well, for one thing, compensated dating is always immoral while the regular courtship and marriage generally aren't.

I thin addressing this problem more fervently through increasing sexual health education in schools, s well as providing workshops for adults and start encouraging the cultivation of a healthy sex life and eventually holistic life in general that it wouldn't matter if people asked for money for their services or not.

If by 'holistic life', you mean developing hobbies (e.g. through extra-curricular activities), having a healthy social life, etc. so they won't participate in activities like compensated dating, I'd support that fully, too. I'm pretty sceptical about the 'cultivation of a healthy sex life' thing though...

We can't govern people's personal choices just because we feel like it is morally wrong.
The law exists to deter people from performing various immoral actions. I think compensated dating, like drug abuse, is bad enough to warrant legislation if it cannot be stopped.
Obviously this preposition won't happen over night either but supplanting this campaign: one centered around a healthy sexual and overall lifestyle in honk kong and all over the world would reach out to a bigger audience and to those who may have wanted try compensated dating.
I agree that education is important - education is always better than legislation if the two can reach the same end goal.
Now for human trafficking, tat is a whole different issue. Addressing the corruption and policy in the affected countries would be a step but not for compensated dating, something that one party does one his or her own volition.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 1:33:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 12:57:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/4/2015 12:02:59 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 10:09:34 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
A spin-off from this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Compensated dating is when a girl (or, more recently, a boy) offers, for money, dating services to a (usually older, but again, can also be of the same age or younger) guy (or girl) desperate for a date. Sometimes, there's no sex involved, but there often is. It is one of the more common forms of teen deviant behaviour in Hong Kong (along with drugs and premarital sex). I'm sure it's also a problem in some other places as well, including its origin, Japan.

This is not the same as renting a girlfriend/boyfriend, which is for having someone to bring to occasions like going home to visit parents. Clients of compensated dating services simply want to be in a relationship and offer money for it.

The issue has gotten much attention lately. This year, the police in Hong Kong recently shut down a compensated dating site for prostitution. Then a 13-year-old (IIRC) misrepresented her age and offered services to several men, who were later arrested for having sex with an underage girl. Earlier, a girl involved in compensated dating was brutally murdered by her client. Compensated dating is certainly a growing problem here.

The first and foremost problem with compensated dating is that its participants see nothing wrong with it. A few years ago, I watched an interview in one of Hong Kong's several social issues shows (I forgot which), and a girl involved in compensated dating said she was merely trying to make money, and didn't understand why should faced this kind of social stigma.

Thus to curb this trend, we must start by education. Governments in affected areas can launch campaigns similar to the fight against drugs so that people are aware that compensated dating is no different from prostitution when sex is involved. (In the same show, the interviewee mentioned that she had contracted an STD from compensated dating, and this caused her boyfriend to leave her...)

Then of course, social workers should aid in the anti-compensated dating campaign as well. Students found to be engaged in this kind of work should see a social worker (though I'm pretty sure that's happening already).

If that doesn't work, there will have to be tougher laws regarding compensated dating. A separate law could possibly be passed, outright banning compensated dating instead of arresting people involved with prostitution or other sex-related offences (especially since anti-prostitution laws are very, very lax in Hong Kong; it's possible to offer sexual services legally if they work alone).

Of course, it will in practice be hard to implement such laws as AFism has pointed out in our previous thread. There will be definition problems, and it will be hard to prevent loopholes. It may just force such services to go even deeper underground.

What's your opinion?

Exactly what I'm saying. I think that all of the bad outcomes that you have listed that have been caused by Compensated dating: Spread of STD's, People being killed and maye even possibly abducted, are all separate issues that need to be addressed separately, not in the compensated dating campaign that you speak of. Let me pose a question: If it was 100% safe, no murders, rapes, abductions, disease, etch. would you still be opposed to compensated dating?
Yes.

The urgency of fighting compensated dating will certainly be lessened, but it's still a problem nonetheless.

What I'm eluding to is that sexual and mental health education should be pushed more. If people know how to stay safe, we will definitely curb the spread of disease period, regardless of whether they were compensated or not.
Teaching safe sex to teenagers is like a soldier hit by an arrow removing the portion of the arrow sticking out from the body. Granted, nobody can see you were hit, but the arrow's still in your body.

France would be a case in point. Safe sex is taught extensively in France, and while they have much lower teen pregnancy rates than the US, moral decadence is much more serious there.

Obviously you are always going to have a lawless crazy that is murderous, but why not promote body positivity and mental health in workshops etc. for both men and women. It wouldn't hurt. In these workshops you could talk about the psychological affects of prostitution and compensated dating, if there are any.
I fully support teaching such things, and I think they are 100% compatible with the campaign against compensated dating.

My point is all of the issues that you brought up with compensated dating, happen with regular courtship and even marriage. Are these issues suddenly 10 times more wrong when someone monetizes off their relationship?
Well, for one thing, compensated dating is always immoral while the regular courtship and marriage generally aren't.

I think addressing this problem more fervently through increasing sexual health education in schools, as well as providing workshops for adults and start encouraging the cultivation of a healthy sex life and eventually holistic life in general that it wouldn't matter if people asked for money for their services or not.

If by 'holistic life', you mean developing hobbies (e.g. through extra-curricular activities), having a healthy social life, etc. so they won't participate in activities like compensated dating, I'd support that fully, too. I'm pretty sceptical about the 'cultivation of a healthy sex life' thing though...

How so?

We can't govern people's personal choices just because we feel like it is morally wrong.
The law exists to deter people from performing various immoral actions. I think compensated dating, like drug abuse, is bad enough to warrant legislation if it cannot be stopped.
Obviously this preposition won't happen over night either but supplanting this campaign: one centered around a healthy sexual and overall lifestyle in honk kong and all over the world would reach out to a bigger audience and to those who may have wanted try compensated dating.
I agree that education is important - education is always better than legislation if the two can reach the same end goal.
Now for human trafficking, tat is a whole different issue. Addressing the corruption and policy in the affected countries would be a step but not for compensated dating, something that one party does one his or her own volition.

Im surprised no one else is responding to this thread...

My whole point was that if there were no murders and disease spreading in compensated dating, the only thing wrong with it would be that others found it wrong. I'm not saying that I'm for it. If others want to do it fine. But, if we teach others to be safe and smart, regardless of what they do, we will have better results. I think we can look at New Zealand's policy as an example.

https://www.health.govt.nz...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:45:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 1:33:17 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 12:57:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/4/2015 12:02:59 PM, AFism wrote:

What's your opinion?

Exactly what I'm saying. I think that all of the bad outcomes that you have listed that have been caused by Compensated dating: Spread of STD's, People being killed and maye even possibly abducted, are all separate issues that need to be addressed separately, not in the compensated dating campaign that you speak of. Let me pose a question: If it was 100% safe, no murders, rapes, abductions, disease, etch. would you still be opposed to compensated dating?
Yes.

The urgency of fighting compensated dating will certainly be lessened, but it's still a problem nonetheless.

What I'm eluding to is that sexual and mental health education should be pushed more. If people know how to stay safe, we will definitely curb the spread of disease period, regardless of whether they were compensated or not.
Teaching safe sex to teenagers is like a soldier hit by an arrow removing the portion of the arrow sticking out from the body. Granted, nobody can see you were hit, but the arrow's still in your body.

France would be a case in point. Safe sex is taught extensively in France, and while they have much lower teen pregnancy rates than the US, moral decadence is much more serious there.

Obviously you are always going to have a lawless crazy that is murderous, but why not promote body positivity and mental health in workshops etc. for both men and women. It wouldn't hurt. In these workshops you could talk about the psychological affects of prostitution and compensated dating, if there are any.
I fully support teaching such things, and I think they are 100% compatible with the campaign against compensated dating.

My point is all of the issues that you brought up with compensated dating, happen with regular courtship and even marriage. Are these issues suddenly 10 times more wrong when someone monetizes off their relationship?
Well, for one thing, compensated dating is always immoral while the regular courtship and marriage generally aren't.

I think addressing this problem more fervently through increasing sexual health education in schools, as well as providing workshops for adults and start encouraging the cultivation of a healthy sex life and eventually holistic life in general that it wouldn't matter if people asked for money for their services or not.

If by 'holistic life', you mean developing hobbies (e.g. through extra-curricular activities), having a healthy social life, etc. so they won't participate in activities like compensated dating, I'd support that fully, too. I'm pretty sceptical about the 'cultivation of a healthy sex life' thing though...

How so?
It sounds like it justifies sex before marriage, which, to borrow a word that sadolite uses often, 'desensitises' them to this kind of thing. That would probably just worsen the compensated dating problem.

We can't govern people's personal choices just because we feel like it is morally wrong.
The law exists to deter people from performing various immoral actions. I think compensated dating, like drug abuse, is bad enough to warrant legislation if it cannot be stopped.
Obviously this preposition won't happen over night either but supplanting this campaign: one centered around a healthy sexual and overall lifestyle in honk kong and all over the world would reach out to a bigger audience and to those who may have wanted try compensated dating.
I agree that education is important - education is always better than legislation if the two can reach the same end goal.
Now for human trafficking, tat is a whole different issue. Addressing the corruption and policy in the affected countries would be a step but not for compensated dating, something that one party does one his or her own volition.

Im surprised no one else is responding to this thread...

My whole point was that if there were no murders and disease spreading in compensated dating, the only thing wrong with it would be that others found it wrong. I'm not saying that I'm for it. If others want to do it fine.
That 'the only thing wrong with it would be that others found it wrong' is debatable IMO.

Let's look at it this way. The purpose of dating is to find a partner, and it should eventually lead to an eternal commitment, marriage. The very concept of compensated dating trivialises the whole idea of dating. It damages proper cultural values that a healthy society should uphold and maintain.

I think each and every stakeholder has the responsibility to uphold proper values, and the government, in particular, is charged with the responsibility of stopping trends that may damage them.

Love is not 'tradable'; there is no reason to allow such trade to happen.

But, if we teach others to be safe and smart, regardless of what they do, we will have better results. I think we can look at New Zealand's policy as an example.

https://www.health.govt.nz...

Again, I fully support programs to raise the overall health level of the populace (including physical, psychological and social health). I do think that such measures can minimise the chances of young people going into compensated dating. However, it is not guaranteed that such campaigns will work, what with the media instilling improper values like sexual openness and consumerism.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 9:23:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 12:11:22 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:03:12 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I don't understand why marriage in the case where one spouse earns more than another, yet assets are applier equally, is not viewed as legalized prostitution.

It is maybe because they are both legally bound equals under contract, have joined families, and upheld their covenant of marriage. I kind of find it absurd that you think so because both parties "pay" each other in a sense. It isn't like that one person is simply financing the other for sexual pleasure. You have other factors like maybe i dot know love or family or just happiness. The other party that makes less may very well be bringing in money too. Just because the other spouse has more money does it really cancel out the fact that the spouse with less money is also contributing to their JOINED funds? It isn't viewed as legalized prostitution because it isn't.

I get the whole "marriage is about cooperation" ideal; but the reality is that most divorces are over money transfers.

And you can't have a discussion about marriage while excluding sex as a vital component.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:39:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 9:23:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 12:11:22 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:03:12 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I don't understand why marriage in the case where one spouse earns more than another, yet assets are applier equally, is not viewed as legalized prostitution.

It is maybe because they are both legally bound equals under contract, have joined families, and upheld their covenant of marriage. I kind of find it absurd that you think so because both parties "pay" each other in a sense. It isn't like that one person is simply financing the other for sexual pleasure. You have other factors like maybe i dot know love or family or just happiness. The other party that makes less may very well be bringing in money too. Just because the other spouse has more money does it really cancel out the fact that the spouse with less money is also contributing to their JOINED funds? It isn't viewed as legalized prostitution because it isn't.


I get the whole "marriage is about cooperation" ideal; but the reality is that most divorces are over money transfers.

And you can't have a discussion about marriage while excluding sex as a vital component.

Ha, yes didn't mean to exclude sex. And sure if most divorces are over money does it then mean that most marriages are mostly about the exchange of money for sex? I don't think you can draw that conclusion from this evidence.

You could say that most marriages are the exchange of anything from one party to another for money, but even then the lines are blurred because who's to say the currency people are dealing in is money and not *Insert cheesy face* love and trust.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:01:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:45:40 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:33:17 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 12:57:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/4/2015 12:02:59 PM, AFism wrote:

What's your opinion?

Exactly what I'm saying. I think that all of the bad outcomes that you have listed that have been caused by Compensated dating: Spread of STD's, People being killed and maye even possibly abducted, are all separate issues that need to be addressed separately, not in the compensated dating campaign that you speak of. Let me pose a question: If it was 100% safe, no murders, rapes, abductions, disease, etch. would you still be opposed to compensated dating?
Yes.

The urgency of fighting compensated dating will certainly be lessened, but it's still a problem nonetheless.

What I'm eluding to is that sexual and mental health education should be pushed more. If people know how to stay safe, we will definitely curb the spread of disease period, regardless of whether they were compensated or not.
Teaching safe sex to teenagers is like a soldier hit by an arrow removing the portion of the arrow sticking out from the body. Granted, nobody can see you were hit, but the arrow's still in your body.

This analogy is kind of flawed. I'm not really getting the point. If we start with children and teach them safe sex there would definitely be more of a difference in this world. I think this includes teaching them that sex is a sign of affection not just recreational pleasure If that is what you are eluding to.

France would be a case in point. Safe sex is taught extensively in France, and while they have much lower teen pregnancy rates than the US, moral decadence is much more serious there.

Obviously you are always going to have a lawless crazy that is murderous, but why not promote body positivity and mental health in workshops etc. for both men and women. It wouldn't hurt. In these workshops you could talk about the psychological affects of prostitution and compensated dating, if there are any.
I fully support teaching such things, and I think they are 100% compatible with the campaign against compensated dating.

Right but why just focus on compensated dating only as a campaign? Since all of the bad outcomes you mentioned that happened witht his phenomena is killing, spread of disease and breking up relationships, why not talk about a cultivating a healthy sexual life? Think about it, These are the same ailments that permeate through out all forms of courtship. Does excluding the married cheating sicko's from the conversation really help the overall problem you are trying to address. I think it is a little bit bigger than just a campaign against compensated dating and other forms of "decadence" that you elude to. All of these are counterproductive ways of courtship, why not promote the productive and healthy way to be sexually active and safe? And let the person decide for themselves what they want to do? Instead of just going hard on prostitution. If that method worked we would've have seen a change already.

My point is all of the issues that you brought up with compensated dating, happen with regular courtship and even marriage. Are these issues suddenly 10 times more wrong when someone monetizes off their relationship?
Well, for one thing, compensated dating is always immoral while the regular courtship and marriage generally aren't.

Generally! Kill two birds with one stone and promote the good not harp on the bad.

I think addressing this problem more fervently through increasing sexual health education in schools, as well as providing workshops for adults and start encouraging the cultivation of a healthy sex life and eventually holistic life in general that it wouldn't matter if people asked for money for their services or not.

If by 'holistic life', you mean developing hobbies (e.g. through extra-curricular activities), having a healthy social life, etc. so they won't participate in activities like compensated dating, I'd support that fully, too. I'm pretty sceptical about the 'cultivation of a healthy sex life' thing though...

Why are you skeptical? Ignorance isn;t bliss when it comes to sexual education and a healthy lifestyle. Ignorance is death.

How so?
It sounds like it justifies sex before marriage, which, to borrow a word that sadolite uses often, 'desensitises' them to this kind of thing. That would probably just worsen the compensated dating problem.

I see what you are saying but I think that sex before marriage should be up to the individual, regardless of what wording you use.

We can't govern people's personal choices just because we feel like it is morally wrong.
The law exists to deter people from performing various immoral actions. I think compensated dating, like drug abuse, is bad enough to warrant legislation if it cannot be stopped.
I still hold my point that more legislation against it only worsens the problem. Unfortunately legislation for it turns it to an industry, So I'm not saying make prostitution legal either, that'll just make another million dollar industry like marijuana only for women...

And the the whole deterrence thing has always been disproven, as we will always have people who break laws just because they are there or just because they don't care, I mean look at prohibition.

I reaffirm that promoting what is healthy and right in a positive way will do more good then going hard on compensated dating.

Obviously this preposition won't happen over night either but supplanting this campaign: one centered around a healthy sexual and overall lifestyle in honk kong and all over the world would reach out to a bigger audience and to those who may have wanted try compensated dating.

I agree that education is important - education is always better than legislation if the two can reach the same end goal.

Then why no educated on the positive side like I said before?

Im surprised no one else is responding to this thread...

My whole point was that if there were no murders and disease spreading in compensated dating, the only thing wrong with it would be that others found it wrong. I'm not saying that I'm for it. If others want to do it fine.

That 'the only thing wrong with it would be that others found it wrong' is debatable IMO.
: Let's look at it this way. The purpose of dating is to find a partner, and it should eventually lead to an eternal commitment, marriage. The very concept of compensated dating trivialises the whole idea of dating. It damages proper cultural values that a healthy society should uphold and maintain.


Totally agree with you but I think it is again up to the individual to determine their love life.

I think each and every stakeholder has the responsibility to uphold proper values, and the government, in particular, is charged with the responsibility of stopping trends that may damage them.

This is where me and you disagree. I think It is the governments or parents responsibility to tell you what is right and you decide yourself.

Love is not 'tradable'; there is no reason to allow such trade to happen.

I do think that such measures can minimise the chances of young people going into compensated dating.

Thats not the point its up to the individual to decide.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:16:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:39:44 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/5/2015 9:23:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 12:11:22 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:03:12 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I don't understand why marriage in the case where one spouse earns more than another, yet assets are applier equally, is not viewed as legalized prostitution.

It is maybe because they are both legally bound equals under contract, have joined families, and upheld their covenant of marriage. I kind of find it absurd that you think so because both parties "pay" each other in a sense. It isn't like that one person is simply financing the other for sexual pleasure. You have other factors like maybe i dot know love or family or just happiness. The other party that makes less may very well be bringing in money too. Just because the other spouse has more money does it really cancel out the fact that the spouse with less money is also contributing to their JOINED funds? It isn't viewed as legalized prostitution because it isn't.


I get the whole "marriage is about cooperation" ideal; but the reality is that most divorces are over money transfers.

And you can't have a discussion about marriage while excluding sex as a vital component.

Ha, yes didn't mean to exclude sex. And sure if most divorces are over money does it then mean that most marriages are mostly about the exchange of money for sex? I don't think you can draw that conclusion from this evidence.

You could say that most marriages are the exchange of anything from one party to another for money, but even then the lines are blurred because who's to say the currency people are dealing in is money and not *Insert cheesy face* love and trust.

Does it really matter at that point? You are still selling an aspect of yourself. That would be prostitution. Perhaps the lesson is that prostitution and marriage do not mix, but it happens anyway.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:36:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:16:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:39:44 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/5/2015 9:23:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 12:11:22 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:03:12 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I don't understand why marriage in the case where one spouse earns more than another, yet assets are applier equally, is not viewed as legalized prostitution.

It is maybe because they are both legally bound equals under contract, have joined families, and upheld their covenant of marriage. I kind of find it absurd that you think so because both parties "pay" each other in a sense. It isn't like that one person is simply financing the other for sexual pleasure. You have other factors like maybe i dot know love or family or just happiness. The other party that makes less may very well be bringing in money too. Just because the other spouse has more money does it really cancel out the fact that the spouse with less money is also contributing to their JOINED funds? It isn't viewed as legalized prostitution because it isn't.


I get the whole "marriage is about cooperation" ideal; but the reality is that most divorces are over money transfers.

And you can't have a discussion about marriage while excluding sex as a vital component.

Ha, yes didn't mean to exclude sex. And sure if most divorces are over money does it then mean that most marriages are mostly about the exchange of money for sex? I don't think you can draw that conclusion from this evidence.

You could say that most marriages are the exchange of anything from one party to another for money, but even then the lines are blurred because who's to say the currency people are dealing in is money and not *Insert cheesy face* love and trust.

Does it really matter at that point? You are still selling an aspect of yourself. That would be prostitution. Perhaps the lesson is that prostitution and marriage do not mix, but it happens anyway.

Hold on really? Did you really ask does it really matter that the "currency" is love and trust? Isn't that the golden rule, the natural law, You get what you put out. Do onto others as you want done unto you? I love you you love me? Are you asking people to be in unrequited relationships or something?

If we all go by your definition then basically everything is prostitution! Are you a prostitute for selling a pitch to your boss? Is a mother a prostitute if her child is giving her money or gifts for all of the love that she has given it? Do people who speak for money for a living make a prostitute? Are you a prostitute for giving your all physically in a competition in exchange for a first place title or money? Aren't you a prostitute GreyParrot by your definition? Right now you are exchanging words for guess what WORDS BACK, a response!. Are we then prostitutes? Is everyone who talks now a prostitute?

This is hilarious.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:53:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:36:25 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:16:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:39:44 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/5/2015 9:23:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 12:11:22 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:03:12 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I don't understand why marriage in the case where one spouse earns more than another, yet assets are applier equally, is not viewed as legalized prostitution.

It is maybe because they are both legally bound equals under contract, have joined families, and upheld their covenant of marriage. I kind of find it absurd that you think so because both parties "pay" each other in a sense. It isn't like that one person is simply financing the other for sexual pleasure. You have other factors like maybe i dot know love or family or just happiness. The other party that makes less may very well be bringing in money too. Just because the other spouse has more money does it really cancel out the fact that the spouse with less money is also contributing to their JOINED funds? It isn't viewed as legalized prostitution because it isn't.


I get the whole "marriage is about cooperation" ideal; but the reality is that most divorces are over money transfers.

And you can't have a discussion about marriage while excluding sex as a vital component.

Ha, yes didn't mean to exclude sex. And sure if most divorces are over money does it then mean that most marriages are mostly about the exchange of money for sex? I don't think you can draw that conclusion from this evidence.

You could say that most marriages are the exchange of anything from one party to another for money, but even then the lines are blurred because who's to say the currency people are dealing in is money and not *Insert cheesy face* love and trust.

Does it really matter at that point? You are still selling an aspect of yourself. That would be prostitution. Perhaps the lesson is that prostitution and marriage do not mix, but it happens anyway.

Hold on really? Did you really ask does it really matter that the "currency" is love and trust? Isn't that the golden rule, the natural law, You get what you put out. Do onto others as you want done unto you? I love you you love me? Are you asking people to be in unrequited relationships or something?

If we all go by your definition then basically everything is prostitution! Are you a prostitute for selling a pitch to your boss? Is a mother a prostitute if her child is giving her money or gifts for all of the love that she has given it? Do people who speak for money for a living make a prostitute? Are you a prostitute for giving your all physically in a competition in exchange for a first place title or money? Aren't you a prostitute GreyParrot by your definition? Right now you are exchanging words for guess what WORDS BACK, a response!. Are we then prostitutes? Is everyone who talks now a prostitute?

This is hilarious.

I didn't say anything about love and trust. Most Divorces happen over hard currency.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 7:00:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:53:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:36:25 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:16:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:39:44 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/5/2015 9:23:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2015 12:11:22 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:03:12 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I don't understand why marriage in the case where one spouse earns more than another, yet assets are applier equally, is not viewed as legalized prostitution.

It is maybe because they are both legally bound equals under contract, have joined families, and upheld their covenant of marriage. I kind of find it absurd that you think so because both parties "pay" each other in a sense. It isn't like that one person is simply financing the other for sexual pleasure. You have other factors like maybe i dot know love or family or just happiness. The other party that makes less may very well be bringing in money too. Just because the other spouse has more money does it really cancel out the fact that the spouse with less money is also contributing to their JOINED funds? It isn't viewed as legalized prostitution because it isn't.


I get the whole "marriage is about cooperation" ideal; but the reality is that most divorces are over money transfers.

And you can't have a discussion about marriage while excluding sex as a vital component.

Ha, yes didn't mean to exclude sex. And sure if most divorces are over money does it then mean that most marriages are mostly about the exchange of money for sex? I don't think you can draw that conclusion from this evidence.

You could say that most marriages are the exchange of anything from one party to another for money, but even then the lines are blurred because who's to say the currency people are dealing in is money and not *Insert cheesy face* love and trust.

Does it really matter at that point? You are still selling an aspect of yourself. That would be prostitution. Perhaps the lesson is that prostitution and marriage do not mix, but it happens anyway.

Hold on really? Did you really ask does it really matter that the "currency" is love and trust? Isn't that the golden rule, the natural law, You get what you put out. Do onto others as you want done unto you? I love you you love me? Are you asking people to be in unrequited relationships or something?

If we all go by your definition then basically everything is prostitution! Are you a prostitute for selling a pitch to your boss? Is a mother a prostitute if her child is giving her money or gifts for all of the love that she has given it? Do people who speak for money for a living make a prostitute? Are you a prostitute for giving your all physically in a competition in exchange for a first place title or money? Aren't you a prostitute GreyParrot by your definition? Right now you are exchanging words for guess what WORDS BACK, a response!. Are we then prostitutes? Is everyone who talks now a prostitute?

This is hilarious.

I didn't say anything about love and trust. Most Divorces happen over hard currency.

Missing the point. There are more factors, regardless of how it ends in divorce. I could use the premise : Most Compensated dating cases end in love. Using your logic you would say compensated datings' currency is love not money, therefore compensated dating is courtship mot compensated dating. Do you see the problem in at? You are leaving very key elements of the relationship, in this example would be A money. In the marriage situation would be A love and trust.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:15:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You're making a whole lot of stretches here. All I am saying is that we KNOW most divorces end over money issues such as compensation.

What that tells us is that a lot of marriages begin very closely related to compensated dating and many end over that issue.

If there does exist a similar relationship, then why the skewed stigma?
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:42:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:15:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You're making a whole lot of stretches here. All I am saying is that we KNOW most divorces end over money issues such as compensation.

Still ignoring many of the possible reasons this could have happened.

What that tells us is that a lot of marriages begin very closely related to compensated dating and many end over that issue.

That only "tells" you that many divorces end in money issues.

It seems like you are the one making the stretch. You are inferring that those marriages that end in money problems started out with two parties, one seeking money and the other sexual favors, and are coming to the conclusion that marriage is glorifies prostitution, which is highly absurd.

What I am telling you is that is not ALWAYS the case. People who want sexual favors in exchange for money go get prostitutes. People who want a long time commitment, partnership, family or fulfillment, go get married. There are some people who want money get that that by getting married and those are prostitutes. But to call marriage in itself prostitution is well again, absurd. The act of marriage, dating and courtship isn't prostitution in itself, rather there are glorified prostitutes masquerading as wives and husbands. How is anything that I am saying a stretch. i'm merely pointing out the factors that you are excluding: love and trust and acknowledging the nuance. Thinking in absolutes gets us no where.

If there does exist a similar relationship, then why the skewed stigma?

Because they aren't the same. Married prostitutes, still call their relationships marriages not prostitutions...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 2:03:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that we view the issue differently. You seem to believe that only the negative effects of compensated dating need to tackled. I think compensated dating itself is a problem. That would explain most of our differences on this issue.

At 4/5/2015 5:01:22 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:40 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/4/2015 1:33:17 PM, AFism wrote:
What I'm eluding to is that sexual and mental health education should be pushed more. If people know how to stay safe, we will definitely curb the spread of disease period, regardless of whether they were compensated or not.
Teaching safe sex to teenagers is like a soldier hit by an arrow removing the portion of the arrow sticking out from the body. Granted, nobody can see you were hit, but the arrow's still in your body.

This analogy is kind of flawed. I'm not really getting the point. If we start with children and teach them safe sex there would definitely be more of a difference in this world. I think this includes teaching them that sex is a sign of affection not just recreational pleasure If that is what you are eluding to.
Most places that teach safe sex are 'giving in' to teenagers prematurely having sex, so they decide to cure symptoms (like STD spread, pregnancies...) instead of curing the actual disease (sexual openness). While this does reduce pain, the illness is still there.
France would be a case in point. Safe sex is taught extensively in France, and while they have much lower teen pregnancy rates than the US, moral decadence is much more serious there.

Obviously you are always going to have a lawless crazy that is murderous, but why not promote body positivity and mental health in workshops etc. for both men and women. It wouldn't hurt. In these workshops you could talk about the psychological affects of prostitution and compensated dating, if there are any.
I fully support teaching such things, and I think they are 100% compatible with the campaign against compensated dating.

Right but why just focus on compensated dating only as a campaign? Since all of the bad outcomes you mentioned that happened witht his phenomena is killing, spread of disease and breking up relationships, why not talk about a cultivating a healthy sexual life? Think about it, These are the same ailments that permeate through out all forms of courtship. Does excluding the married cheating sicko's from the conversation really help the overall problem you are trying to address. I think it is a little bit bigger than just a campaign against compensated dating and other forms of "decadence" that you elude to. All of these are counterproductive ways of courtship, why not promote the productive and healthy way to be sexually active and safe? And let the person decide for themselves what they want to do?
I agree that healthy ways of courtship should be promoted, but I think that when it comes to sex, abstinence is what should be promoted. If we can ensure that every person keeps his or her virginity before marriage, there will be no need to teach the 'healthy way to be sexually active and safe' at all. Safe sex can be taught before marriage, with a course offered by the government before marriage.

BTW, don't forget that money is involved in compensated dating. Even if people had healthy lives and suchlike, they may still get involved in compensated dating if they are in want of money unless they get to know, through education campaigns, that compensated dating is immoral.
Instead of just going hard on prostitution. If that method worked we would've have seen a change already.
I suggested large-scale education campaigns against compensated dating; there is no such equivalent in current anti-prostitution efforts.

My point is all of the issues that you brought up with compensated dating, happen with regular courtship and even marriage. Are these issues suddenly 10 times more wrong when someone monetizes off their relationship?
Well, for one thing, compensated dating is always immoral while the regular courtship and marriage generally aren't.

Generally! Kill two birds with one stone and promote the good not harp on the bad.

I think addressing this problem more fervently through increasing sexual health education in schools, as well as providing workshops for adults and start encouraging the cultivation of a healthy sex life and eventually holistic life in general that it wouldn't matter if people asked for money for their services or not.

If by 'holistic life', you mean developing hobbies (e.g. through extra-curricular activities), having a healthy social life, etc. so they won't participate in activities like compensated dating, I'd support that fully, too. I'm pretty sceptical about the 'cultivation of a healthy sex life' thing though...

Why are you skeptical? Ignorance isn;t bliss when it comes to sexual education and a healthy lifestyle. Ignorance is death.
Like I said, if abstinence is promoted sufficiently, it would be a non-issue.
How so?
It sounds like it justifies sex before marriage, which, to borrow a word that sadolite uses often, 'desensitises' them to this kind of thing. That would probably just worsen the compensated dating problem.

I see what you are saying but I think that sex before marriage should be up to the individual, regardless of what wording you use.
The fact remains that abstinence before marriage is preferable and what we need to see in an ideal society. As long as people choose abstinence because they KNOW it's right (rather than forcing them into abstinence), this is the path we should take.

We can't govern people's personal choices just because we feel like it is morally wrong.
The law exists to deter people from performing various immoral actions. I think compensated dating, like drug abuse, is bad enough to warrant legislation if it cannot be stopped.
I still hold my point that more legislation against it only worsens the problem. Unfortunately legislation for it turns it to an industry, So I'm not saying make prostitution legal either, that'll just make another million dollar industry like marijuana only for women...
I agree that legislation will potentially worsen the problem. I think it should only be used as a last resort if education fails to take effect. Even if we legislate, education campaigns should continue until the entire population is aware that the act of compensated dating is wrong and is unwilling to do it.
And the the whole deterrence thing has always been disproven, as we will always have people who break laws just because they are there or just because they don't care, I mean look at prohibition.
There will be people who adhere to the laws, too, willingly or not.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 2:09:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I reaffirm that promoting what is healthy and right in a positive way will do more good then going hard on compensated dating.
I don't disagree with that at all.

Obviously this preposition won't happen over night either but supplanting this campaign: one centered around a healthy sexual and overall lifestyle in honk kong and all over the world would reach out to a bigger audience and to those who may have wanted try compensated dating.

I agree that education is important - education is always better than legislation if the two can reach the same end goal.

Then why no educated on the positive side like I said before?
Again, I fully support education. Legislation is only suggested as a last resort.
Im surprised no one else is responding to this thread...

My whole point was that if there were no murders and disease spreading in compensated dating, the only thing wrong with it would be that others found it wrong. I'm not saying that I'm for it. If others want to do it fine.

That 'the only thing wrong with it would be that others found it wrong' is debatable IMO.
: Let's look at it this way. The purpose of dating is to find a partner, and it should eventually lead to an eternal commitment, marriage. The very concept of compensated dating trivialises the whole idea of dating. It damages proper cultural values that a healthy society should uphold and maintain.


Totally agree with you but I think it is again up to the individual to determine their love life.
(See below)
I think each and every stakeholder has the responsibility to uphold proper values, and the government, in particular, is charged with the responsibility of stopping trends that may damage them.

This is where me and you disagree. I think It is the governments or parents responsibility to tell you what is right and you decide yourself.
I think this is where we may have to agree to disagree. I believe it is unethical to allow others to continue their immoral ways in the name of individual freedom. That doesn't mean I support restraining freedom, but I do think society is obliged to convince these people to get out of immorality.
Love is not 'tradable'; there is no reason to allow such trade to happen.

I do think that such measures can minimise the chances of young people going into compensated dating.

Thats not the point its up to the individual to decide.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 1:33:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think this is where we may have to agree to disagree. I believe it is unethical to allow others to continue their immoral ways in the name of individual freedom. That doesn't mean I support restraining freedom, but I do think society is obliged to convince these people to get out of immorality.

Unfortunately It has to bee like this. If you go on this obligation to convince others of their morality I think the problem will get worse and open the door for new problems. Since immorality in subjective, you're opening the door for some crazies to say that being gay, black, poor or even different is immoral. This is why I don't try to impose my ideals on anyone, unless im doing business or cultivating some kind of relationship etc. because it opens the door for them to do the same, and I personally don't want that. It implies that one party is already the one with more power. It is the same mindset that knights used in the crusades, slave masters used to enslave and imperialist nations used to colonize. This mindset failed us ample amount of times, it shouldn't fail us again.Promoting the right thing is all we can do, we can't force anyone to change, but we can tell them that this is our way. My way would be freedom, justice, equality and peace. Obviously I have many problems with this world, and I change it by being my self and influencing others, not forcing them to meditate or some stuff. You got to meet people where they are at unfortunately that is at a very low place.

But yes agree to disagree. This is my stance.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 8:33:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 1:33:36 PM, AFism wrote:
I think this is where we may have to agree to disagree. I believe it is unethical to allow others to continue their immoral ways in the name of individual freedom. That doesn't mean I support restraining freedom, but I do think society is obliged to convince these people to get out of immorality.

Unfortunately It has to bee like this. If you go on this obligation to convince others of their morality I think the problem will get worse and open the door for new problems. Since immorality in subjective, you're opening the door for some crazies to say that being gay, black, poor or even different is immoral. This is why I don't try to impose my ideals on anyone, unless im doing business or cultivating some kind of relationship etc. because it opens the door for them to do the same, and I personally don't want that. It implies that one party is already the one with more power. It is the same mindset that knights used in the crusades, slave masters used to enslave and imperialist nations used to colonize. This mindset failed us ample amount of times, it shouldn't fail us again.Promoting the right thing is all we can do, we can't force anyone to change, but we can tell them that this is our way. My way would be freedom, justice, equality and peace. Obviously I have many problems with this world, and I change it by being my self and influencing others, not forcing them to meditate or some stuff. You got to meet people where they are at unfortunately that is at a very low place.

But yes agree to disagree. This is my stance.

I was going to write a longer reply to this but I decided to keep it short...

I respect your stance, and I understand it, but IMHO it's evading a problem rather than solving it.

I know enforcing morality can be problematic and I know it happens - Westboro Baptist Church, and its Hong Kong counterpart, the Society for Truth and Light, are modern examples. However, I don't that this means it shouldn't be done. I think the best course of action is to ensure that our rulers base their morality not on scripture, but on self-cultivation. People with a high level of self-cultivation are invited to rule. Then they will spread virtue to every man and woman in the country. It won't be an issue when they decide to enforce morality on us because we can be sure they are doing it doing.

Probably idealist I know... but it's I think we should be striving for it.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 9:13:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 8:33:07 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/7/2015 1:33:36 PM, AFism wrote:
I think this is where we may have to agree to disagree. I believe it is unethical to allow others to continue their immoral ways in the name of individual freedom. That doesn't mean I support restraining freedom, but I do think society is obliged to convince these people to get out of immorality.

Unfortunately It has to bee like this. If you go on this obligation to convince others of their morality I think the problem will get worse and open the door for new problems. Since immorality in subjective, you're opening the door for some crazies to say that being gay, black, poor or even different is immoral. This is why I don't try to impose my ideals on anyone, unless im doing business or cultivating some kind of relationship etc. because it opens the door for them to do the same, and I personally don't want that. It implies that one party is already the one with more power. It is the same mindset that knights used in the crusades, slave masters used to enslave and imperialist nations used to colonize. This mindset failed us ample amount of times, it shouldn't fail us again.Promoting the right thing is all we can do, we can't force anyone to change, but we can tell them that this is our way. My way would be freedom, justice, equality and peace. Obviously I have many problems with this world, and I change it by being my self and influencing others, not forcing them to meditate or some stuff. You got to meet people where they are at unfortunately that is at a very low place.

But yes agree to disagree. This is my stance.

I was going to write a longer reply to this but I decided to keep it short...

I respect your stance, and I understand it, but IMHO it's evading a problem rather than solving it.

I know enforcing morality can be problematic and I know it happens - Westboro Baptist Church, and its Hong Kong counterpart, the Society for Truth and Light, are modern examples. However, I don't that this means it shouldn't be done. I think the best course of action is to ensure that our rulers base their morality not on scripture, but on self-cultivation. People with a high level of self-cultivation are invited to rule. Then they will spread virtue to every man and woman in the country. It won't be an issue when they decide to enforce morality on us because we can be sure they are doing it doing.

Probably idealist I know... but it's I think we should be striving for it.

Oh man I think in this society we wont find a ruler who would be in power and do this... Wouldn't we all want a perfect ruler like that? One who believes freedom justice and equality.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 9:41:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 9:13:42 PM, AFism wrote:
At 4/8/2015 8:33:07 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/7/2015 1:33:36 PM, AFism wrote:
I think this is where we may have to agree to disagree. I believe it is unethical to allow others to continue their immoral ways in the name of individual freedom. That doesn't mean I support restraining freedom, but I do think society is obliged to convince these people to get out of immorality.

Unfortunately It has to bee like this. If you go on this obligation to convince others of their morality I think the problem will get worse and open the door for new problems. Since immorality in subjective, you're opening the door for some crazies to say that being gay, black, poor or even different is immoral. This is why I don't try to impose my ideals on anyone, unless im doing business or cultivating some kind of relationship etc. because it opens the door for them to do the same, and I personally don't want that. It implies that one party is already the one with more power. It is the same mindset that knights used in the crusades, slave masters used to enslave and imperialist nations used to colonize. This mindset failed us ample amount of times, it shouldn't fail us again.Promoting the right thing is all we can do, we can't force anyone to change, but we can tell them that this is our way. My way would be freedom, justice, equality and peace. Obviously I have many problems with this world, and I change it by being my self and influencing others, not forcing them to meditate or some stuff. You got to meet people where they are at unfortunately that is at a very low place.

But yes agree to disagree. This is my stance.

I was going to write a longer reply to this but I decided to keep it short...

I respect your stance, and I understand it, but IMHO it's evading a problem rather than solving it.

I know enforcing morality can be problematic and I know it happens - Westboro Baptist Church, and its Hong Kong counterpart, the Society for Truth and Light, are modern examples. However, I don't that this means it shouldn't be done. I think the best course of action is to ensure that our rulers base their morality not on scripture, but on self-cultivation. People with a high level of self-cultivation are invited to rule. Then they will spread virtue to every man and woman in the country. It won't be an issue when they decide to enforce morality on us because we can be sure they are doing it doing.

Probably idealist I know... but it's I think we should be striving for it.

Oh man I think in this society we wont find a ruler who would be in power and do this... Wouldn't we all want a perfect ruler like that? One who believes freedom justice and equality.

If proper morality is taught in schools and everyone is provided proper guidance on the Path, I don't see how that's impossible. It's natural really.

'That whereby man differs from the lower animals is but small. The mass of people cast it away, while superior men preserve it. Shun clearly understood the multitude of things, and closely observed the relations of humanity. He walked along the path of benevolence and righteousness; he did not need to pursue benevolence and righteousness.' (Mencius 8.19)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...