Schraf and Satcomm hand in hand against victimless crimes

quote:

---

...holmes

​

{Yet another message edited for overlong lines of plus symbols - STOP IT HOLMES!!! - Adminnemooseus}

​

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-17-2003]

---

I keep on finding new examples of holmes using long lines of plus symbols as dividers in his messages. When too long, these lines cause the entire page to be overwide, which requires one to scroll left and right to read things. Very annoying!!!Holmes, it time you learn and start using the UBB quote code. See EvC Forum: dBCodesAdminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

quote:

---

I just admitted I made an assumption because your previous posts were right leaning and NOT that they said you believed in God.

​

That's twice you haven't properly read something I wrote.

---

I read your post just fine. I don't understand how you came to the assumption I was an Xtian. Simply saying my views were "right leaning" isn't sufficient enough to brand some one religious. I was pointing this out to you, again.

quote:

---

If all you do is write to get a rise out of people, you just hit my kill filter chum. I came here to discuss and debate, not get sucked into meaningless conversations with jerks.

---

We are debating are we not? The purpose is to win the debate not to give a monotone speech. Let me lay it out for you, chum:1. I say something to get you mad.
2. You spout off (which would be out of form for you).
3. You lose credibility in the debate.
4. Your temper loss results in my views being more attractive.Now me saying "holmes is an idiot" would not be appropriate and I have not done any such thing.Of course "stone throwing Xtians" wasn't mean spirited was it? I'm sure that's your term of endearment just as whore was mine.I am honest and admit the tactic. Others use the tactic but feign ignorance to it. Why is this an issue?

quote:

---

Again, you can't seem to read. I didn't say your post was an attempt to refute mine.

​

I stated quite clearly my realization that we had been in agreement the whole time, and then puzzled why you'd attack me and prostitutes so personally since we were in agreement.

​

I got my answer now. You are a jerk, trying to get a rise out of me rather than saying anything intelligent.

---

No, clearly would be "Do you agree with what I said?" Instead you imply I didn't understand the contents of your post and didn't agree with it. Or perhaps I read it that way. I am sorry if that is the case.

quote:

---

I never said that, and I don't believe that. I stated quite clearly that there are people that get hurt and aren't happy.

---

I never said you said it either. It is what I interpreted from your posts. It appears i'm not the only one.

quote:

---

Since you just admitted that you make posts to simply piss people off, and you can't seem to read (maybe just to get a rise?) I will not be talking to you again.

---

I admitted to making one post to get a rise out of you. Not all posts. The original post to this thread appears to be the same thing. You wanted to "spank" schraf and satcomm and were quite malicious about it. Don't point your finger at me hypocrite.

quote:

---

Do you deny that male desire for dominance and for feeling powerful is, or never has been, at the root of the sex trade, along with the historical exclusion of women from good-paying jobs?

---

The first statement is true. That is why were are men. The second statement is feminist mumbojumbo. I know women who turn down "good paying jobs" because they can make more money stripping.Waitressing is a job which would apply to your second statement.

quote:

---

I have got to say, holmes, that you make a lot of claims in your post but do not back them up at all.

---

Wow, which claims are those? The references to Bonobo community research, the references to swinging Lifestylists that allow for prostitution, the historical and anthropological evidence that prostitution existed outside of restrictive, puritanical societies?I figured this would be pretty easy to look up. But I'll get you references if you really need them.

quote:

---

You say that most people going to prostitutes wnat a real person with feelings. Upon what do you base this? Your blow up doll analogy is not effective, because I would imagine that blow up dolls cannot really simulate a real vagina very well, nor can blow up dolls actively do anything.

---

Uhhhhhh... upon knowing prostitutes and their customers. Duh.I already stated that much of this is personal anecdote (since there are no studies on personal satisfaction with prostitutes), but that carries a bit more weight than your purely ad hominem attack.The fact that you avoided all of the real cases I mentioned (for why a person would go to a prostitute), including the Dutch government supporting a brothel for those with disabilities underlines your lack of objectivity on this. Do you really need me to go get a reference for that case?You are right though, maybe blowup dolls (or real dolls... which by the way do simulate a real vagina pretty well) would never compete with a real person because they don't move.It was your assertion that people are looking for a body to use, not mine. I was disputing that assertion by pointing out that people want real living people, not just "a body."

quote:

---

I actually don't buy your claim that sexual release with a partner is necessary. Sexual release feels good and has a lot of benefits, but it doesn't have to be with a partner other than your own hand to gain the benefits.

---

I never said it was necessary. If I did please point out where I did and I'll change it.It is desirable. Nonprudes can handle the concept that you can do what is desirable with someone else when you want to, instead of using your hand.Only prudes think using your hand is somehow better or preferable to being with someone you are not in a relationship with, or worse still, paying a person to do the relieving.The masseuse example still fits. Why do you keep avoiding it?

quote:

---

If a 14 year old girl became a prostitute (as this is the average age of entry into prostitution) and stayed there until age 18, would the tricks she turned now that she is 18 be victimless?

---

Nice scare tactics. The average age based in what country? Or did you mean the world?Hmmmmmmmm. Why did you pick 18 as the age of majority? What is the age of majority in those other countries (if others were used)? When is it "normal" to engage in sex in those countries? Is it 18? Maybe a lot less?It sure as hell isn't 18 in the Netherlands, in fact you can strip and be in movies (not sure about prostitution) at 16-17. Sex is legal at 12. Spain at 13. I could go on but you get the idea.While quoting young ages may seem frightening, it isn't as such when put into cultural context. The issues in countries with lower ages of consent becomes issues of child labor, not child sex. I have already said I have a problem with child labor (regardless of the occupation)This is why stats are so misleading, they invite terror based purely on cultural difference and not the facts.Let's pretend for a second that you are talking about the US.If a girl did this before 18 she would be considered the victim. If she did this after 18 she would not be. If she chose to do all of this then what we are looking at is a huge grey area (though her clients should not have employed her). If she was forced into this, then she remained a victim of SLAVERY even after she was 18.When a child of 10 is forced to make shoes 10 hours a day for nothing, does it become less bad when the person hits 18? No.Is it victimless? If the person chooses to stay, then yes. Unless you intend to indite the whole shoe industry.The question is coerced work, not the work done. Your greater pity for those in sexual work, and a desire to connect that to people who freely choose to work in that field, shows your bias against sex. I think all forced labor is terrible.What does that have to do with a person willingly working in an occupation she chooses?You have not countered with any credibility, the fact that its illegality makes the situation worse. Legality cuts down on forced labor through regulation.BTW did those stats come from countries where it was legal or illegal to have sex for money? My bet is the lower figures came from countries where the national average for having sex is lower anyway, and prostitution is illegal... you tell me if I'm wrong.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-17-2003]

to the admin. I am totally sorry about the pluses, I will use the proper quote code from now on. It'll actually be easier!This is the first time I heard it was a problem. Was there an earlier post to me about this? If so, I hadn't read it, or received it in an email.Either way, I'll never do it again.holmes

quote:

---

This brings me back to my original contention, then; you have this idealized idea of Disney-hookers loving their jobs, and even if it were true that most of them had been molested, that prostitution was still a wonderful thing.

---

Your original contention was that prostitution was not a victimless crime because prostitutes may have been abused as children.Apparently my strong denounciation of your contention has made it appear I believe everyone loves being a P. I do not understand this as I stated that this is not the case.I stated very clearly I think the percentage of people happy to be working as a prostitute are higher than those working as toilet scrubbers (even in Disneyland), butchers in a slaughterhouse, etc...That does not imply they are happier than astronauts, lawyers, and professors.That does not in any way shape or form say that I think everyone loves their job.I think I set a very low bar for "average" job satisfaction in that career.FOR THE LAST TIME AND FOR THE RECORD: Not all prostitutes enjoy being prostitutes. Some were abused as children, some are being forced to work as prostitutes (even as children), some get diseases, some take drugs, some drink too much, some get raped, some get murdered.I do not idealize prostitution as I know the people in it, on both sides. Granted I have seen it mainly in countries where it is LEGAL... which is part of my overall argument against your stats (which come from countries where it is illegal).You are the one with an "idealized" vision of what it is to be a prostitute, because it is derived mainly from stats and feminist dogma.My contention is that the examples you list are arguments for legalization and regulation not keeping things the way they are.In this way, countries weed out the worse-case scenarios and as much as possible let the "disneyland" hookers reign in that occupation.

quote:

---

Do you deny that male desire for dominance and for feeling powerful is, or never has been, at the root of the sex trade, along with the historical exclusion of women from good-paying jobs?

---

I think this has to be the heart of the matter.The answer is YES. I deny the feminist garbage that sex is primarily a dominance issue between men and women, and therefore deny that the sex trade is "rooted" in the male desire for dominance.The counter-examples are many. Men are prostitutes (including being with women), women hire prostitutes (women and men), some men who hire prostitutes desire to be dominated, some women specialize in only that field (being dominant), what about when couples are hired by men/women?Now I AM NOT SAYING, that a majority of men do not have power or dominance issues, and that they don't like to feel powerful by buying a lady for the night, or that once bought they like to feel like they are in charge.I am simply saying the trade is not "rooted" in those social-temporal gender issues... it would exist outside of them as well.A masculinist, could easily turn the tables and point out how many women also play the power game in catching the most affluent men, and getting money out of men for very little work (some get away with it without having to have sex), so it is somewhat of a two way street.But that is getting off the subject.Trade in ANYTHING is "rooted" on inequity in money. Someone does a service for someone else for payment. An exchange of power.Women (up till very recently) have been cut out, or pushed down economically. They have been disempowered and restricted from access to the highest avenues of attaining power. Ease of access to making good money may very well convince a woman to try prostitution (though this also works for men).If that is all women were allowed to do, or have access to, then we'd be talking about a serious problem. I totally agree.I don't think this is the case, however, especially as this general oppression has been combined with laws against prostitution.You can't have it both ways, saying men want this and push women into it when it was the men who made it illegal in the first place.Or I suppose you can if it's a fractured-paranoid plot of one group of men wanting to dominate women through prostitution, and the other wanting to do it by not allowing women control of their own bodies.But this is all the more reason to allow it to be legal. Let the woman decide for herself. And yes, no one should be forced into it, people that have been abused should be encouraged not to go into it, and women in general should have equal access to other high-paying careers.I did not say the highest goal for a women is to be a prostitute.holmes

I've tacked the "what was edited" message onto a number of your messages. Also, I posted the message "HOLMES and his lines of +'s" at:
http://EvC Forum: HOLMES and his lines of +'sNo reply to this message required.Have a nice day,
Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

quote:

---

4. Your temper loss results in my views being more attractive.

---

This is incorrect. It makes my style look worse, but the substance should stand on its own.Posting just to get someone upset offers no real substance, and in this particular case was distracting.

quote:

---

Don't point your finger at me hypocrite.

---

I had already apologized for the tone of my first post, and I'll apologize for negative tones in others if you wish.Regardless of tone my first post had a quite a bit of substance to it. Yours did not (other than to say P's should take the heat).If you don't supply much substance and I don't know what's for real and what's to get a rise out of me, there is little point in responding.I am not the first to point this out to you.I realize I am now responding after declaring I would never respond to you again.I just wanted to point out that after I stated I was hoping the admin would take notice of what you were doing, the admin took a notice of something I was doing and chastised me.Ahhhhhh, the fresh taste of humble pie. Or is it crow? Either way, I'm the one eating it.holmes

deleted post.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-18-2003]

quote:

---

Your original contention was that prostitution was not a victimless crime because prostitutes may have been abused as children.

---

No, it was YOUR original contention that prostitution was a victimless crime, period. I asked you about the (not small number of) people who get into it because they have been sexually abused as children. You then proceeded to lecture me about all the wonderful things that prostitution does for people. I notice that most of your examples are the benefits to customers, not to the prostitutes. You also handed me a great many claims and assertions which you choose to put out there with no back up whatsoever. I don't know if your views are accurate or not.Oh, and I'd like to address your massage therapist analogy. You claimed that prostitution and massage therapists are practically the same thing, but I think there are some fundamental differences.The client of a massage therapist is completely passive. They do not do anything to the therapist. The therapist remains fully clothed. There is no vulnerability attached to being a massage therapist; in fact, it's the other way around.

quote:

---

Apparently my strong denounciation of your contention has made it appear I believe everyone loves being a P. I do not understand this as I stated that this is not the case.

​

I stated very clearly I think the percentage of people happy to be working as a prostitute are higher than those working as toilet scrubbers (even in Disneyland), butchers in a slaughterhouse, etc...

---

Why do you say that? Based upon what, exactly?

quote:

---

That does not imply they are happier than astronauts, lawyers, and professors.

​

That does not in any way shape or form say that I think everyone loves their job.

​

I think I set a very low bar for "average" job satisfaction in that career.

---

quote:

---

FOR THE LAST TIME AND FOR THE RECORD: Not all prostitutes enjoy being prostitutes. Some were abused as children, some are being forced to work as prostitutes (even as children), some get diseases, some take drugs, some drink too much, some get raped, some get murdered.

​

I do not idealize prostitution as I know the people in it, on both sides. Granted I have seen it mainly in countries where it is LEGAL... which is part of my overall argument against your stats (which come from countries where it is illegal).

---

Do you deny my statistic that the average age of entry into prostitution for females is 13 or 14?

quote:

---

You are the one with an "idealized" vision of what it is to be a prostitute, because it is derived mainly from stats and feminist dogma.

---

This may be true, but so far all you have provided to me to counter my ideas are assertions and opinion rather than evidence.

quote:

---

My contention is that the examples you list are arguments for legalization and regulation not keeping things the way they are.

---

I don't think we should keep things the way they are, either, but I don't think selling one's body or buying another's body should be legal. I think we shuld be, as human beings, moving away from the comoditization of human beings.

quote:

---

In this way, countries weed out the worse-case scenarios and as much as possible let the "disneyland" hookers reign in that occupation.

---

Actually, this might be a good intermediate step, but the fact reamains that the existence of prostitution simplly enforced the idea that men can and should have access to any kind of body to do almost whatever they want with with no responsibility other than payment. This, to me, is dehuminization of a very high degree.A: Do you deny that male desire for dominance and for feeling powerful is, or never has been, at the root of the sex trade, along with the historical exclusion of women from good-paying jobs?

quote:

---

I think this has to be the heart of the matter.

​

The answer is YES. I deny the feminist garbage that sex is primarily a dominance issue between men and women, and therefore deny that the sex trade is "rooted" in the male desire for dominance.

---

I think that it is becoming less and less a dominance issue as women and men figure out how to have egalitarian relationships. However, there are plenty of men and women today who use sex (or the witholding of) to punish, to reward, to coerce, etc. Rape is an extreme example of specifically sexual power and dominance. A man could beat a woman up if he wanted to be dominant, but to rape her is a powerful sexual domination that is also meant to humiliate.Sex is powerful. I don't think it is primarily a dominance issue between equal partners, but it is there. I think it has to be more of a dominance issue in the sex trade because customers (mostly male) can buy anything they want. That is power, plain and simple.

quote:

---

The counter-examples are many. Men are prostitutes (including being with women), women hire prostitutes (women and men), some men who hire prostitutes desire to be dominated, some women specialize in only that field (being dominant), what about when couples are hired by men/women?

---

What percentage of "Johns" are women or couples?

quote:

---

Now I AM NOT SAYING, that a majority of men do not have power or dominance issues, and that they don't like to feel powerful by buying a lady for the night, or that once bought they like to feel like they are in charge.

​

I am simply saying the trade is not "rooted" in those social-temporal gender issues... it would exist outside of them as well.

---

First you would have to establish that the tendency of homo sapien males to want to sexually dominate females doesn't exist.

quote:

---

A masculinist, could easily turn the tables and point out how many women also play the power game in catching the most affluent men, and getting money out of men for very little work (some get away with it without having to have sex), so it is somewhat of a two way street.

---

I think that this behavior by women is wrong (albeit somewhat evolutionarily driven), too.

quote:

---

But that is getting off the subject.

​

Trade in ANYTHING is "rooted" on inequity in money. Someone does a service for someone else for payment. An exchange of power.

​

Women (up till very recently) have been cut out, or pushed down economically. They have been disempowered and restricted from access to the highest avenues of attaining power. Ease of access to making good money may very well convince a woman to try prostitution (though this also works for men).

​

If that is all women were allowed to do, or have access to, then we'd be talking about a serious problem. I totally agree.

---

Right now, it's the only occupation that has paid women better than it has paid men.

quote:

---

I don't think this is the case, however, especially as this general oppression has been combined with laws against prostitution.

​

You can't have it both ways, saying men want this and push women into it when it was the men who made it illegal in the first place.

---

They made it illegal, but they don't really enforce the laws.

quote:

---

Or I suppose you can if it's a fractured-paranoid plot of one group of men wanting to dominate women through prostitution, and the other wanting to do it by not allowing women control of their own bodies.

​

But this is all the more reason to allow it to be legal. Let the woman decide for herself. And yes, no one should be forced into it, people that have been abused should be encouraged not to go into it, and women in general should have equal access to other high-paying careers.

​

I did not say the highest goal for a women is to be a prostitute.

---

quote:

---

jd:
"I have never eluded to believing in God ..."

---

I think the bell curve just got skewed to the right....

Hello Holmes, following this thread has been interesting; you present a fairly thorough argument. Perhaps you can help me to better understand your opinion.

quote:

---

Prostitution has been made a crime because it is believed to do harm. It is a victimless crime because the sole participants in the crime have agreed to engage in it.

---

While the acts involved in prostitution are consensual and seemingly harmless, the practice of prostitution is harmful in other indirect ways. It supports the idea that humans can be purchased and used. It is also harmful to the hard won concept that women are more than ‘Comforting Release Technicians’.
Also consider a man, who lacks the social skills or esteem to find a sexual partner through conventional means. If a prostitute fulfills his desires, isn’t it harmful to him in the sense he will not overcome his shortcomings? I know these don’t qualify as harm/injury in a criminal sense, I’m just wondering about your opinion.(In response to Schraf)

quote:

---

It was your assertion that people are looking for a body to use, not mine. I was disputing that assertion by pointing out that people want real living people, not just "a body."

---

In most of your examples you seem to imply that they are just looking for a body. You make little reference to companionship, only release. A real living person has a personality. If all that is known about another is what time they are available for sex, there is no known personality and that person is reduced to a real living ‘body’. (Even if they do gasp at the appropriate moments.)

quote:

---

It is desirable. Nonprudes can handle the concept that you can do what is desirable with someone else when you want to, instead of using your hand.
Only prudes think using your hand is somehow better or preferable to being with someone you are not in a relationship with, or worse still, paying a person to do the relieving.

---

By your definition I guess I’m a prude. I can agree with the concept that you can do what is desirable (and consensual) with someone else when you want to, it’s the part about paying for it that hangs me up.
I understand your massage analogy; it is difficult for me as a woman, to remove the intimate, internal aspects of sex in order to equate it with a backrub.

quote:

---

In the end, prostitution and other sexual careers will continue despite the laws that restrictive, puritanical societies may put in place. This is because it is inate human behavior.

---

Legal or not, it discourages the open ended sexual freedom that you champion. In accepting prostitution you are rejecting this freedom because you advocate paying for a service, not simply enjoying an unfettered sexual experience. Sex is innate; trading sex for money does not seem to be innate.Ruth

Ruth writes:

quote:

---

Legal or not, it discourages the open ended sexual freedom that you champion. In accepting prostitution you are rejecting this freedom because you advocate paying for a service, not simply enjoying an unfettered sexual experience. Sex is innate; trading sex for money does not seem to be innate.

---

Personally I don't see very much of a difference between a person paying for one service (a plumber to fix their toilet) and another (a prostitute to share their bed).Can you (or anyone else) explain why you think there is a difference?
Thinking sex is a private thing and should not be for sale isn't going to be good enough (even though I agree that it is private) and isn't any different from me thinking that my piano has sentimental value and should not be sold for money. Not that I have a piano.------------------
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

quote:

---

Personally I don't see very much of a difference between a person paying for one service (a plumber to fix their toilet) and another (a prostitute to share their bed).
Can you (or anyone else) explain why you think there is a difference?

---

The difference to me is in the labeling of sex as a service in the first place. It is a consensual act between thinking creatures, not some object that needs to be fixed, and not some twisted birthright.All said, I would have to concede that an individual can rent or sell a part of themselves for money if they desire, it is their body. Surrogate mothers and blood donors are technically in this same group.

quote:

---

Thinking sex is a private thing and should not be for sale isn't going to be good enough (even though I agree that it is private) and isn't any different from me thinking that my piano has sentimental value and should not be sold for money. Not that I have a piano.

---

I place more value on my ‘piano’, and it is a bit more than a sentimental attachment.I am thinking this over, but have to run, later, Ruth

quote:

---

While the acts involved in prostitution are consensual and seemingly harmless, the practice of prostitution is harmful in other indirect ways. It supports the idea that humans can be purchased and used. It is also harmful to the hard won concept that women are more than ‘Comforting Release Technicians’.

---

Prostitution itself is simply the purchase of sexual entertainment and is not by necessity the "purchase of people."You can hire cooks to cook your food, masseuse's to massage your body, singers to sing for you, dancers to dance with you, and you can hire prostitutes to have sex with you.There are slaves pushed into all of those things, even today. The commodification of human life which leads to slavery, or virtual slavery, is repulsive and should be addressed through changing attitudes toward human life in general.Putting women who want to work as sexual entertainers (P, stripping, other) in jail does not change this attitude, nor does it help those stuck in slavery.I agree that prostitution should not be the considered the only profession worthy of women. Physical pleasure is not all women can do, or do best.I am only advocating the position that women's sexual organs, and how they like to have sex, is not the concern of the government.

quote:

---

Also consider a man, who lacks the social skills or esteem to find a sexual partner through conventional means. If a prostitute fulfills his desires, isn’t it harmful to him in the sense he will not overcome his shortcomings? I know these don’t qualify as harm/injury in a criminal sense, I’m just wondering about your opinion.

---

That's an interesting question. Does hiring a prostitute hinder a person's esteem and ability to work on social skills?For some it might, but then the internet revolution would be even more damaging to these people than hiring a prostitute.This raises the question of whether we need to sculpt society by proscribing activity that might harm the weakest links.

quote:

---

In most of your examples you seem to imply that they are just looking for a body. You make little reference to companionship, only release. A real living person has a personality. If all that is known about another is what time they are available for sex, there is no known personality and that person is reduced to a real living ‘body’.

---

My examples have been very limited as my posts are long enough already. Some men hire prostitutes just to talk, or to talk as well as have sex. I'm not about to claim this is the majority, but it part of the wide variety of activities that go on.You can get to know prostitutes as much as you choose to find out, and they choose to allow, much like any other service person you hire.

quote:

---

By your definition I guess I’m a prude... it’s the part about paying for it that hangs me up.

---

Well, to my mind prudishness is a scale. Actually its a spectrum from total hedonist to total prude.You are prudish in that you feel there is something different about sexuality that must be protected or treated differently than say... an ability and desire to cook, to give a massage, etc etcThen again you are more hedonistic than people that don't allow promiscuous sex at all.I've got some prudish tendencies myself, just not with regards to prostitution.

quote:

---

I understand your massage analogy; it is difficult for me as a woman, to remove the intimate, internal aspects of sex in order to equate it with a backrub.

---

That's fine. People can have their own boundaries. I really think it's great that people have differences.Like I said, I have my own boundaries that some might find strange.All I am saying is that:1) people need to realize that OTHER people really do exist who don't draw their personal boundaries the same way (in fact finding the rules of "modern massage" needlessly restrictive), and2) that imposing one group's boundaries on another (even if they are the majority) is not the best policy for anyone.

quote:

---

Legal or not, it discourages the open ended sexual freedom that you champion. In accepting prostitution you are rejecting this freedom because you advocate paying for a service, not simply enjoying an unfettered sexual experience. Sex is innate; trading sex for money does not seem to be innate.

---

I wish the world was much more open sexually. Much more free.I belong to the sexual lifestyle ("swinging"). Many of my friends do too. I've never heard anyone in this lifestyle go off on prostitutes.Some even engage in prostitution (client and provider).When your sexuality is really open and free, and you enjoy having sex with many different people, it really doesn't seem that odd to make money doing what you like (and do anyway), or hiring a sexual entertainer (as compared to any other entertainment).Trading sex for goods and services (or money) may very well be inate.It has existed in all societies, over the entire course of human history. I might note it flourished in societies with more free sexual attitudes. And Bonobo research suggests that even before written history sex was a common method of barter for humans.I have also pointed out that even people who don't like prostitution often end up granting or withholding sex within their relationships in order to get something they want (emotional or physical). This is trade even if no one likes to think of it that way.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-19-2003]