22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Discuss SDB here!

Moderators: Shouri, Giz

User avatar
brasca
Posts: 2987
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:04 am

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by brasca » Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:45 am

GothPoet wrote:
brasca wrote:Characters being uncharacteristically upfront and honest about their past to avoid any misunderstanding in the Ma3 universe! :-o

Well if Ray moves in with Amber then Ruby will be permanently sleeping with Dillon. And on that subject how eager is she to get another bed? Perhaps it's easier to share a bed with him.
Dog and cats, living together... Mass Hysteria!
Sadly we lost Mayor Lenny Clotch last week with Ziggy Stardust and Professor Snape. :(

JoybuzzerX
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:02 am

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by JoybuzzerX » Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:58 am

Fluffy wrote:
Spidrift wrote:Well, he does rather jump at every opportunity. And he seems to imply to gullible partners that there's an emotional connection, when really he just wants sex. And he is cheating on his wife.

But basically, yeah, Nathan does nothing that we haven't seen other characters in these comics do. He just does more of it, gleefully, and without any apparent twinges of conscience.
I don't know - taking advantage of someone's unfortunate circumstances (in this case - Ray being evicted from his apartment due to being behind in rent and having no means to support himself) in order to get laid is actually rather sleazy.
Except it was more Ray's suggestion and Nathan over heard it and was more than willing to help out.

User avatar
Spidrift
Posts: 11727
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:11 pm

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by Spidrift » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:52 am

Indeed. This is still just Nathan offering an open and explicit trade. It's a sordid deal, but still a deal.

On Fluffy's original point - well, it's true that Nathan may be the first character in the comics to take advantage of someone's financial vulnerability to solicit sex. He's one of the few characters with enough money to splash around that way. Erik did impress Zii with his wealth, but he never actually asked to pay for sex, and Yuki honestly didn't realise that she had Zii trapped in a dysfunctional relationship by virtue of being the one with her own apartment. The rest of the cast just have to make do with exploiting each other's emotional or intellectual weaknesses.
JoybuzzerX wrote:Dillion was a part of it all as well, though he thought there was love in it as well, but it sounded like there had been something for awhile longer. No doubt flirting with Nathan while with Matt (Dillion is a flirt).
Point of detail on that, by the way: No, Dillon only met Nathan after he broke up with Matt. We saw them being introduced, the morning after the first night of the play.

One would be vaguely curious to know how romantic Dillon really was about his relationship with Nathan. The one time we saw them having sex, Nathan was saying "I'll make you a star!", and Dillon had stars in his eyes. But Dillon is a self-deluding idiot, so he probably thought that Nathan loved him romantically for his talent.

Double post merged. The DAMNed
---------
Spidrift
"Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo."
-- Motto of Hogshead Publishing of fond memory, and wise words to set your Foes List by.
Avatar misappropriated from the wonderful XKCD.

User avatar
Error of Logic
Posts: 5066
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by Error of Logic » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:07 am

For a moment, I thought Nathan actually arranged this situation somehow...
My comic, Res Mira, starts here.

The crazy will bust loose. Either in the stories or on the forum. Or both at the same time.

Mad theory: Eulice is actually a retired succubus. This explains why she says DiDi Chastel looks like she did in her younger years. She maintains her current form because it allows her to get through her day without having to turn down sexual advances.

A busty redhead by decree of the Internet...? o.o;

User avatar
Moruno
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:56 pm

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by Moruno » Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:49 am

And just as I was refreshing the page to see this strip, my media player started playing E-Rotic - Help me Dr. Dick. That was rather nice coincidence.

JoybuzzerX
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:02 am

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by JoybuzzerX » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:03 pm

Spidrift wrote:
JoybuzzerX wrote:Dillion was a part of it all as well, though he thought there was love in it as well, but it sounded like there had been something for awhile longer. No doubt flirting with Nathan while with Matt (Dillion is a flirt).
Point of detail on that, by the way: No, Dillon only met Nathan after he broke up with Matt. We saw them being introduced, the morning after the first night of the play.

One would be vaguely curious to know how romantic Dillon really was about his relationship with Nathan. The one time we saw them having sex, Nathan was saying "I'll make you a star!", and Dillon had stars in his eyes. But Dillon is a self-deluding idiot, so he probably thought that Nathan loved him romantically for his talent.
I stand corrected! Which only goes more to the point that Dillion was in it for his own reasons.

KittyHat
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:57 pm

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by KittyHat » Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:28 pm

Spidrift wrote:"Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?" "Uh, yes, I suppose so." "So would you sleep with me for a fiver?" "What do you take me for, a common whore?" "We've already established that; now, we're just haggling over the price."
The ugly little secret is that everyone who works for someone else is essentially a prostitute (for all meaningful intents and purposes, if not by strict dictionary definition). If you work for another person or for a company, you're selling your labor for money. You're selling, ultimately, your body for money, often to do things you loathe and would never do otherwise, and often to do things that are degrading and demeaning. And at the end of all of that, the only significant distinction left at all between actual prostitution and what you do is whether sexual intercourse is directly involved on the job or not.

And would you do whatever work you currently do for 0.0005% of your current pay? Probably not. So really, we've already established that you and nearly everyone else in the world is for sale, and now it's just down to haggling over price. ;)

User avatar
Spidrift
Posts: 11727
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:11 pm

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by Spidrift » Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:25 pm

The strict dictionary definition is there for a reason, though. Like it or not, most people do attach an emotional significance to sexual activity (however defined) that they don't attach to most other activities. They'll often only usually do it with people they think they love, or at least like a lot. Selling it for cash crosses that line, even if they'd admit that they might do it for huge, life-changing amounts of cash. It'd make them feel dehumanised.

Anthropologists sometimes talk about cultures with different "spheres of exchange." You can exchange cattle for land, or pots for corn. But you can't exchange pots or corn for cattle or land. We Don't Do That. It defiles cattle and land, which are special. And sex is the one place that western culture still works like that. You can, just about, exchange it for extended protection, use of an apartment, and gifts of jewellery, but exchange it for cash or groceries? Sweetheart, that makes you a whore. And however irrational you think that difference is, it's something that's embedded deep in most people's brains.
---------
Spidrift
"Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo."
-- Motto of Hogshead Publishing of fond memory, and wise words to set your Foes List by.
Avatar misappropriated from the wonderful XKCD.

User avatar
Cresset
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:33 am

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by Cresset » Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:58 pm

JoybuzzerX wrote:This comic is starting to make me think he's less of a sleeze. :p

He's got money. People want his money.[...]
Yeah. I mean, you're saying I could sleep under a bridge from now on, or I could follow you into that room over there? Lead the way, bro. Wait, do you want me to call you daddy? Because I can do that.

KittyHat
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:57 pm

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by KittyHat » Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:07 am

Spidrift wrote:The strict dictionary definition is there for a reason, though.
(snipped for brevity)

Yes, I am aware of all of that, but it really doesn't change my point at all, does it? Pretty much my response would just be to repeat what I already said, because the objective reality of the situation exists independently of our irrational cultural biases.

Or to put it another way, I can call our culture on its BS while still being aware of how the BS works.

User avatar
Spidrift
Posts: 11727
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:11 pm

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by Spidrift » Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:26 am

No, because it's not "our culture"; this kind of thing is widespread across multiple cultures. It seems to be a bit more fundamental. And if you yell at everyone "YOU'RE ALL PROSTITUTES REALLY", they're just going to say "no we aren't". Because they aren't, and they genuinely don't feel like they are.
---------
Spidrift
"Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo."
-- Motto of Hogshead Publishing of fond memory, and wise words to set your Foes List by.
Avatar misappropriated from the wonderful XKCD.

OldBrit
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:37 pm

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by OldBrit » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:18 am

KittyHat wrote:The ugly little secret is that everyone who works for someone else is essentially a prostitute (for all meaningful intents and purposes, if not by strict dictionary definition). If you work for another person or for a company, you're selling your labor for money. You're selling, ultimately, your body for money, often to do things you loathe and would never do otherwise, and often to do things that are degrading and demeaning. And at the end of all of that, the only significant distinction left at all between actual prostitution and what you do is whether sexual intercourse is directly involved on the job or not.

And would you do whatever work you currently do for 0.0005% of your current pay? Probably not. So really, we've already established that you and nearly everyone else in the world is for sale, and now it's just down to haggling over price. ;)
I was paid for my brain, not my body. I would, and at times did, do the work for free. Even the worst parts of the job were not so bad that I loathed them.

Maybe I was lucky, or maybe it's you that is unlucky in your career choice.

User avatar
Spidrift
Posts: 11727
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:11 pm

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by Spidrift » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:39 am

Alternatively: Everyone who is employed is an employee. A prostitute is employed to sell sex, therefore a a prostitute is an employee. This does not imply that every employee is a prostitute. There's probably a technical term for that logical error.
---------
Spidrift
"Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo."
-- Motto of Hogshead Publishing of fond memory, and wise words to set your Foes List by.
Avatar misappropriated from the wonderful XKCD.

KittyHat
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:57 pm

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by KittyHat » Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:56 pm

Spidrift wrote:No, because it's not "our culture"; this kind of thing is widespread across multiple cultures. It seems to be a bit more fundamental. And if you yell at everyone "YOU'RE ALL PROSTITUTES REALLY", they're just going to say "no we aren't". Because they aren't, and they genuinely don't feel like they are.
You are describing an emotional response to the facts I've already laid out. What you're saying is true, of course (they'd respond that way, sure), and apart from it being completely irrelevant to the facts already presented, that's fine.
OldBrit wrote:I was paid for my brain, not my body.
Your brain is a part of your body, as much as every other part of you. To say, "I was paid for my brain, not my body" is a nonsensical statement, akin to saying, "I was paid for my skin, not my body."

And yes, I realize you're not selling your actual brain in the sense of allowing it to be extracted from your skull and passed about as a commodity, but you're still selling access to the fruits of its labor ... which is not materially different from selling access to the fruits of the labor of any other part of your body in anything except arbitrary cultural taboo.

However, it's good that you enjoy what you do. That's really what I find to be important anyway, personally. :)
Spidrift wrote:Alternatively: Everyone who is employed is an employee. A prostitute is employed to sell sex, therefore a a prostitute is an employee. This does not imply that every employee is a prostitute. There's probably a technical term for that logical error.
I did say they don't fit the dictionary definition. My point was more that the only meaningful separation is cultural taboo. In the same way that there's nothing inherently horrible about, say, moving boxes around in a warehouse, nothing inherently horrible about selling one's services, and nothing inherently horrible about combining the two, so there is also nothing inherently horrible about engaging in sexual intercourse, selling one's services, and, again, combining the two.

They are basically the same thing, with the only difference being the type of (perfectly acceptable) service rendered.

All I'm really saying, in the end, is that I find the taboo positively ridiculous and always have, because it makes absolutely no sense.

Double post deleted. You do know you can actually edit your own post? No need to quote it and then add something at the end... The DAMNed

User avatar
Spidrift
Posts: 11727
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:11 pm

Re: 22-01-16 Never stoop that low

Post by Spidrift » Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:25 pm

KittyHat wrote:You are describing an emotional response to the facts I've already laid out.
No, I'm describing a factual one. Because...
KittyHat wrote:I did say they don't fit the dictionary definition.
The existence of the dictionary definition is a fact. The dictionary describes how most people use the language, which is also a fact. If people got annoyed by your ignoring the facts to score some kind of meaningless point that's only true inside your head where the dictionary is a work of fiction, well, it's you ignoring the facts.
KittyHat wrote:My point was more that the only meaningful separation is cultural taboo.
No, because cultural taboos are learned. It seems more likely that this class of "taboo" is innate; after all, almost every culture in the world, including some which have been out of contact with each other for tens of thousands of years, has taboos and complex regulations about sex. It's hardly surprising if sexual behaviours are evolved and biological, given that sex is a crucial motor of evolution.

Specific hang-ups about sex (get married in church first, don't screw your cousin, pretend that gay sex doesn't exist) are doubtless cultural, because culture determines how biological impulses are expressed. But the emotional weight attached to them likely comes from biology, not culture.

(In the case of prostitution, well, it entangles complex erotic emotions with the rules for commercial exchange, which is bound to lead to messes. Plus, its existence may threaten pair-bonds that are important in all sorts of ways. Hence, it's guaranteed to be loaded with more taboos than moving boxes in a warehouse.)
---------
Spidrift
"Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo."
-- Motto of Hogshead Publishing of fond memory, and wise words to set your Foes List by.
Avatar misappropriated from the wonderful XKCD.

Post Reply