Remix clone Hacker News

Exactly. Random people should stop trying to play "morality police" on consenting adults engaging in legal activities in their own private spaces in their private time. It's none of your concern what other people do.

▲

vjk800 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

By stating that people's private business shouldn't concern others, you are also imposing a moral system on others. Throughout most of the history, and to many people even now, morality extends beyond what's observable to outsiders. See e.g. what most of the religions have to say on issues such as homosexuality or eating certain foods.

I'm not saying I have the right answer to all of this either, I'm just pointing out that your "morally neutral" stance isn't as neutral as you'd like to think.

▲

HeatrayEnjoyer an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Your religion example isn't helping.

▲

Cumpiler69 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>By stating that people's private business shouldn't concern others, you are also imposing a moral system on others

Only in mental gymnastics. Staying out of other people's private lives is not a question of my own morality but also the law in most western democracies. I am free to do whatever I want as long as my freedom doesn't negatively affect anyone else. If you're not affected by what I'm doing in private, why are you trying to involve yourself in it and act as a judge?

▲

ben_w 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

You're literally telling other people to stop doing stuff that you don't want them doing, specifically the act of telling others what to do.

You're allowed to do that, and we're allowed to point out that this doesn't work in practice and that the failure in practice is itself why we're not surprised or even upset about the hypocrisy.

▲

Cumpiler69 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

>You're literally telling other people to stop doing stuff that you don't want them doing

Telling people to respect the privacy you're awarded by law is nto telling them what to do.

	▲	ben_w 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah it is. It literally is. The laws themselves were written to tell people what to do. That's why they come with actual punishments if you break them, not merely arguements like on the internet. And some of those laws don actually ban various acts associated with prostitution, though the stated reasons for such laws are also often out of sync with the consequences given what is easiest to prosecute.

▲

wizzwizz4 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> See e.g. what most of the religions have to say on issues such as homosexuality or eating certain foods.

Can you name a specific religion? I can't think of any, but maybe that's because I misunderstand the religions.

	▲	ben_w 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Any that takes Leviticus seriously will have issues with both food and male homosexuality, though I'd point out that not all denominations of Christianity do so about homosexuality and most Christians expressly reject the bits about food. People can be weirdly selective about such things, which is why I've not seen any suggestion by current christians that sacrificing a bird and dipping another bird in it's blood and then then shaking the blood soaked bird on the patient is a valid cure for leprosy. (Chapter 14:1-7) Just realised that the text in Leveticus if taken literally says women are not allowed to have straight sex, only gay sex: """You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination""" - Leviticus 18:22 That said, translations are more of an art than a science, that's why there are so many of them. It might instead be interpreted as a statement against being bisexual like me, where either gay or straight is fine but doing both is what the writer (from the Watsonian perspective, god) doesn't like.

▲

cess11 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

What do you mean, "consenting adults" and "private spaces"?

It's transactional and commercial, someone is using money to get access to another's body, at least as exploitative as work generally is. It's something that wouldn't happen without the money, hence it obviously exerts some power in the relation.

▲

Cumpiler69 an hour ago | parent [-]

>It's something that wouldn't happen without the money

People never have sex, hook up or send nude pics of themselves without exchanging money?

▲

cess11 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

You're conflating what sex workers do with what people who feel lust and excitement and decide to get intimate do.

You should spend some time with sex workers. Pretty much the first lesson in this line of work is that you act well and submit to the whims and wishes of your clients, and the second lesson is to put some hard limits on what you'll do or you'll be abused.

It's generally an act, one person faking attraction or friendship or whatever and another person paying for it. Sometimes sex workers get to know clients personally, but outside porn where the 'client', i.e. the producer or whoever is paying, isn't the one you're fucking I've never heard about a sex worker initiating a non-paying relationship with a client.

To answer your actual question, no, this is not a common type of behaviour.

	▲	Cumpiler69 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You're conflating sex workers with sex slaves. Nobody's forcing you to be a sex worker for them if the job is done legally with consenting adults. Unemployment is incredibly low in the west, there are tens of thousands of other careers you can choose if you want to support yourself. You're nto forced into sex slavery, you choosing to strip to gooners online is your voluntary choice.