|
The next time someone goes down on you then expects you to return the favour, say "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a prostitute". See how well that goes.
There are a lot of relationships that are de facto prostitution, with sexual favours being traded quid-pro-quo for household chores or emotional labour or other, different sexual favours... or simply as a prerequisite for remaining in the relationship (or in the house). That's one of the reasons I'm in favour of safe, decriminalized sex work - it'd be hypocritical not to be.
|
|
0967-------------------------------------
(Tues afternoon, INT: EB and JH's place, EB, JH and MH are all at the table)
JH: I know I said the symbols are just symbols, but having them stand in for sex acts conceptually doesn't work.
MH: Hey, if my brain Rorschachs a pink loopy-loop into three people sucking on each other, is that really my fault?
JH: You can still just say "pink loopy-loop", you don't have to say the thing you think it looks like.
--------------
EB: Jamie's right, a fucked-up metaphor actually makes communication harder, and this game is going to rely on communication. We can't play if we can't communicate.
EB: These tokens are fungible, and sex isn't. I can't pass "missionary position" from one person to another. A sex act doesn't exist independently of the persons performing it.
--------------
JH: There's a question: if someone trades sex for other sex, is that still prostitution? I mean, it doesn't have to be money, right? Fucking someone in exchange for goods and services is still prostitution, I believe. So if sex is already assumed to be a tradeable commodity, wouldn't "I'll bang you if you bang me" be a form of solicitation?
--------------
MH: Y'know, if Jamie doesn't believe in reciprocation in the bedroom that may explain why you two have such a lousy sex life.
EB: Oh, make no mistake, Jamie is giving and attentive in the bedroom. He's just fundamentally incompetent at it.
JH: Gosh, thanks so much for defending me, sweetheart.
|
