Well I never meant to even suggest that "society"should treat sex as an "economic event". That would never happen. My point is that since some people are willing to pay for it to me it stands to reason that others would offer it for payment. Yes mostly men there are women esp older women who will pay as well. I think when men pay us they have more of a stake in us, an investment perhaps, so they less dehumanize us than men who despise us because we are "easy". Seems to me that kind of "transaction" has always been with us and will always be so naturally we gravitate toward it - at least sometimes or at some point.

Well, some people are willing to pay for heroin. Is that good for them? We already do, in many ways, treat sex as an economic event. We have demystified it so much. Think of the words that we use, and the images we see, on the television. Stuff that would have floored your grandparents. (As Chesterton said, "Do not be pleased that you are not shocked by something that shocked your grandmother. It may be that your grandmother is a lively animal and you are a paralytic.") When you demystify something that should be intimate and special, you de-value it by making it common and banal. Beyond that, you are playing with words without altering the meaning. The "easy" girl de-values herself. (Note that what we have talked about - a woman who feels that she is giving herself because she sees a man as a being with needs, is something different. The motive is different.) The guy who treats a girl as an investment is de-valuing, not to say dehumanizing, her. He transforms her from human being into a mere commodity.

Disagree with a couple of things you posted. Did you ever consider that our being "easy" simply means we are simply more desirous of love and attention, affirmation? For many of us it was the only way of getting men to notice us. Then if they gave us half a chance they would see we were not as unattractive and desperate as perhaps they thought and often they would want to keep us around. And I always could not help thinking that the girls who played games and led men on were either doing it for power or just to make themselves more turned on. Some of us don't need those things. And re the other I think we make ourselves commodities by dehumanizing ourselves. Money has nothing to do with it. Money causes men to take us more seriously because they have invested in us. And most guys want a good relationship with an escort that includes sex. I'm sure perhaps many do not want that but that was my experience just being myself. If we treat men as humans most will respond in kind. If we make them a commodity we reap what we sow.

Well, that's why I said you cannot just address the question at an abstract level - but on a case-by-case basis. The "easy" girl looking for love and attention is NOT the same thing as the "easy" girl looking for a good time. As I said, the former may earn my sympathy or even respect. So, there really is no disagreement here. "Easy" is not the simple definition you are making it out to be. (In that connection, it could also be a "power" thing. However, that simply adds more complexity to the definition. Again, you have to look at it case-by-case. ) Money, by the way, defines the issue in ways you don't seem to appreciate. The "easy" girl who is asking for money is something VERY different from the "easy" girl looking for recognition. The latter, presumably would NOT discourage such recognition by charging someone for it. (Indeed, many men would run the other way. The nice girl suddenly ain't so nice anymore.) Speaking as a man, I can tell you that money does not add one iota of credibility or respect to the woman. In fact, it matters because it does quite the reverse. The money I paid in Amsterdam was the means to the end. It would not make me like the girl more or less. If the chemistry of a good relationship is there - great. If not, we look at it as wasted money. The money is means, not related to ends except in a peripheral way. The money adds nothing - except perhaps a deterrent - unless you count the character of the relationship that it defines. I was not expecting to develop a relationship with those women. They were there for my pleasure and I has no expectation of anything other than my own gratification. If we got along - great. If I left and she thought I was a jerk and a waste of a sex partner, it didn't matter to me. She served her purpose and the rest was incidental. For that matter, for every man who has gone to a prostitute or an escort, there are twice that number who would never consider it and who would consider any woman charging for sex to be...well....not a nice person and certainly not the gal you want to take home to mom. Finally, you have it ontologically backward. A person who makes him or herself a commodity inherently dehumanizes him or herself. You do not dehumanize yourself and thereby make yourself a commodity. (Indeed, you can just as easily dehumanize yourself by becoming a slave or an animal or some such. Dehumanizing oneself does not lead to only one possible outcome, but many outcomes can lead to dehumanizing oneself.

As long as we are basically just being ourselves we do not dehumanize ourselves at all. We are going to be a certain way because that is how we are and what we were created for. If we find out we can make $$ by just being ourselves then don't you think that is natural for us? Rather seems to me that men make us a "commodity" by wanting our company for a while then not wanting us around at all (as we would be in a continuing relationship with them). I am naturally solicitous and tender of a man's feelings I am having sex with and I naturally want him to feel good - how is that any different if he plunks down $350 at the start of our time together. He is paying me for my company but also to stay out of his life otherwise when my company is not desired. But shouldn't he be allowed to have, if he so desires, a nice time with us including sex? Where he can come away feeling good or at least better about himself? And there is nothing of "slavery" if it is transactional. And how am I being any less human by just accepting payment for services rendered? As an escort (albeit a part-time one) I still felt pain and pleasure, connected and wanted to please or instruct as I would anyhow. Besides realizing just how much men valued things I just do naturally to the extent they were willing to give me more money per hour than I make having worked in an office for 25+ years to access these things from me.

Well, I am making a sociological argument. It may be that some women feel just fine selling services, but the law serves an expressive, not just a regulatory, function. If the law says that it is fine if people treat their bodies as a sell-able commodity, it conveys approval. It is DESIRABLE that people see each other as commodities. The first question of politics is "What kind of a people do we wish to be?" If the law endorses the idea that we are nothing special - being little more than another good or service, we should not be surprised if people begin to treat each other that way. (The parallel is to civil rights legislation. We passed it not only to regulate conduct, but to create a societal ethos that frowns upon bigotry. In that we were remarkably - if not entirely - successful.) It is very important to you that a man try to please you, but why should he if you are a product he can buy? The bottom line is that, on balance, we want to advocate the idea that men and women are unique and special creatures. If the law treats us as little more than something to be consumed - even if we as individuals are perfectly fine with that - we will open up society to all sorts of problems and pathologies. As Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."

Not sure why you emphasize law when I never mentioned that at all. I am not talking about law but human behavior. Obviously a transaction is not a love relationship but contains many of the same elements. Because I was making them - their well-being and pleasure - the center, which I would have done at least initially in most relationships, I did not expect to "pleased". Which didn't mean that some of them did not want to please me and learn to do so or that I was not sometimes "pleased". With a couple of them it was just like seeing a lover except I was being paid. Which I felt guilty about but I was told to always keep that distinction. Please understand a middle-aged suburban lady who does not need the money playing for interest and enjoyment is not the same as a drug-wracked, pimp-driven 17 year old with two kids to support. At 20 and living on the street I took payment and it made me so sick and disgusted I could not continue with it. But older and wiser and being able to screen for appropriateness and check backgrounds I was quite surprised at how naturally it all came and how well I was able to do with it. Three to five clients a week, sometimes just a couple, at most perhaps 10. Until my husband had his accident and I no longer felt it was proper for me to do that. I tried to make it really good for all of them. Especially having had men on AB talk about going to girls who would watch the clock all through and didn't give a damn. I would massage them a little or a complete one for extra and give them to hang out or doze a little before seeing if they wanted to go again so like an hour and a half. I received repeat business from my first time. Which made me feel very good about myself. I never even thought about law which in this state prohibits solicitation for sex but not actually being together or doing it. Separate it from the drugs and violence and seedy neighborhoods and exploitation and keep it discreet and would be perfectly acceptable to most people. As it is in that form here in the suburbs.

Well, honestly, on this one, I sort of lost the thread of the question. (We had not looked at this one in a while.) You asked is it natural to offer if men are willing to pay. Well, yes, that could be a spontaneous reaction. Is that a good reaction is another question. My point in mentioning the law is to say simply that as a general rule - laws are general rules - the answer is "no." Most women probably would be offended, and as a normative rule it has some rather unpleasant premises. There are exceptions to the rule, though in this case you are left to wonder what motivates that exception. In another context you talked about sex covering the pain. It seems here, then, that you have only added money to the sex. At any rate, I cheerfully conceded that I drifted from the original question - but that said, I don't think my answer is any less valid.

Haha easy to sometimes lose the "thread" in our back and forth! Please don't mind me.