Many organizations say their purpose is to do good. Many of these do good by trying to entice other people to do good. And some of these organizations entice by offering prizes and awards; they commit ahead of time to giving cash or attention to those who achieve particular things, or to those chosen by some committee as the best in a category.
> no (non-prostitute) group has ever explicitly offered sex as a prize or reward
Armies historically have offered the women of the defeated populace as a reward for the soldiers.
Google for 'sexual slavery reward' and you'll find many cases of sexual services being used as rewards in non-war environments, e.g. this http://www.jstor.org/pss/33...
This is interesting because it's an exception that fits the rule - pledging to have sex with a voter still allows your subconscious to veto any particular voter you don't like.
I think you hit this perfectly. The sexual behavior patterns of politicians, athletes and celebrities is a strong indicator that sex is indeed a reward that motivates them to do what they do.
Not really. Low moral character and not being turstworthy are code words for low reproduction value or even just shaming language. When peopel hear sex worker they assume female sex worker because they are the majority by a large fraction,
Past behvaiour is the best indicator of future behaviour. And despite all the contrarian messages our pop culture sends we still desire our females to be monogamus.
OK, everyone here is obviously on a different wavelength from me, so I'll try again.
Why don't organizations offer sex prizes? Obviously this is related to why organizations can treat clients to financial services, dinner, and drinks, but not sex. Your boss can tell you to do a lot of things, but you can't be directed to have sex with a client for the sake of a business relationship. Not even if you have a fiduciary duty to your shareholders.
Now *individuals* could theoretically offer sex prizes without problems, but generally individuals don't offer prizes in the sense being discussed here. I guess you could ask why don't individuals band together and offer collective sex prizes; but why would they? We live in a society that features both sexual taboos and an emphasis on good causes; while there may be some small tension between these things, they can definitely coexist without the world exploding. It's not as if the lack of sex prizes is the main obstacle preventing us from living in a perfect utopia. The contrast between people willing to risk their lives for a good cause and people not willing to offer sex prizes for the same is especially silly. To turn things around, absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from arguing that society needs patriotic women to offer sex prizes so that we can cure cancer and save the children and end poverty, and yet I've never seen anyone do so. (I don't think this post is serious about this idea, it's more concerned with some moral hangup.)
So focusing on prizes is a distraction; the real issue is the age-old question of what makes sex different from other services and commodities, why is it OK to work as a professional wrestler but not a prostitute, why is it OK to hire someone to clean your toilet but not to sleep with you, etc.
Which is a very interesting question, true. Another interesting question is what stance should a freedom-living person take towards sexual morality. On one hand stigmatization obviously reduces choice sets. But on the other hand a society in which your boss could order you to have sex with someone sounds like it would be less free, not more. At least it sounds that way to me.
But even if your boss could order you to have sex with someone, you could always get another job. Maybe you would have to take a huge pay cut to get a job with sexual freedom, or maybe workers would have enough market power so that virtually every job would offer "sexual protection." If we subscribe to economic determinism, then our attitudes about sex would be irrelevant, it would be the free market that determined our labor options.
And yet our attitudes about sex do seem to matter. I presume that's why Prof. Hanson writes about them; he thinks they make a difference, and that they are not just epiphenomenal. What sort of effects do they have? Are our moral intuitions simply inefficient, inconsistent, incoherent, hypocritical? Or are they actually the building blocks of the accomplishments of human civilization?
1. Karl nails it: "Agreeing to be the supplier of such a proposal would signal that your sexuality is of low value."
2. I contend that we process the sexual act in very primitive ways, such that we, on some level, view the offering of a sex prize as not unlike a husband buying his wife a sexy lingerie for her birthday. The gift of sexy lingerie is seen as at least partly selfish and thus low status. Of course society will prefer someone to die for a cause, rather than to offer sex for a cause...with death, there's less chance of pleasure. The interesting distinction here is the type of sex. Per this view, society will respect sex prizes where there is no potential for pleasure (violent, abusive sex) over just plain sex. Basically, it's not about what you do, its about what you give up.
Issues include:•That cash is liquid and standardised•Cash can easily be used to buy sex (inc. sex from high status people)•Cash is probably the cheapest tangible reward to offer•Sex itself is no guarantee of quality and therefore, of a valuable reward•Costs and risks associated with sex (and perhaps the intrusiveness required to minimise these risks)•Far greater social acceptance for cash wealth over sex wealth•Cash facilitates winner ‘paying it forward’ thereby exacting the winner’s continued efforts •The ‘donor’ having to give consent in advance without opportunity of veto
Possible Solutions•Maintain a system where sex is a clearly understood rather than advertised reward•Advertise both sex and cash as alternate rewards (with the election of the achiever being confidential)•Make the sex reward outcome based rather than a guarantee of participation•Create a system to minimise costs and risks for the donor, based on the donor’s constant input and wishes, including keeping the veto•Keep the donor’s veto but have a terrific back up prize, in the instance that the ‘donor’ does not wish to proceed at any time•Just do it (so to speak)
"Plenty" doesn't mean "most," though. In fact, to take your examples about awards that are recognition or attention (like an Oscar), rather than a lump of cash, they are all aggregating very small contributions -- namely, the eyeballs or signatures or voices of approval from individuals.
One pair of eyeballs admiring you isn't going to motivate you, but thousands admiring you at the same time as part of an audience will motivate you.
It seems to me we accept something close to a moral principle that one’s subconscious must always have the option to veto sex. Especially for women, this principle seems to have a far greater priority than any pro-charity principles, and even than self-preservation principles.
"Especially for women"? Huh? I don't see how it's any more OK to have sex with a man against his will.
It seems to me we accept something close to a moral principle that one’s subconscious must always have the option to veto sex.
This is another example of inalienability I find perplexing. There are some things that we believe people *cannot* waive the right to, perhaps because we find it repulsive, or we think anyone wanting to waive such a right is necessarily insane in such a desire. (Such examples include life, freedom [i.e. voluntarily becoming a permanent slave], right to obey one's religious requirements, etc.)
The inalienability of right to say no to sex is a special case. We also treat sexual transgressions against others as having special severity, even if they are physically the same as other non-violent sexual acts except for their sexual aspect.
(You kinda have to be autistic-spectrum to notice this stuff, I admit...)
"It seems to me we accept something close to a moral principle that one’s subconscious must always have the option to veto sex."
I think this 'principle' is actually based on a simpler one, clear in Kant's second formulation of CI: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
Same reason we would object to: "I will enslave myself to you if you support my charitable cause" or "I am auctioning my daughter to support my charitable cause".
1) There is a huge degree of uncertainty to supplier as to the costs. Similarly you wouldn't expect someone to agree to be "punched in the stomach as hard as you can" by someone who raises the most money.
In the majority of cases the punch might have moderate cost, but it some cases it would have extreme costs. And, of course people are risk averse.
2) Agreeing to be the supplier of such a proposal would signal that your sexuality is of low value. Since, sexuality can be traded for large income streams this is strongly to the disadvantage of the customer.
3) Particular diseases are spread by sexual contact and mores have evolved to avoid sexual contact with people who have a high probability of carrying sexually transmitted diseases.
Thus it is to everyone's advantage to signal that they have a low probability of carrying such diseases. Being first in line to receive your sex prize does not send that signal.
> no (non-prostitute) group has ever explicitly offered sex as a prize or reward
Armies historically have offered the women of the defeated populace as a reward for the soldiers.
Google for 'sexual slavery reward' and you'll find many cases of sexual services being used as rewards in non-war environments, e.g. this http://www.jstor.org/pss/33...
This is interesting because it's an exception that fits the rule - pledging to have sex with a voter still allows your subconscious to veto any particular voter you don't like.
I think you hit this perfectly. The sexual behavior patterns of politicians, athletes and celebrities is a strong indicator that sex is indeed a reward that motivates them to do what they do.
It's simple: the government can't tax sex.
Not really. Low moral character and not being turstworthy are code words for low reproduction value or even just shaming language. When peopel hear sex worker they assume female sex worker because they are the majority by a large fraction,
Past behvaiour is the best indicator of future behaviour. And despite all the contrarian messages our pop culture sends we still desire our females to be monogamus.
OK, everyone here is obviously on a different wavelength from me, so I'll try again.
Why don't organizations offer sex prizes? Obviously this is related to why organizations can treat clients to financial services, dinner, and drinks, but not sex. Your boss can tell you to do a lot of things, but you can't be directed to have sex with a client for the sake of a business relationship. Not even if you have a fiduciary duty to your shareholders.
Now *individuals* could theoretically offer sex prizes without problems, but generally individuals don't offer prizes in the sense being discussed here. I guess you could ask why don't individuals band together and offer collective sex prizes; but why would they? We live in a society that features both sexual taboos and an emphasis on good causes; while there may be some small tension between these things, they can definitely coexist without the world exploding. It's not as if the lack of sex prizes is the main obstacle preventing us from living in a perfect utopia. The contrast between people willing to risk their lives for a good cause and people not willing to offer sex prizes for the same is especially silly. To turn things around, absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from arguing that society needs patriotic women to offer sex prizes so that we can cure cancer and save the children and end poverty, and yet I've never seen anyone do so. (I don't think this post is serious about this idea, it's more concerned with some moral hangup.)
So focusing on prizes is a distraction; the real issue is the age-old question of what makes sex different from other services and commodities, why is it OK to work as a professional wrestler but not a prostitute, why is it OK to hire someone to clean your toilet but not to sleep with you, etc.
Which is a very interesting question, true. Another interesting question is what stance should a freedom-living person take towards sexual morality. On one hand stigmatization obviously reduces choice sets. But on the other hand a society in which your boss could order you to have sex with someone sounds like it would be less free, not more. At least it sounds that way to me.
But even if your boss could order you to have sex with someone, you could always get another job. Maybe you would have to take a huge pay cut to get a job with sexual freedom, or maybe workers would have enough market power so that virtually every job would offer "sexual protection." If we subscribe to economic determinism, then our attitudes about sex would be irrelevant, it would be the free market that determined our labor options.
And yet our attitudes about sex do seem to matter. I presume that's why Prof. Hanson writes about them; he thinks they make a difference, and that they are not just epiphenomenal. What sort of effects do they have? Are our moral intuitions simply inefficient, inconsistent, incoherent, hypocritical? Or are they actually the building blocks of the accomplishments of human civilization?
Enough rambling...
This seems perfect for PETA.
I think I may have seen offers of "dates" as prizes for some contest or other...
This is a signaling issue:
1. Karl nails it: "Agreeing to be the supplier of such a proposal would signal that your sexuality is of low value."
2. I contend that we process the sexual act in very primitive ways, such that we, on some level, view the offering of a sex prize as not unlike a husband buying his wife a sexy lingerie for her birthday. The gift of sexy lingerie is seen as at least partly selfish and thus low status. Of course society will prefer someone to die for a cause, rather than to offer sex for a cause...with death, there's less chance of pleasure. The interesting distinction here is the type of sex. Per this view, society will respect sex prizes where there is no potential for pleasure (violent, abusive sex) over just plain sex. Basically, it's not about what you do, its about what you give up.
Many? Can you name some that exist today? Near DC?
Issues include:•That cash is liquid and standardised•Cash can easily be used to buy sex (inc. sex from high status people)•Cash is probably the cheapest tangible reward to offer•Sex itself is no guarantee of quality and therefore, of a valuable reward•Costs and risks associated with sex (and perhaps the intrusiveness required to minimise these risks)•Far greater social acceptance for cash wealth over sex wealth•Cash facilitates winner ‘paying it forward’ thereby exacting the winner’s continued efforts •The ‘donor’ having to give consent in advance without opportunity of veto
Possible Solutions•Maintain a system where sex is a clearly understood rather than advertised reward•Advertise both sex and cash as alternate rewards (with the election of the achiever being confidential)•Make the sex reward outcome based rather than a guarantee of participation•Create a system to minimise costs and risks for the donor, based on the donor’s constant input and wishes, including keeping the veto•Keep the donor’s veto but have a terrific back up prize, in the instance that the ‘donor’ does not wish to proceed at any time•Just do it (so to speak)
"Plenty" doesn't mean "most," though. In fact, to take your examples about awards that are recognition or attention (like an Oscar), rather than a lump of cash, they are all aggregating very small contributions -- namely, the eyeballs or signatures or voices of approval from individuals.
One pair of eyeballs admiring you isn't going to motivate you, but thousands admiring you at the same time as part of an audience will motivate you.
It seems to me we accept something close to a moral principle that one’s subconscious must always have the option to veto sex. Especially for women, this principle seems to have a far greater priority than any pro-charity principles, and even than self-preservation principles.
"Especially for women"? Huh? I don't see how it's any more OK to have sex with a man against his will.
It seems to me we accept something close to a moral principle that one’s subconscious must always have the option to veto sex.
This is another example of inalienability I find perplexing. There are some things that we believe people *cannot* waive the right to, perhaps because we find it repulsive, or we think anyone wanting to waive such a right is necessarily insane in such a desire. (Such examples include life, freedom [i.e. voluntarily becoming a permanent slave], right to obey one's religious requirements, etc.)
The inalienability of right to say no to sex is a special case. We also treat sexual transgressions against others as having special severity, even if they are physically the same as other non-violent sexual acts except for their sexual aspect.
(You kinda have to be autistic-spectrum to notice this stuff, I admit...)
"It seems to me we accept something close to a moral principle that one’s subconscious must always have the option to veto sex."
I think this 'principle' is actually based on a simpler one, clear in Kant's second formulation of CI: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
Same reason we would object to: "I will enslave myself to you if you support my charitable cause" or "I am auctioning my daughter to support my charitable cause".
A couple of factors
1) There is a huge degree of uncertainty to supplier as to the costs. Similarly you wouldn't expect someone to agree to be "punched in the stomach as hard as you can" by someone who raises the most money.
In the majority of cases the punch might have moderate cost, but it some cases it would have extreme costs. And, of course people are risk averse.
2) Agreeing to be the supplier of such a proposal would signal that your sexuality is of low value. Since, sexuality can be traded for large income streams this is strongly to the disadvantage of the customer.
3) Particular diseases are spread by sexual contact and mores have evolved to avoid sexual contact with people who have a high probability of carrying sexually transmitted diseases.
Thus it is to everyone's advantage to signal that they have a low probability of carrying such diseases. Being first in line to receive your sex prize does not send that signal.