Intuitions about commodification are culturally relativistic

A non-relative male paying for a meal was once so anomalous that it was considered — and not always incorrectly — prostitution, says Moira Weigel, a Yale University PhD student and the author of the just-published “Labor of Love: The Invention of Dating,” with police officers staking out bars and restaurants and even arresting daters.

That is from Emma Court.  See also Jason Brennan.

Comments

This was based on a libertarian premise: that a free meal had to be a negotiated exchange for something else. Why else would a rational economic man do this.

Ayn Rand would understand this.

Nothing libertarian about it

Aha! Wonderful!

So you believe in altruism!.

There is hope.

Not all business transactions are automatically Libertarian. Your POV is coloring your reactions.

The post is about paying the meal for a date is considered payment for prostitution.

So, your comment: "Not all business transactions are automatically Libertarian." is in line with the post.

Sure, though it's hard to separate altruism from warm fuzzies, reputation, and the like

Exactly, although don't expect Bill to have a rebuttal to rhis argument, or likely, to have even thought about it. There is a reason libertarians have the highest IQ of all political ideologies: systematic thinking, if you feel good from being charitable, that is not altruism.

You are confusing a value system, libertarianism, with an economic theory.

Of course a date is transactional, all courtship behaviors are and the man paying emphasizes this aspect. But many libertarians can be so without acknowledging the economic aspects of all human interactions. And just because someone can believe the economic theory behind liibertarian ideology doesn't make them a libertarian. At an extreme immoral objectivist can be a rent seeker if they recognize that this behavior will reward them. A true objectivist is not going to worry about divine retribution.

In Bill and many left wingers minds, libertarianism = selfishness. But libertarianism = love of freedom in libertarian's minds. So if a libertarian felt like being generous that would not be inconsistent with his beliefs, but it would be inconsistent with Bill's view on what a libertarian believes.

Perhaps there is more subtle argument as well. Bill is obviously a believer that people are inherently wicked and women are stupid and so we need to be restrained by a strong state in order to behave well. So unless there are strong rules against it, men will inevitably exploit women by demanding sex after a paid for meal. So meal paying must be regulated and if necessary criminalized. A libertarian might believe that actually most people have strong moral sense not to exploit people, and also that women are not stupid, so if situations are occurring where men are receiving sex after paying for a meal, it is in their joint interest and we should not interfere.

Of course if libertarian's are wrong, and in fact most people are wicked and don't have a strong moral sense, that would also be an argument against a strong state, after-all why would you create such a structure that could easily be hijacked by all the wicked exploitative people?

there is no free lunch

What a load of orthodox feminist crap that was!

The Male should continue to pay for the Female as reparations for having had the dominating privilege of paying for the meal historically.

I would like to see her evidence.

Yes this sets off all kind of internal bullshit alarms.

Currently in France food for sex is illegal,

http://www.smh.com.au/world/france-overhauls-prostitution-laws-makes-it-illegal-to-pay-for-services-20160406-go09m6.html

sex for food is survival, umm, so might be ok. What alternative is there ??

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/young-greek-women-selling-sex-for-the-price-of-a-sandwich-new-study-shows/2015/11/27/c469695e-94d9-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html

It's nice to live in a time where it is not always assumed that interactions between males and females necessarily revolve around sex (although there seems to be somewhat of a contradiction in this observation about paying for meals inferring prostitution, considering that it is assumed that we are more sexualized today than in the past).

I don't see why people can't just see people as people.

Nathan Cuck, why'd you change your handle?

Nathan's reply would have been five times longer and would never get to the point. If it is Nathan, his writing style has improved.

There is a methodological problem with the term 'cultural relativism'. It assumes that costly signals and cheap talk are interchangeable because a separating equilibrium has already been established.

There are very good reasons, formalizable within Intuitionistic Mathematics, to believe that no such thing has ever happened. Indeed, long before Brouwer's 'choice sequences' and Turing's use of the same; 'Cultural Relativism'- i.e Tiebout sorting- has been rejected as a basis of valid intuition by EVERY Classical Civilisation or Hegemonic Episteme.

Take 'homosexual marriage'. Some Hanafi, even Salafi, Muslims will, with greater alethic force, point to their own 'culture' as supporting this- if that is what is deemed good within a specific signalling market.

The Turkish Caliphate abolished laws obnoxious to homosexuals a hundred years before the British. However, this was generally considered a bad and retrograde step for the greater part of the Twentieth Century.

Indeed, Britain itself might never have taken the road of Enlightenment unless its possibility of returning to Great Power status hadn't already been very comprehensively trashed by... the Americans.

Similarly, the American debacle in Vietnam provided a sort of ex ante justification for the Liberal Agenda. If Americans couln't be militarily decisive in terms of type of regime- even in the paddy-fields of a perceived as 'brown and emaciated' pre-modern population- then it was useless to enforce the moral code appropriate to a Praetorian Guard upon an essentially un-conscriptable population.

So, "the police" staked out restaurants? Implied is that these were American police (where something about the right to free association seems relevant); I've serious doubts that any such law could sustain challenge. It's also true that "the police" arrest women driving cars, but what this has to do with American feminism is beyond me. Most of what I've read suggests that male and female libido is equal, and with widespread availability and use of effective birth control, the only two significant barriers* to equality of sexual partners is 1. STDs (male to female more likely than female to male) and 2. physical strength/intimidation in precoital manuvering (aka dating). Who is at more risk on a date? *The significant non-cultural barriers.

Comments for this post are closed