Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GoblinCookie]

I'd say that there's a pretty long way from prostitution to that.

Realistically they are actually prerequisites, rape must exist in order for there to be any demand for prostitution; without rape, prostitution becomes anachronistic.  The supply side can be taken care of by creating an impoverished/oppressed/enslaved group of people; however there must also be a demand side in order to have prostitution.  When you think about it carefully the prostitute-user and the rapist are psychologically kin; both of them desire to have sex with people that do not desire to have sex with them back. 

Read backwards we have the same relationship.  Prostitution turns sexuality into a commodity that exists separately to the person and commodities can be 'stolen' as it were, rape is therefore stealing something of value from the owner(s) of the sexual commodity.  In effect the rapist migrates to the prostitute-user and the prostitute-user migrates to the rapist since the logic of both systems results in the other given the right circumstances.  That means that in order to have a world that does not have rape in it, we must also have a world that does not have any prostitution in it.

This has to do with desire, not with what they are actually able to actually do, if we prevent the rapists from raping and the prostitute-users from visiting prostitutes the situation remains the case as above as long as they still want to do those things in their heads. 

Before the whole "prostitution opens the way to dorf molestion" discussion gets out of hand I would point out that Ultima (played by Toady and Threetoe and no doubt an inspirational work) had simple prostitution (in VI and VII at least, possibly V too) so it's not completely unthinkable.

But still, everything in DF gets researched to ensure highly detailed implementation so it really depends on whether Toady's at all interested in that part of history (and whether they regard 'prostitute' as a standard fantasy trope). As pointed out on another thread, URR is the 'social and political reality' focussed roguelike. Would be strange to not have prostitutes in that, wheras in DF they probably wouldn't be missed.

From that we can conclude some facts about Ultima's world; we can conclude that there is poverty/oppression in that world to provide the supply and there is a demand for prostitution.  As per the previous response, from the fact there is a demand for prostitution also means that there is a 'demand' for rape, even if this is suppressed by the social order from happening right out in the open where the player can see it.  Unlike Ultima however which represents a particular social order, at a particular time, with most things about the society and economy abstracted away so the player can focus on playing the game, Dwarf Fortress attempts to be a total simulation of all the possibilities of a given universe, with a colossal amount of detail.

This means that if rape does not happen even when it could easily happen, then the only realistic explanation is that there is no demand for rape and hence no demand for prostitution either.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Dwarf fortress attempts to create a world in which the general fantasy tropes that Threetoe wrote about (none of which involved raping prostitures or child molestion) can theoretically be produced without scripting. It's not a simulation of everything (whatever that means) or even attempting to be.

[JesterHell696]

Oh, I don't think it's impossible that it'll be implemented. He's already discussed regular sex and seduction seriously so it's not unthinkable as I said. I just don't think it's a big gaping hole that needs to be filled.

I don't think its a big gaping hole either, hell I'd rather that he just handle plain old "normal" issue like remarriage after death of a spouse, lovers breaking up and adultery first but I do like to think about the potential implementation of sex in DF as its an interesting subject... would dwarves treat prostitutes like high class geisha's? would dwarven armies have the follower camp prostitutes that often followed armies? would there be any zoophilia and would those zoophiles be imprisoned or executed? ect.

[Reelya]

I'd say that there's a pretty long way from prostitution to that.

Realistically they are actually prerequisites, rape must exist in order for there to be any demand for prostitution; without rape, prostitution becomes anachronistic.  The supply side can be taken care of by creating an impoverished/oppressed/enslaved group of people; however there must also be a demand side in order to have prostitution.  When you think about it carefully the prostitute-user and the rapist are psychologically kin; both of them desire to have sex with people that do not desire to have sex with them back. 

This same logic could be applied to trade vs crime.

Theft must exist in order for their to be any demand for trade. Without theft, trade becomes anachronistic. ... When you think about it carefully the the trader and the thief are both psychologically kin; both of them desire to acquire goods from people that do not desire to just freely give the goods to them.

Just as you can play semantics and say someone who pays a prostitute is a rapist, because they wanted sex with someone who didn't want sex, you can flip the argument and say that a prostitute is a thief, because she desired to take money that someone didn't want to give her. That's basically the exact same logic that you used.

An exchange and taking are two different things. In an exchange, you formally acknowledge that the other person is the owner of the thing that you are trading for. Theft is taking power, buying is acknowledging the seller's power. Sure, both end with you obtaining something, so they have that in common, but the power dynamic is completely different.

Sure, you can argue that slavery was a thing, and slavery could include sexual slavery. But slavery also included manual laborers: so you could make the same argument that literally any economic exchange is anachronistic if you don't model outright slavery. Hell, the logic is even the same as your argument: any exchange of money for services is slavery since the employer wants the labor of someone who doesn't want to provide it. And conversely, all workers are thieves since they want to take the money of an employer who doesn't want to give it. So there's not much logic in singling out prostitution on those grounds either. Historical slavery included slavery related to anything that could have exchange value, and that did include sex as much as it included literally everything.

The idea that all sex workers are impoverished oppressed and enslaved is also as a result of the predictable effects of prohibition. Those sorts of things always accompany prohibition, regardless of the nature of the prohibited thing. In Australia for example, where prostitution is legal and regulated, the average sex worker earns about twice what you'd get for a full time minimum wage job in the USA. If they're earning more then of course, you can't deny that there could be an element of choice in such an arrangement. They can earn more in less hours than they would in other unskilled jobs.

One criticism of the legal sex-industry in Australia is that it's run by a number of corporations (they provide the facilities, equipment etc), and these corporations take 50-60% of the money that is paid by the clients. So that's proof of how terrible the sex industry is compared to other industries, right? Well, not in any rational sense. There's a thing called capitalism, where your boss gets a big cut of what you actually made. Again, only getting a percentage of the raw earnings is just a reality of capitalism, and not anything that stems specifically from sex work. Sex workers in Australia earn about double what someone doing 40 hours a week on minimum wage would in the USA. That 50% of earnings that the company gets goes towards rent, bills, paying staff and security guards as well as towards advertising. All that shit costs a packet of money, and it's shit that the girls accept the cut the company makes because they don't have to deal with any of that, rather than working solo, where they'd have to sort all that stuff out themselves. Women work for brothels for the exact same reason anyone works for a company rather than being a sole trader: economies of scale and division of labor.

In fact, there is evidence that the availability of porn, for example, is strongly negatively correlated with rape, despite what anti-porn people will tell you. Prostitution and rape in general probably have a similar connection. Basically anything that can get your rocks off has a negative correlation to all the similar stuff.

[GoblinCookie]

Dwarf fortress attempts to create a world in which the general fantasy tropes that Threetoe wrote about (none of which involved raping prostitures or child molestion) can theoretically be produced without scripting. It's not a simulation of everything (whatever that means) or even attempting to be.

It attempts to create a complete simulation of a world in which the kind of stories that Threetoes writes will happen without being scripted to happen.  This is opposite to the usual situation in computer game where we have a scripted story and then a world is created around the scripted story.  This means in order to have stories involving prostitution we must have a world in which people want to have sex with people who do not want to have sex with them; this means that we realistically we will also end up with rape stories happening too.

For the regular game no attempt is made to model the world as a whole, only those elements of the world that are relevant to the particular story that you are telling.  This means that a whole load of stuff that is neccesery for the story to happen can and does happen off camera.  In DF there is no off-camera since the world as a whole is simulated ablait at an abstract level in order to make the specific story happen. 

This same logic could be applied to trade vs crime.

Theft must exist in order for their to be any demand for trade. Without theft, trade becomes anachronistic. ... When you think about it carefully the the trader and the thief are both psychologically kin; both of them desire to acquire goods from people that do not desire to just freely give the goods to them.

Just as you can play semantics and say someone who pays a prostitute is a rapist, because they wanted sex with someone who didn't want sex, you can flip the argument and say that a prostitute is a thief, because she desired to take money that someone didn't want to give her. That's basically the exact same logic that you used.

An exchange and taking are two different things. In an exchange, you formally acknowledge that the other person is the owner of the thing that you are trading for. Theft is taking power, buying is acknowledging the seller's power. Sure, both end with you obtaining something, so they have that in common, but the power dynamic is completely different.

You are entirely missing the point.  Both theft and trade require that the thing being stolen have value, but the value of the sex of a person that does not want to have sex with them is absolutely nothing to somebody who does not have the basic psychology of a rapist.  The problem is not whether the commodity is traded or stolen, but the mere fact that the unwanted sex commodity has value in the first place. 

The power dynamics are also quite similar between rape and prostitution.  Once something is sold to the buyer then the seller loses power over that which has been sold, this means that the position of the prostitute once she has been sold is similar to that of the rape victim, because being forced to engage in unwanted sexual acts and forcing yourself to do so are really no different.  A certain ex-prostitute Rachel Moran explains what how hollow the distinction between prostitution and rape is in this video.  Another gem is that prostitutes suffer from PTSD at a greater rate than soldiers that fight in combat. 

Sure, you can argue that slavery was a thing, and slavery could include sexual slavery. But slavery also included manual laborers: so you could make the same argument that literally any economic exchange is anachronistic if you don't model outright slavery. Hell, the logic is even the same as your argument: any exchange of money for services is slavery since the employer wants the labor of someone who doesn't want to provide it. And conversely, all workers are thieves since they want to take the money of an employer who doesn't want to give it. So there's not much logic in singling out prostitution on those grounds either. Historical slavery included slavery related to anything that could have exchange value, and that did include sex as much as it included literally everything.

Yes all work is slavery.  Slavery and freedom are two different sides to the same coin, in order for some people to have more freedom other people must have less freedom since in order for the first group to be freed from having to work a second group must be compelled to do the work that the first group is not bound to do.  You also have not realized how given that given that proper slavery exists in dwarf fortress all your previous arguments about exchange fall apart.  Slavery is sort of like energy, it cannot be created or destroyed, we have a finite amount of it inherent in the compulsion of society in general to work and this is then distributed by those with power.

To add prostitution into the game given the existence of slavery is to add rape into the game even by your own wretched narrow definitions, do slaves employed by their masters as prostitutes have any choice at all?

The idea that all sex workers are impoverished oppressed and enslaved is also as a result of the predictable effects of prohibition. Those sorts of things always accompany prohibition, regardless of the nature of the prohibited thing. In Australia for example, where prostitution is legal and regulated, the average sex worker earns about twice what you'd get for a full time minimum wage job in the USA. If they're earning more then of course, you can't deny that there could be an element of choice in such an arrangement. They can earn more in less hours than they would in other unskilled jobs.

No, where prostitution is legalized sex slavery goes up not down.  This is because when socially/legally approved of the demand goes up far faster than the actual supply of women that are actually 'willing' to prostitute themselves.  This does increase the value of prostitution, however unlike with normal commodities the higher the value of paid sex the less sex is produced, since as prostitution is akin to rape most prostitutes aim to prostitute themselves as little as they can in order to earn what they have to earn in order to survive.  This means that it works in reverse of regular economics for commodities, a higher the value of prostitution the less of it is 'produced' by the work force. 

This means that every time prostitution is legalized there is not only a continuation of illegal prostitution but it actually comes to dwarf the official legal prostitution.  The legality and social acceptance of prostitution generates extra demand, but no extra supply.  There are also darker reasons for this, the slave-prostitute is actually of higher value than the free-prostitute, this is because she can be forced to do anything while the free prostitute has certain boundaries and the greater her income the more boundaries she can afford to put up, since it is her economic prostitution that gives her more freedom once she has sold herself.

One criticism of the legal sex-industry in Australia is that it's run by a number of corporations (they provide the facilities, equipment etc), and these corporations take 50-60% of the money that is paid by the clients. So that's proof of how terrible the sex industry is compared to other industries, right? Well, not in any rational sense. There's a thing called capitalism, where your boss gets a big cut of what you actually made. Again, only getting a percentage of the raw earnings is just a reality of capitalism, and not anything that stems specifically from sex work. Sex workers in Australia earn about double what someone doing 40 hours a week on minimum wage would in the USA. That 50% of earnings that the company gets goes towards rent, bills, paying staff and security guards as well as towards advertising. All that shit costs a packet of money, and it's shit that the girls accept the cut the company makes because they don't have to deal with any of that, rather than working solo, where they'd have to sort all that stuff out themselves. Women work for brothels for the exact same reason anyone works for a company rather than being a sole trader: economies of scale and division of labor.

I am not exactly fold of Capitalism either, so your point is?  Even I however can see the difference between being forced to stack shelves or pick fruit for a living and being forced to have sex with strangers according to their sick and twisted whims for a living.

In fact, there is evidence that the availability of porn, for example, is strongly negatively correlated with rape, despite what anti-porn people will tell you. Prostitution and rape in general probably have a similar connection. Basically anything that can get your rocks off has a negative correlation to all the similar stuff.

Pornography is not the topic of conversation, the evidence is inconclusive because of the inability to isolate variables. 

Yes it is quite conceivable that prostitution substitutes for rape; however this is because they are basically the same thing anyway. 

[Shonai_Dweller]

Dwarf fortress attempts to create a world in which the general fantasy tropes that Threetoe wrote about (none of which involved raping prostitures or child molestion) can theoretically be produced without scripting. It's not a simulation of everything (whatever that means) or even attempting to be.

It attempts to create a complete simulation of a world in which the kind of stories that Threetoes writes will happen without being scripted to happen.  This is opposite to the usual situation in computer game where we have a scripted story and then a world is created around the scripted story.  This means in order to have stories involving prostitution we must have a world in which people want to have sex with people who do not want to have sex with them; this means that we realistically we will also end up with rape stories happening too. 

As we don't have these stories, we don't need to be able to produce them and therefore realistically they won't happen. You apparently are rather keen on stories of rape and prostitution but (fortunately) you don't make Dwarf Fortress.

[Bumber]

I just don't think it's a big gaping hole that needs to be filled.

Phrasing. Boom!

[Shonai_Dweller]

I just don't think it's a big gaping hole that needs to be filled.

Phrasing. Boom!

Yeah, yeah. I admit to noticing what I wrote just before I pushed Post...

[Reelya]

A certain ex-prostitute Rachel Moran explains what how hollow the distinction between prostitution and rape is in this video.

Rachel Moran worked in a country without a legal industry at all. In 1993 there was a crackdown in Ireland to "clean up" prostitution. Criminalizing prostitutes drove independent girls off the streets, caused the rise of criminal gangs running illegal brothels, and lead to a spate of murders of prostitutes. There hadn't been any murders of prostitutes in the nation for a 70 year span. But they started happening after the big 1993 anti-prostitution law came in. Again, all this is the effect of prohibition and attempts to make a social problem disappear. Rachel Moran is one woman who was a victim of that situation, and has come out even further in support of laws similar to the 1993 Irish anti-prostitution laws. But those laws are arguably what made the thing so bad, and are solidly opposed by the majority of women who work in the sex industry. Picking Rachel Moran to listen to while ignoring widespread voices of other sex workers is a deliberate decision made based on the fact that she tells people what they want to hear.

The PTSD thing is similarly related. The only named cities are places where it's completely illegal. The industries there are run entirely by crime gangs. I'm kinda guessing working in a brothel run by a crime gang is a little ... different to working in a registered business that exists in a country that has a legal and regulated sex trade. It's very different in a country where the practice is divorced from crime:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/fraser-crichton/decriminalising-sex-work-in-new-zealand-its-history-and-impact

Quantitative and qualitative methods found that over 90 percent of sex workers believed the PRA gave them employment, legal and health and safety rights. A substantial 64 percent found it easier to refuse clients. Significantly, 57 percent said police attitudes to sex workers changed for the better.

Last year, for example, a sex worker from Wellington successfully prosecuted a brothel owner through the Human Rights Review Tribunal for sexual harassment by her employer. She was awarded NZ$25,000 for emotional harm.

Australia and New Zealand have progressive laws. Sex workers in both countries are very vocal and strongly in favour of decriminalization. Sex workers who advocate for decriminalization and normalization of the industry vastly out-number the "Rachel Moran"s of the world. Why give excessive weight to her lone voice when there are basically unions representing actual sex workers, and they overwhelmingly petition for legalization? Rachel Moran worked in an illegal brothel run by a crime gang in a country in which misguided laws had eradicated independent prostitutes, and thus spawned massive prostitution cartels. Her negative experiences are not an argument against legalization, they're an argument for legalization.

I think the "Swedish Model" of zero tolerance is actually dangerous, but advocates can point to the utterly hellish conditions of sex workers in nations that adhere to "Swedish Model" prostitution laws as a reason to maintain the crack down. Basically zero active sex workers have come out supporting the Swedish Model. It's all supported by fundamentalist Christians and academic feminists. Nobody with any actual skin in the game is actually supporting this.

but the value of the sex of a person that does not want to have sex with them is absolutely nothing to somebody who does not have the basic psychology of a rapist.

This is just plain bonkers and highly reactionary. Sex in itself has value because it's a pleasurable activity. The psychology of being willing to trade something to have sex is not the same as literally forcing yourself on someone whatsoever. "the basic psychology of a rapist" would clearly be to take something despite the fact that the other person is resisting: against their will. A rapist isn't after "consensual sex with something who isn't really into them", which is what prostitution is about.

[Fleeting Frames]

While the 20th and 21st century real world laws and theories are not truly relevant and one can decide that dwarves indeed represent their range of possible behaviours perfectly, humans are still present in lot of DF worlds - albeit, if you know what parameters to use it is entirely possible to make worlds where humans would never have a place to spawn.

Additionally, it is not clear how much the humans of DF are supposed to be like humans from our mediaeval (fantasy) - after all, they were not created by gods occasionally less than decade before, nor do they fail to advance over 6000 year history beyond their merrymaking skills and some "nature of world" abilities - though scholarly system is a work in progress.

[Ekaton]

While the 20th and 21st century real world laws and theories are not truly relevant and one can decide that dwarves indeed represent their range of possible behaviours perfectly, humans are still present in lot of DF worlds - albeit, if you know what parameters to use it is entirely possible to make worlds where humans would never have a place to spawn.

Additionally, it is not clear how much the humans of DF are supposed to be like humans from our mediaeval (fantasy) - after all, they were not created by gods occasionally less than decade before, nor do they fail to advance over 6000 year history beyond their merrymaking skills and some "nature of world" abilities - though scholarly system is a work in progress.

Their ability to create stone keeps suggests medieval or ancient times, but I agree that civ's knowledge as created by scholars should influence their technology in many ways.

[GoblinCookie]

Rachel Moran worked in a country without a legal industry at all. In 1993 there was a crackdown in Ireland to "clean up" prostitution. Criminalizing prostitutes drove independent girls off the streets, caused the rise of criminal gangs running illegal brothels, and lead to a spate of murders of prostitutes. There hadn't been any murders of prostitutes in the nation for a 70 year span. But they started happening after the big 1993 anti-prostitution law came in. Again, all this is the effect of prohibition and attempts to make a social problem disappear. Rachel Moran is one woman who was a victim of that situation, and has come out even further in support of laws similar to the 1993 Irish anti-prostitution laws. But those laws are arguably what made the thing so bad, and are solidly opposed by the majority of women who work in the sex industry. Picking Rachel Moran to listen to while ignoring widespread voices of other sex workers is a deliberate decision made based on the fact that she tells people what they want to hear.

The PTSD thing is similarly related. The only named cities are places where it's completely illegal. The industries there are run entirely by crime gangs. I'm kinda guessing working in a brothel run by a crime gang is a little ... different to working in a registered business that exists in a country that has a legal and regulated sex trade. It's very different in a country where the practice is divorced from crime:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/fraser-crichton/decriminalising-sex-work-in-new-zealand-its-history-and-impact

Rachel Moran makes no mention of the role of criminals in making prostitution hellish, so your theory about crime is completely without basis.  Prostitution is hellish because there is no objective difference between being prostituted and being raped, aside from the nature of the compulsion.  There is also little objective difference between the psychology of a rapist and a person that desires to use prostitutes, the only defining difference being the exact means by which they get what they want, which is the same.  They want the same thing and they get the same thing, the only difference being the exact means they use to get it. 

The means does not matter to the outcome which is the same, hence prostitutes are deeply traumatized by their 'work'.  The correlation between the psychology of those inclined to rape and those inclined to visit prostitutes is also backed by actual research comparing men that visit prostitutes and those that do not; the actual research can be found here.

Australia and New Zealand have progressive laws. Sex workers in both countries are very vocal and strongly in favour of decriminalization. Sex workers who advocate for decriminalization and normalization of the industry vastly out-number the "Rachel Moran"s of the world. Why give excessive weight to her lone voice when there are basically unions representing actual sex workers, and they overwhelmingly petition for legalization? Rachel Moran worked in an illegal brothel run by a crime gang in a country in which misguided laws had eradicated independent prostitutes, and thus spawned massive prostitution cartels. Her negative experiences are not an argument against legalization, they're an argument for legalization.

I think the "Swedish Model" of zero tolerance is actually dangerous, but advocates can point to the utterly hellish conditions of sex workers in nations that adhere to "Swedish Model" prostitution laws as a reason to maintain the crack down. Basically zero active sex workers have come out supporting the Swedish Model. It's all supported by fundamentalist Christians and academic feminists. Nobody with any actual skin in the game is actually supporting this.

  Of course nobody with skin in the game is supporting the Nordic Model!  Those who are economically dependent upon prostitution for a living are only going to ever going to support policies that increase the amount of demand for prostitution, that is because that means more money for them.  Remembering that in the final outcome prostitution and rape are basically identical, prostitutes are compelled to be prostituted by their lack of money, thus the higher the value of each prostitution the less of it they have to subject themselves to.  They do not oppose the Nordic model because they know it is unsuccessful, the oppose the model because it would ruin them economically; in essence they oppose the model because of it's effectiveness. 

The neat thing (for me) about your criminal prostitution/legal prostitution dichotomy is that is it is known to be complete nonsense.  Legalisation of prostitution does not reduce illegal prostitution, it does the opposite.  This seemingly nonsensical conclusion is due to the unique set of economic principles that apply in the case of prostitution owing to the fact it is essentially similar to rape; as I explained in my previous post which you ignored along with most everything else. 

No, where prostitution is legalized sex slavery goes up not down.  This is because when socially/legally approved of the demand goes up far faster than the actual supply of women that are actually 'willing' to prostitute themselves.  This does increase the value of prostitution, however unlike with normal commodities the higher the value of paid sex the less sex is produced, since as prostitution is akin to rape most prostitutes aim to prostitute themselves as little as they can in order to earn what they have to earn in order to survive.  This means that it works in reverse of regular economics for commodities, a higher the value of prostitution the less of it is 'produced' by the work force.

This means that every time prostitution is legalized there is not only a continuation of illegal prostitution but it actually comes to dwarf the official legal prostitution.  The legality and social acceptance of prostitution generates extra demand, but no extra supply.  There are also darker reasons for this, the slave-prostitute is actually of higher value than the free-prostitute, this is because she can be forced to do anything while the free prostitute has certain boundaries and the greater her income the more boundaries she can afford to put up, since it is her economic prostitution that gives her more freedom once she has sold herself.

So with legalization we end up with a small elite of prostitutes that do not have to prostitute themselves much, do so under good conditions, and have a fair bit of control of the details of what happens.  The hope of all prostitutes is that they will join this elite upon legalisation, while illegalisation of any kind crushes this group downwards so that they are equal to the majority of slaves and semi-slaves that always end up doing the majority of the prostitution.  Because the desires of prostitute-users are essentially the same thing as those of rapists sex slaves are always going to out-compete free prostitutes because they have less power and can thus be subjected to more things. 

This is just plain bonkers and highly reactionary. Sex in itself has value because it's a pleasurable activity. The psychology of being willing to trade something to have sex is not the same as literally forcing yourself on someone whatsoever. "the basic psychology of a rapist" would clearly be to take something despite the fact that the other person is resisting: against their will. A rapist isn't after "consensual sex with something who isn't really into them", which is what prostitution is about.

I am a reactionary, well your view of political progress is every bit as twisted as your view of sexuality it seems; the whole notion of sexuality as property owned by peopleis as backwards as it comes.  The consent of a prostitute to paid sex is essentially meaningless, since the prostitute is forced by economic necessity to engage in a fixed amount of prostitution and hence she has no choice but to say "yes" to random.  Add to this the fact that she is in competition with other rival prostitutes (or the brothels compete with each-other) and she is very much compelled to have sex with clients whoever they are and whatever their idea of sex happens. 

Sex in itself has no value.  In order for sex to have value there must be sexual desire involved in the party that is doing the valuing, this means that all people who desire to use prostitutes are essentially the same as rapists in their thinking because they know that the prostitutes have no choice to not have sex and yet they still desire to have sex with them.  It is like the difference between a predator and a scavenger, one goes out to coerce others to have sex while the other has sex with people who are already coerced to have sex.  What both scavenger and predators are carnivores, they both eat the same thing; in the same manner the rapist and prostitute-user also desire women that do not desire them.

Let us imagine there are two brothels.  One of the brothels is entirely staffed by 20 year old women while the other is staffed by 90 year old women, according to your bonkers theory that sex is inherently valuable irrespective of the sexual nature of the person doing the valuing then if we make the 90 year old brothel cost £19 per woman and the 20 year old brothel cost £20 everybody will end up going to the 90 year olds brothel since both can provide sex and they are £1 better off by doing so.  It is obvious that the value of a sexual partner derives from the desire of the person doing the valuing for that sexual partner, not from the mere fact that sex is possible.