Procreation and norms of marriage and family have enormous social ramifications. There is no distinction.
Employment shapes society. Employment pays taxes, puts rooves over people's heads, causes stress and worry (what if I lose my job!?), informs societal choices regarding basic social services (tied to company healthcare). Finally, employment is a public act because it is a market -- if Joe works for free, that creates market pressure for Tina to work for free, too.
With the exception of (almost entirely illegal) sex trade...
1. Sex does not house people
2. Sex does not employ people
3. Joe doing it up the butt does not affect your ability to find a partner
4. Tina engaging in fellatio with her husband does not affect your ability to find a partner
5. Couples not having babies does not affect other couples' ability to have babies
6. None of this affects healthcare or taxes
It's simple: it's not a market.
That's why employment is a public act.
Moreover, spouses/sex partners and offspring are not half as fungible as employees. If Joe and Sue (or Bob and Brad) have a child, don't have a child, or adopt a child, that doesn't affect your ability to have a child or not, as you wish.
Meanwhile, employing people for nothing does have an affect on the job market.
We're talking about "private acts between consenting adults." Birth control is another kettle of fish entirely.
You're taking the employment/sex "between two consenting adults" line and then adding an extreme element, like, for example, everybody on earth is required to work 40 hours a week.
> We're talking about "private acts between consenting adults." Birth control is another kettle of fish entirely.
WTF?
The OP was arguing that people are hypocrits, if they say "two consenting adults can do whatever they want" (behind closed doors) for sex, and then turns around and wants worker protection laws.
Nobody in this comment thread is actually talking about sex. It's all about the metaphorical comparison, which IMO, breaks down pretty quickly.
In the metaphor -- two sex vs unpaid internships -- there is no corollary for birth control. It is a red herring.
Get it?
Women choosing to have children out of wedlock has a huge effect on everyone. Much more than some guy offering unpaid internships.
Because a disease preys on a population does not mean that population created the disease, whether or not it becomes an epidemic.
I'm pretty sure that AIDS didn't spring fully formed out of the abyss, thanks to anal sex.
And then, if you want to get picky, the deliberate ignoring of the health issues by public authorities escalated the epidemic.
I see what you're saying, but I don't agree that I misrepresented it at all.
The manner in which people have sex, unless we're talking dry humping and such, has nothing to do with creating epidemics.
If some women have sex on the 1'st date, it will be hard for women who want to hold out until marriage to compete.
Similarly, if Tina and Joan and Kellie engage in fellatio, Jennie might have trouble keeping a boyfriend if she does not. There is your "race to the bottom".
Furthermore, sex can both cause pregnancy and spread disease, and therefore does affect healthcare.
1. Sexual competition is not nearly as simple as job competition, for several reasons.
2. Many people have multiple sex partners, but a single job is staffed by a single person.
3. Sex isn't required to eat or keep a roof over your head.
4. Sex isn't taxed.
5. Sex doesn't go on your resume.
6. Sex is between two people (or so), not a person and a corporate entity.
7. People don't involve lawyers or accountants before having sex.
8. Trading sex for money is, in almost all parts of the US, illegal.
9. Individual's choices leading to STDs or pregnancy don't compare, on a magnitude level, with governmental regulation changes that affect employment because the majority of Americans who have health insurance are only covered thru their employers
And, as another commenter wrote, if there is a huge imbalance of power between two sexual partners, that is also often illegal.
There is a commonly stated principle, "two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom." This principle clearly has an unstated limiting clause: "two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in privacy, except when ___").
I'm asking what to replace the "___" with.
[edit: also curious why I'm being downmodded for asking.]
I think you have an oversimplified view of the employment market.
> Many people have multiple sex partners, but a single job is staffed by a single person.
Employers often have many, many employees -- sometimes more employees at one time than anyone has sex partners in a decade.
> Sex isn't required to eat or keep a roof over your head.
. . . and working at IBM probably won't give you herpes.
> Sex isn't taxed.
Thank goodness.
> Sex doesn't go on your resume.
Not your professional employment resume, anyway -- unless you have sex professionally (as in the case of porn stars or Las Vegas prostitutes).
> Sex is between two people (or so), not a person and a corporate entity.
. . . and one doesn't normally fill out an application to get hired by one's spouse. So what?
> People don't involve lawyers or accountants before having sex.
. . . except sometimes. Have you heard of "white weddings" and "prenuptial agreements"?
> Trading sex for money is, in almost all parts of the US, illegal.
The porn industry is huge in the US. There's definitely some sex going on, there.
> Individual's choices leading to STDs or pregnancy don't compare, on a magnitude level, with governmental regulation changes that affect employment because the majority of Americans who have health insurance are only covered thru their employers
On the other hand, governmental regulation changes meant to address STDs do at least match that "magnitude".