Ren'Py Him [v0.3.3 Fix] [Kabuki]

[mtuytj]

Their job would be IT in training. Their job wouldn't be an IT. You might not be aware of this but there is an actual difference between being in training and being practicing. You wouldn't call someone a doctor just because they're in medical school. And you wouldn't call someone an Air traffic controller if their still in the academy. If a teacher has never had any students their not a teacher

Am I taking crazy pills or something? As soon as you sign an employment contract that's your job title. Any government related stuff with your job will have that as your job title. People might put prepositionals on their job title when talking with friends to better explain, but on a technical level they're whatever it says on their contract. For tax and legal purposes.

Not without getting any clients. It's like calling someone a landscaper who has literally never done any landscaping just because they decide to set up a failed business and they quit

In this scenario which people are giving you, she HAD a client. Are you retarded? The literal situation you were given is that YOU paid her to have sex. That makes you a client, she participated in prostitution definitionally.

noun: prostitution

1. the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.

She engaged in sexual activity with someone (you) for payment. I think a lot of people would be ok with someone who quit before their first non-you client, but they were still a prostitute the literal sense. This isn't a moral argument, it's a technical argument.

 

[storm1105]

Am I taking crazy pills or something? As soon as you sign an employment contract that's your job title.

Lol no it's not. Espically not for the example you gave where it's something you actually have to have training for. You're registered as an employee but you're not treated as a full fledged practicing. I can tell you this as someone who has actually done IT. They don't treat you as an actual IT until you finish training. That's the same with most jbs that require any sort of training.


What you said would be true at something like retail or an office job where you're mostly just hired to show up but it's not true or anything that requires training. Take air traffic control. You can get hired by the FAA and are considered an FAA employee, but you aren't actually considered an air traffic controller until you actually make it through training and get assigned. In most jobs like that your job title is literally a trainee.

In this scenario which people are giving you, she HAD a client.

When she decides to become exclusive to you then you're not a client.

 

[Quetzzz]

Their job would be IT in training. Their job wouldn't be an IT. You might not be aware of this but there is an actual difference between being in training and being practicing. You wouldn't call someone a doctor just because they're in medical school. And you wouldn't call someone an Air traffic controller if their still in the academy. If a teacher has never had any students their not a teacher

Like I said earlier, you need to work on your analogies.
If you get hired for a job in IT, this usually comes with a couple of weeks of training, or onboarding. You've been hired to do a job, and your payment slip will mention that title, but in practice you haven't performed the actual job yet.
Nobody said anything about this guy still being in school. With the logical leaps you're making, it's no wonder you're not seeing the logic in what others say.

What officer worker gets hired and does no tasks. At the very least their still hired to show up.

Yeah... Just like Diana is showing up to whore herself out to the first actual customer.

Even Diana agrees that the old men aren't allowing her to do the job she's chosen to do and that it's causing her issues with her boss:

    mc "Are you saying you haven't been with anyone since you started working here?"
    di "Pretty much."
    mc "That's crazy. How come?"
    di "Most of our customers are old men who can barely form a sentence through their drunken haze."
    di "And when they're sober enough, they just... *laughs* they treat me like their daughter."
    di "Some of them even band together to chase away any men who actually come here for my services."
    mc "That's... oddly sweet."
    di "Oh, [mc]... but that's not how a brothel works. My boss is furious and threatens to fire me almost every day."

 

[Quetzzz]

When she decides to become exclusive to you then you're not a client.

Which she only does if you agree to cuddle with her after the paid-for sex.

 

[mtuytj]

Lol no it's not. Espically not for the example you gave where it's something you actually have to have training for. You're registered as an employee but you're not treated as a full fledged practicing. I can tell you this as someone who has actually done IT. They don't treat you as an actual IT until you finish training. That's the same with most jbs that require any sort of training.

You retard - I don't give a fuck what people treat you as. Your job title is what matters, please understand basic English. I'm not talking about what you're perceived as, or how your co-workers would describe you as. Your literal job title that you have to fill in on any tax documents etc will be your job. That's all. Stop bringing perception and shit like that into a discussion about literal definitions and legal technicalities. She is a prostitute, and anywhere where prostitution is illegal, if she admitted to taking payment for sex EVEN if she regretted it after and quit, she would still be legally culpable.

I'm not even arguing that it makes her unlikable or anything, I'd actually still romance her in game. In real life it might give me pause, but there's a chance I could look past it. I'm purely talking about by the book definitions here that you're trying to twist.

 

[storm1105]

Like I said earlier, you need to work on your analogies.
If you get hired for a job in IT, this usually comes with a couple of weeks of training, or onboarding. You've been hired to do a job, and your payment slip will mention that title,

Yes, your job will mention that you're a trainee not a full fledged IT.

Even Diana agrees that the old men aren't allowing her to do the job she's chosen to do and that it's causing her issues with her boss:

And like I said before this matters because? She had actually done the work, so why does it matter if she was willing to do so

You retard - I don't give a fuck what people treat you as. Your job title is what matters

Lol and like I said your job title legally is a trainee. That's what it says on your taxes. And for something with clients you usually have to provide some sort of proof that you're actually practicing for tax purposes. This has nothing to do with perception that's literally how jobs work.

Which she only does if you agree to cuddle with her after the paid-for sex.

But isn't that what we're talking about here? Cause that's what I've been talking about. Like with the grandpas chasing the other guys away thing I don't really see how this is relevant.

 

[YogSothoth1982]

Because they didn't have any actual experience. Like I said before it's the same as any job until you actually do the work you're not a member of that profession regardless of whether or not you've been hired. She's not a prostitute once she's had more than one client she's a prostitute when she's finished with her first client and continues to seek out more. If she had sex once and then decided to be come exclusive that's not prostitution that's her quitting and the sex from before becomes just sex.

Okay, I don't buy it. A guy paid her for sex, she accepted, she's a prostitute. There doesn't need to be a contract involved, nor does she need to actively seek new clients. Doing it once makes her one. That's how I see it, and I suppose others see it the same way. Now, you can do all the reasoning and mental exercises you want, but the truth is, no matter what you say or how you try to justify it, she'll still be a prostitute.

And for me, the discussion ends here; I don't think it makes sense to continue.

 

[storm1105]

Okay, I don't buy it. A guy paid her for sex, she accepted, she's a prostitute. There doesn't need to be a contract involved, nor does she need to actively seek new clients. Doing it once makes her one. That's how I see it, and I suppose others see it the same way. Now, you can do all the reasoning and mental exercises you want, but the truth is, no matter what you say or how you try to justify it, she'll still be a prostitute.

And for me, the discussion ends here; I don't think it makes sense to continue.

And the truth is no matter how much yu try to say shes a prostutite until she's out sleeping with other men she's not. It's not mental gymnastics that's just common sense.


Another question is why her choosing to have sex with the mc for money is an issue if she never had sex with anyne else before. Why is that a problem?

 

[storm1105]

She engaged in sexual activity with someone (you) for payment. I think a lot of people would be ok with someone who quit before their first non-you client, b

Except your not her client anymore and you essentially just giving her money so she can by the place rather than as payment for sex

 

[mtuytj]

Except your not her client anymore and you essentially just giving her money so she can by the place rather than as payment for sex

Anymore being the key word, you were her client and she was a prostitute, you can't undo that. I feel like I'm talking to a monkey.

Again, it's fine if someone barely did it, and it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for a lot of people, but this doesn't change the definition. If your next reply doesn't explain how the definition of the word changes because of your personal perception, I'll just have to accept that some people need to have forced vasectomies but we're not there yet.

 

[YogSothoth1982]

And the truth is no matter how much yu try to say shes a prostutite until she's out sleeping with other men she's not. It's not mental gymnastics that's just common sense.


Another question is why her choosing to have sex with the mc for money is an issue if she never had sex with anyne else before. Why is that a problem?

You don't see a problem, I do. I think your logic makes no sense, you think it does. At this point, if you don't like my reasoning, well, I couldn't care less. I really have nothing more to say.

 

[storm1105]

Anymore being the key word, you were her client and she was a prostitute, you can't undo that. I feel like I'm talking to a monkey.

Again, it's fine if someone barely did it, and it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for a lot of people, but this doesn't change the definition. If your next reply doesn't explain how the definition of the word changes because of your personal perception, I'll just have to accept that some people need to have forced vasectomies but we're not there yet.

Yes it doesn't count if the one who paid her was different. If you gave your wife money after having sex with you then she's not a prostitute. If your wife or girlfriend said she was going to reward you with sex for something does that make her a prostitute.


Who a prostitute has sex with does actually matters, not whether or not they accept money. Either way my position is that you're only one after the job is done, not before. But since you entered a relationship it stopped being a client based service.

 

[storm1105]

You don't see a problem, I do. I think your logic makes no sense, you think it does. At this point, if you don't like my reasoning, well, I couldn't care less. I really have nothing more to say.

Mostly the main thing that doesn't make sense to me is not what you said it was Quetzzz thing about the thing about potential client being chased off. I just can not see why that would matter at all if nothing actually happened. And that's what started this conversation, why would you consider her a prostitute before she's slept with anyone?

 

[Quetzzz]

Mostly the main thing that doesn't make sense to me is not what you said it was Quetzzz thing about the thing about potential client being chased off. I just can not see why that would matter at all if nothing actually happened. And that's what started this conversation, why would you consider her a prostitute before she's slept with anyone?

Intent matters.
Why would she work at a brothel if she's not willing to have sex for money? She's performing the job of a prostitute, making her one.

She's working at a brothel and is eager to receive customers. She had no issues accepting money to have sex with the MC.
She only stops being a prostitute after the MC cuddles with her; in any other route, she is and remains a prostitute willing to get paid for sex.

Do you have the same requirements for any other job? Is a cop only a cop after they make their first arrest, or are they a cop after they get employed as one and put on their uniform?

 

[mtuytj]

Who a prostitute has sex with does actually matters, not whether or not they accept money. Either way my position is that you're only one after the job is done, not before. But since you entered a relationship it stopped being a client based service.

Your position is that because she decided that she wanted to be with your afterwards, and quit her job, the initial act was changed. I don't get why that matters. It seems like you getting into a relationship after the fact is the key point for you?

Let's change your scenario a bit and you tell me if you think it's different, yeah? You pay a woman in a brothel to have sex, she says "you're my first client", and then she quits her job but does NOT get into a relationship with you, she just decided to quit. She still performed that first "job" and engaged in prostitution, yes? You would agree, hopefully.

So your entire logic is that if she decides after the fact that she likes you, that entire scenario changes even though by definition the prostitution still occurred the same way, and the only thing that changed was the aftermath.

You can't undo something you did, you can try to get forgiveness or make up for something, but you can never undo it. Even if you fucked a prostitute and she refunded you the money after, she still prostituted herself to you initially.

Again, and please make note of this because you seem to be struggling with it: this is strictly talking about legally and by definition, not how you feel about it. Please understand this part because it's very important.

 

[storm1105]

Intent matters.

Why does it matter if no action was preformed? Is it a moral issue? And if it is a moral issue why does it continue to matter after she changed her mind? I just can't see why the intention would actually matter

Do you have the same requirements for any other job? Is a cop only a cop after they make their first arrest, or are they a cop after they get employed as one and put on their uniform?

A police officer is a police officer when they finish the academy and get put on a route since that's their actual job. Making arrest is one of the duties the job entails not the main thing the job does itself. There are plenty of police officers who have never made arrests because the job involves more stuff than simply doing that.

But like I said if we compare it to other client based professions like a barber you're not a barber if you've never cut someone's hair. And them being willing to do so for money does but not having the opportunity does not make them a barber either.

 

[mtuytj]

And them being willing to do so for money does but not having the opportunity does not make them a barber either.

This isn't the situation that you've been given, and you keep twisting it. The equivalent would be you go to a barber shop, you get your hair cut and pay the barber, and then he says "you were my first client, this isn't for me". He was still a barber, he still cut your hair, he still took your money. He just quit afterwards.

Honestly, you don't seem to grasp basic logic when discussing things and seem to let emotion rule your outlook, which is fine, but not when discussing technicalities. I'm probably just going to leave it here because it's clogging up the thread and it's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[storm1105]

Your position is that because she decided that she wanted to be with your afterwards, and quit her job, the initial act was changed. I don't get why that matters. It seems like you getting into a relationship after the fact is the key point for you?

Yep. The fact that she's in a relationship with you is what matters and essentially. It pretty much makes whatever happened before irrelevant since it's no longer an agreement based around money.

This isn't the situation that you've been given

That's exactly the situation that's been given. If you have a barber who has never cut anyones hair and your their first client then afterwards decides that they're not going to be a barber and just cut your hair then they were never a barber. They're just your friend doing you a favor.

Honestly, you don't seem to grasp basic logic

I can grasp logic fine. There is simply just no logic involved here and you're simply against the fact that was was willing to be a prostitute and for no oher reason than she had a title of prostitute. You aren't against her for any other reason or any logical reasons for why a normal person would be against prostitution in the first place. You just consider the professiona nd anyone assosiated itself to be the problem. As I said bfore it's pretty obvious by now that none of you are acting based on logic and instead acting based on stigma.



Even if we ignore semantics there's no logical reason why it should be a problem in the first place if she never had sex with anyne. She's clean so why does it matter?

 

[YogSothoth1982]

Yep. The fact that she's in a relationship with you is what matters and essentially. It pretty much makes whatever happened before irrelevant since it's no longer an agreement based around money.

I'm not going to get to that point because my MC isn't going to pay for sex if I can avoid it.

That's exactly the situation that's been given. If you have a barber who has never cut anyones hair and your their first client then afterwards decides that they're not going to be a barber and just cut your hair then they were never a barber. They're just your friend doing you a favor.

What a shitty favor if you have to pay for it.

 

[mtuytj]

I can grasp logic fine. There is simply just no logic involved here and you're simply against the fact that was was willing to be a prostitute and for no oher reason than she had a title of prostitute. You aren't against her for any other reason or any logical reasons for why a normal person would be against prostitution in the first place. You just consider the professiona nd anyone assosiated itself to be the problem. As I said bfore it's pretty obvious by now that none of you are acting based on logic and instead acting based on stigma.

You clearly aren't capable of taking in English because I already said I don't have a problem with it, my only point was that she was by definition a prostitute, nothing to do with anything else you guys are discussing.

Granted, you're replying to multiple people so I guess you could get your wires crossed, but not once did I say I dislike her or have anything against her as a love interest, nor do I have a problem in general with the profession. But she was a literal prostitute, however not a hoe or anything like that. I'm purely talking about the definition and facts.

When I said I'd be a bit wary irl to begin a series relationship with someone who did that, that's not specific to this. There are a bunch of things I'd have to weigh about being in a relationship with someone. Are they interesting, is their family annoying, have they slept around a bit too much, etc. But again, my only point was that she was by definition a prostitute via how the profession is defined in the English language.