I’m self employed. There’s a masturbation joke in there somewhere. 
“Paddlin’ the kayak”
Oaring yourself out?
No. It was about a woman. The teller was trying to demonstrate that anything is negotiable, but using this old joke which has a woman as the subject. The implicit meaning was “See, all women can be bought so we just need to get the right figure.”
I grew up in the 60s and 70s. There were so many racist and misogynistic jokes then.
It’s not a misogynistic joke because it’s a stupid joke, it’s misogynistic because there are so many men who believe that all women are sluts. But this isn’t the 60s or 70s any more and no one really needs that lecture.
I’m on my phone so I can’t link to it but there’s another active thread where that same joke is trotted out.
It’s been brought up time and time again that this place is losing female posters. Ever wonder why?
And I wouldn’t. I dislike dogs a lot (I have a phobia; it’s intolerable being even in the same room as one even if it’s not moving), and I am not in a financial situation where I need to subject myself to that nightmare.
There are lots of things I wouldn’t do for any amount of money. I wouldn’t let anybody shoot me, or shoot at me, for example - there is no possible wage that would get me to be a cop.
My employer has agreed to pay me to do something I don’t dislike doing. It’s true that I made a mutually beneficial agreement with them that leads me to choose to do things I wouldn’t be doing if they weren’t paying me, but I’m not doing anything I hate, and I have turned down other, higher-paying offers because I felt that I would end up unhappy if I took those offers, despite the higher pay.
And for the record my job has little or nothing to do with my body - and in a recent instance where they tried to get me to do something specific with my body I flatly refused! We have so-called “stand up” meetings every morning where we briefly discuss what we’re working on. Somebody had the bright idea we should actually be standing up for the duration. Screw that - I made a stink, cited reasons, and now am the one person who doesn’t have to stand up during the stand up. They’ve hired me to use my mind, not my knees.
Your brain isn’t part of your body?
Really? In a controlled setting (medical team standing by) I’d take a bullet to the left shoulder or hip in exchange for a decent sum (say 2 million, after taxes). It would hurt, maybe even threaten use of a limb, but I’d just center my thoughts on that pile of cash.
Come on, he said he wouldn’t play with a dog for 5 minutes for $1 billion, you think he’s going to get shot at for a mere $2 million?
You’re a funny man, but I’m also a part of the american workforce in its entirety, and yet my employer hasn’t hired the american workforce in its entirety. So similarly my employer hasn’t hired the use of my body just because they’ve hired me to use my brain.
Good for you. Everybody’s different.
Great, so a person who hires someone for the use of their genitals isn’t hiring them to use their body. I get it.
This is getting less funny. In any case I assume you do get it and are just tweaking me.
Not really. Just wanted to understand that “Paying you to use one part of your body is not paying you to use your body”
Wrong on all counts. It isn’t that “anything” is negotiable, or that “all” women can be bought. It’s that someone who says that she (or HE) would have sex for a million dollars has indicated that she or he can be bought. That particular individual. Not all women, or all people, that one person. And since that particular person can be bought at some price, everything else is negotiating that person’s minimum bribe level.
You’ve misunderstood the entire point of the story, as well as my reason for quoting it. You’re getting worked up over nothing.
If it helps, you could tell the same story about a man who says he would give away someone else’s confidential information for a million dollars. Maybe his company’s trade secrets.
Is it just me? I have never seen this presented as anything other than a quotation attributed to Winston Churchill. Like here.
That would explain why the “joke” (no, I’ve never heard it done as a joke; though I don’t know if the attribution is accurate) is traditionally about a response to a woman - because that’s what the quote is.
Not expressing an opinion - just can’t understand why this didn’t come up in the debate.
j
Yeah, the answers to the analogous thought experiment involving my own wife and me would determine my answer to the OP’s question.
Attributed to many different people. First time I heard it, it was attributed to George Bernard Shaw.
Aha. Thank you for that brilliant link. I fear I have been the victim of British parochialism.:o
j
I only ever heard the joke’s cousin:
Seems like the sort of punchline that is always looking for a new joke, sometimes it’s to do with women, sometimes with … whatever the hell we call someone like Davy Jones.
Not to make this thread specifically about that one joke, but…what is technically wrong with it? And what is its point? It seems more confusing than offensive.
It’s like asking someone if they’re willing to sell their house for $5 million (most likely yes) and then saying, “what about $5,000?” (no.) And then saying, Aha, gotcha!!!
Almost everyone has a price threshold for something. One offer meets it, one doesn’t. For the same reason that LeBron James will play for a basketball team for $100 million a year, but not for $100 a year.
If a woman will have sex for a million dollars but not for ten dollars, then in a certain sense, yes, she is willing to be a prostitute, just at a certain price. Okay…? It seems like an extraordinarily weak punchline.
It’s because the woman was tricked into admitting she’s a prostitute. That’s the punchline. I’m not sure how that denigrates ALL women though.