Would you perform a degrading sexual act for 250 million dollars?

[Underverse]

If it's not dangerous, sure.

[breadisfunny]

Yes. Ill be lucky if i make 1million in my lifetime 250 for a onetime thing will free me from my shitty life.

my dream lifestyle would require at least 100 million.

[Varitok]

I would perform hamlet naked in times square for that type of money, 250 million? I'd be able to do whatever I want with life.

[Lenonis]

Get off your high horse dude. Why aren't you whoring yourself out now to help the homeless?

Well for one prostitution would pay less than my current job and I actually contribute a significant amount to charity.

But attacking me is just deflecting from the hypothetical scenario where you are turning down a quarter of a billion dollars because of your pride.

[Kithelle]

For $250m? How much do you think sexual degradation is worth?

People who do actual scat porn aren't getting paid that lol.

Yeah but they actually enjoy it for some reason lol

[The Whimsical Dwarf]

Well for one prostitution would pay less than my current job and I actually contribute a significant amount to charity.

But attacking me is just deflecting from the hypothetical scenario where you are turning down a quarter of a billion dollars because of your pride.

Dignity, morality and self respect are not bad or evil things to have no matter how you want to spin it. It's funny you aren't coming down on those wanting the financial gain for purely selfish reasons, only those who would refuse the money outright.

[Lenonis]

Dignity, morality and self respect are not bad or evil things to have no matter how you want to spin it. It's funny you aren't coming down on those wanting the financial gain for purely selfish reasons, only those who would refuse the money outright.

*shrug* You'd have to question the morality of someone who would let millions suffer just to avoid a short period of unpleasantness.

My main point is to illustrate how morality in this scenario is subjective depending on the point of view. Some people would consider refusing the money to be horribly immoral because of the good it could do.

So really, any high horse stance in this scenario is a bunch of BS, since there are pros and cons from a morality perspective either way.

[TeeZed]

Kim Kardashian did it for less than that.

Hahaha, awww yeee

[Beazy]

250 million for sex stuff?

Sign me up. As long as I don't lose a body part, I'm down.
250 million dollars can do a whole lot.

[BreathTaker]

Where's "I'm generally against humiliating someone but I i could consider it" option?

[Knolan]

*shrug* You'd have to question the morality of someone who would let millions suffer just to avoid a short period of unpleasantness.

My main point is to illustrate how morality in this scenario is subjective depending on the point of view. Some people would consider refusing the money to be horribly immoral because of the good it could do.

So really, any high horse stance in this scenario is a bunch of BS, since there are pros and cons from a morality perspective either way.

IMO the immoral person in this scenario is the one offering the money, not the one refusing it.

On my analogy, I think it is a good one, you are basically getting paid to be raped (or possibly tortured, since it is not specified what would the act be) and have it legally displayed for everyone to see. I find it very unlikely that you will get out of this situation completely unharmed.

[Madeupname999]

I would do it for a million dollars

For that amount of money my parents wouldnt give a fuck cause they would know me and them would be set for life and i dont really have any shame so i doubt i would dwell on it for long.

[Lenonis]

IMO the immoral person in this scenario is the one offering the money, not the one refusing it.

Well the person making the offer is pretty much a skeezy slimeball who has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money. That's for sure.

I find it very unlikely that you will get out of this situation completely unharmed.

I think it's entirely dependent on the person involved and the details. I'm an incredibly analytical person so I tend to shake off things that are embarrassing or awkward easier than most because it doesn't affect me that deeply. I recognize sex is just bodily function, fluids, and friction -- and thus even being required to do so in a scenario I don't find enjoyable wouldn't really affect me at a deep level.

But other people, such as the person who posted earlier, would never be able to forget or let it go.

[Rudkobing]

How long would the degrading sexual act have to be? 5 minutes or a couple of hours?

[Malacrass]

Under the rules of the OT, yeah in a heartbeat. Assuming I don't get hurt and I don't hurt someone else, be it physically or mentally (think R. Kelly piss scenario).

It would be a thing on the news for a week, if that.

Now, what if we change the rules slightly? How about your act will be referenced every single day in the news world wide? A picture of your act on the frontpage of every newspaper, like a logo? And there is no way to portrait that act in a good light, everyone - no exception - is disgusted by it.

[Cæli]

Depends what the act is, and is it me doing ?

[Nefarious Tea]

It's a tough decision for me. I mean, there's lots of "degrading" sexual acts I'd do for free because I enjoy them. To get paid $250M for something I'd do anyway is icing on the cake.

The problem comes with the publicly available thing. I'd lose my teaching certificate, which is something I would destroy this world to keep.

[Feel The Power]

Such a vague, silly question. What's degrading to one person is nothing to another person. Like my mother, she would probably take a heart attack if she saw someone peeing on another person, but to me it's just laughable. Someone pooping in my mouth would be really degrading, or getting screwed by an underage horse, but for others that's just Saturday morning.

[Deleted]

*shrug* You'd have to question the morality of someone who would let millions suffer just to avoid a short period of unpleasantness.
My main point is to illustrate how morality in this scenario is subjective depending on the point of view. Some people would consider refusing the money to be horribly immoral because of the good it could do.

I don't think either is immoral by any means. You definitely don't have to do it just because you then could help others...

[hrugner]

Yeah, with no hesitation. I've never been so vain as to put my image over the prosperity of my family, and all of my work is done under a pen name so it won't effect that either. I'd be doing alright.

And it would give me a fun response when people ask if they know me from somewhere.