The Morality of Prostitution

[Admin]

Select "Add New Message" to post a message.

[Joe Zop]

Spencer -- again, you misread my post, so I guess there was still some degree of subtlety after all. First, all I did was parrot back to you the things you'd been accusing prostitutes of being, since you basically placed yourself in the same boat by defining yourself (and by extension me) as a scumbag. My little crack about affirmation was meant as an echo of your counseling poke a few messages back. To reference again something you said to RN, you're more sensitive about this than I thought you'd be, given that all I did was turn the same lens you've been using back in your own direction. As far as high horses go, we're all riders at one time or another, and I'm sure I've left some hoofprints here and there, but I'm far from alone in that regard -- looked behind you lately?

I don't happen to work within your definitional framework, in that I simply don't think in terms of sluts or scumbags, and I don't think people need to either place themselves or be placed within categories. I think in terms of people who have needs that they try to meet, with those needs running the gamut from money to sex to drugs to possessions to love, and I think in terms of their difficulties in managing to get what they want. As long as those needs don't damage other people I see nothing wrong with them, and don't think people having or not having them is of great significance. I don't happen to think of people wanting to have sex in whatever manner they choose as making them deviant or slutty or anything other than essentially alive and human. I don't feel the need to define myself or anyone else as deviant or normal; I've got enough trouble dealing with life already, thank you, and I think that's pretty much the same for everyone else.

I'm not looking to judge you, as I don't know you and can only understand you by what you've posted here, and how you've accordingly defined yourself. I'm not much into judging in any regard; I prefer trying to empathize and place myself in other shoes, as I learn more from it. I'm certainly not silly enough at all to expect you to agree with my opinions -- I have my quixotic streaks, but it's been crystal clear from the beginning that's not going to happen, as our perspectives and approaches are too largely divergent. Read elsewhere -- I get disagreed with all the time; that's part of the turf, and besides, total agreement's no fun in a discussion in any event, for the most part.

[Joe Zop]

Philip -- to pick up on the other thread, do you think the misgivings of clients are based in issues of personal morality, societal disapproval, all of the above, what? Is this a stigma that's specific to those places where prostitution is illegal, to specific issues of culture or class, or does it carry further? For example, do clients who live in the Netherlands have the same level of misgiving? (I've seen some TV interviews that imply not, but it's hard to tell how trustworthy that information is, given that they were in the context of comparing to the Us scenario.) Are there some qualitative differences in the types of misgivings based on what codes get applied?

I'd also be curious to hear from RN not only about those issues but about how client misgivings manifest themselves from the sex worker perspective, beyond (but including, I'd imagine) the need to be punished for "bad" urges or to try to punish others.

[Philip Augustus]

to Joe:
I think there would be three things not two: upbringing, (current) personal morality and social environment. Upbringing could be further subdivided into parental and peer. For example, I think a lot of sexual hang-ups come not from parents but from schoolmates -- the cruelty of teenagers is unbelievable.

Speaking for myself, I started with the classic pattern of "falling" and "self-loathing", but that was quite a long time ago. How much of that was sexual shame per se that was imprinted on me by an unfortunate upbringing in a regrettable culture and how much was prostitution-specific isn't easy to say.

Regarding the country I mentioned, I'm not at all sure what the male natives think and feel, whether they agree that they are the depraved monsters as which they are portrayed in the media and by any passing female, or whether they are rebels against the PC orthodoxy in their secret hearts. Don't think I ever discussed it with any of them.

Sorry to be vague, but I found your questions rather foggy too!

RN:
Yes, in the country I was talking about, the (non-working) women want the men to go to prison as Victimisers on the lines you describe. No other paradigm is available or permitted.

[Joe Zop]

RN, well, thanks. Mostly for me it's just a "judge not lest ye be judged" kind of thing -- I'm well aware of my own large flaws, how difficult it is to work on getting past them, and I'm also well aware of the enormous privilege I operate under versus many folks I know and have worked with, in that I know I'm judged differently because I walk through the door as a tall white male who's got at least some degree of intelligence and education. I've watched my wife, who is far brighter and more talented than I am, struggle for years to be taken seriously not only because she's female but because her personality type gets her classified as an airhead by people who can't keep up with her mental leaps and complex syntactical constructs. I've seen the same thing happen over and over with people I've worked with in different cultures, and people I grew up with, which was a poor, black urban neighborhood. It frankly pisses me off that I can stand up and quiet a room simply by standing, because I'm a big guy, whereas lots of those other folks have to shout for attention. It pisses me off because I want to quiet things based on my personal command of the room and not because of the skin I'm born into, because I then get cheated -- I can't know if it's me or what I represent socially. And, of course, that statement is itself grounded in privilege. (Sorry, that got rather long -- I seem to be verbose this morning.)

I'm curious as to how clients end up reacting to that stigma, presuming they feel it, when they're with a sex worker, in particular whether they talk about it (as Philip notes, this isn't the kind of locker-room conversation that tends to go on between clients) and what they have to say about it. We've talked a lot about how that social stigma affects sex workers, but not a lot about how it affects clients. Clearly, there are legal consequences, and it the US in particular it's been a trend over the past two decades in certain area to focus on the customer to try to alleviate prostitution as opposed to (well, really in addition to) the sex worker. Impounding of cars of clients arrested for solicitation, for example, is now a pretty common approach to trying to cut down on street prostitution. (In contrast, for example, to busts in massage parlors, where the clients are rarely hassled, perhaps because with the massage front it's harder to prove anything.)

It's interesting, as well, to think about how brothels or massage parlors handle clients in different ways, and what that implies. In the US, for example, great care is usually taken to keep clients separated and anonymous. That same separation isn't usually the case in Nevada brothels or in Thailand massage parlors. I'd say that's largely because there's an understanding that people don't want to be recognizable when engaging in something that's criminalized, but it certainly also adds to the overall sense of furtiveness as well. How are things handled in OZ?

Your point about guilt by association is an interesting one, in that not only does it reflect the whole deviance issue in terms of sexual acts, it also reflects what I was saying above regarding criminal activity -- a criminal is a criminal in terms of social stigma, we as society don't tend to make distinctions when someone's locked up -- they're a law-breaker, and they're in with their own kind. (Of course, this references the whole discussion on victimless crimes.)

Despite the fact that I'm a believer in equality and lots of feminist agenda politically, in general I find feminist theorizing has lots of holes regarding sex, mostly because talking in terms of feminist theory is like talking about philosophy in general -- there are lots of available perspectives, and they're not necessarily harmonious. The reference you make is a good example -- men as victimizers, women as unable to be anything but victims as opposed to being intentional and empowered in regard to their use of sex. It's interesting in that there's a dichotomy of thought here that enters in as soon as the discussion moves to a paid sex sphere which, as you expressed in your last response to Spencer, doesn't generally come out in feminist thought outside of that context. It's the old debate that's been raging for years -- if one chooses to "be an object" does one subvert, control and change the process or reinforce it? Rather like Sartre's whole thing about "being" a waiter as opposed to being a waiter.

Philip -- I've had a similar kind of upbringing, and similar kind of process, though I think the falling and self-loathing process was related to sex as a whole, and I thank heavens for the evolution of the social climate in the sixties/seventies for getting past that. I think that self-loathing process is very much on point in this discussion, as if you're "bad" then so is the one you're with, and that circular process is one where you can eventualy get off and just leave an object of blame spinning around. Personally, I think it's a phyrric war scenario, but that pretty well goes with the general theme of the times, unfortunately.

Sorry my questions were vague -- I'm not completely sure how to develop this discussion, but I did want to try to move toward a more constructive debate and a newer topic. What's your take on the relative weight each of the three categories has in the equation (acknowledging, of course, that they're entertwined)?

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
Oh wow, now you’ve smoked me out. Shortarses of the world unite, everyone over 5’ 10” up against the wall when the Revolution comes! ;-) You are so right, you get a more respectful hearing than I do before we open our mouths, and for long afterwards (not that you wouldn’t deserve it, you’re a bad example of the syndrome, being tall, smart and wise, but you know what I mean). “The Economist” ran a big survey of the effects of being a small male, and found some surprising correlations, like promotion, pay, health and longevity. Sex-life goes without saying. They concluded by saying, “And what is the good news for short men? Answer: there isn’t any.” To bring it back on-topic: as a small guy I feel empowered when with a sex worker, because I possess the currencies in which she is interested. If she, like the civilians, considers me “not really a man”, then it is part of her profession not to say so.

I guess that clients and sex workers have a natural alliance against the stigmatisation of the profession and its participants. Certainly many of my conversations end up here, with us singing a duet against society. (In aforementioned country, by the way, the cops don’t impound cars, but the feminazis sometimes stencil them “wh*re-customer”. In countries where the ruling ideology is Catholicism rather than political correctness, there may also be a duet, but in a different key, this time more defending the dignity of the worker.)

As regards segregation, I’ve seen the whole gamut between prevention of customers ever seeing one another and a sauna where they hang out together, e.g. the famous London Street in Edinburgh. The segregationists obviously have to go for the line-up, which both RN and I detest, while the collegials can have a lounge, bar and so forth. However, these segregationalists are in jurisdictions where it’s legal, so the main motive is, I think, to protect the reputation of the mayor and the archbishop ;-)

Good point about lumping “criminals” together. I certainly wouldn’t take well to being locked up with muggers and gangsters. Hey, I’m a _white-collar_ scumbag!

I also liked the Sartrean point about choosing to be an object, but this line is way over the heads of the kinds of feminists who harass clients by direct action, and the female pols and journos who press for imprisonment of clients. I think it’s something else entirely: since women putatively don’t pay for sex, criminalisation means that they can hate, stigmatise and persecute men with a light heart and without much risk that the law will backfire by sanctioning a _woman_ for her sexual behaviour (gasp!).

The three categories: much as I have to blame my parents for, I think it was far more a function of the peer-group and the opposite sex. There is a general feeling that unattractive people are not entitled to any kind of sexual desires. Being looked at (shades of Sartre again) by an ugly guy or a dork is a serious offence, even when the woman is at the same time revealing as much as she can to the hunks. Ocular harassment simply means the attention she seeks but from a guy she doesn’t fancy. Furthermore, we are a hierarchical, mobbing species, and the unattractive are not left to discover failure on their own, it is predicted for them, they are firmly informed of their place in the scheme of things. I was regularly told that no woman would look at me, and this proved pretty well correct. I wouldn’t say this caused self-loathing qua customer, though; au contraire. You could say that my punting is afflicted by societal (PC) stigmatisation but is a rational response to a different kind of stigmatisation. Make any sense?

[NoFatso]

What morality? I am a single guy, no girlfriend and wouldn't want one. I like pretty women and sex. If a pretty woman wants to have sex with me for $ and if she is attractive enough and provides GFE, I pay her to have a good time. It is no different from going to have dinner in a gourmet restaurant. I don't think anyone go through a morality discussion before walking into a restaurant.

I can't comment on situation where you are a married man or in a committed relationship. I believe in those circumstances, as long as there is an understanding between you and your spouse or g/f, then all is fine. If not, then it is an issue of loyalty between you and your spouse, not an issue of morality although you can argue loyalty is part of morality. If you accept your g/f or wife to have sex with any guys she likes outside you, then, that's fine too. As a single guy not in any relationship I have no experience to comment on this.

[Sinanju Master]

Sounds like Nashville was a theocratic gov't official in Kabul in the mid 1990's with unlimited powers to be used at hs discretion and answerable to NO ONE. What will Nashville (the poster and the city) do next? Invade people's homes at all hours of the night to make sure that they (willing, consenting adults who can think for THEMSELVES) are not engaging in unGodly sexual practices? Nashville=Taliban=Spanish Inquisition=Thought Police. The very thought that this wacko who hides his metaphorical turban from the public in an attempt to "protect" us, has the audacity to speak for ALL of us makes me shiver.

[Prokofiev]

Guess I better cancel that Nashville trip . . .

[Dickhead]

If you think prostitution is immoral, Nashville or Video Vigilante or Lazarus or Rev. Taylor or whoever you are, then don't fuck them.

To all prostitutes in Nashville: Paraphrasing John Babsone Lane Soule, "Go west, young woman."

This quote is sometimes improperly attributed to Horace Greeley.

[Paddy]

Hey Nashville,

I doubt that the mayor and the guys who work in his administration are too thrilled about all of the parlours being closed down. I mean, they'll have to drive to the next county now for sex.

Many thanks to all of the righteous crusaders at that church of yours for saving their wretched souls from eternal damnation. "Thou shalt close down all brothels.' Which commandment was that again??? Next time you hang out with God please ask him.

[NoFatso]

Nashville.

They so happy that Nashville has been "cleaned up". Reality is, many folks in the church, including the guy on the pulpit, are regular patrons. Ask the girls. Most of these moralists are major hobbyists. :) Also, let's hope the cops still find time to catch the real criminals, after all, they are too busy keeping an eye on the scene and attempting to close down the joints before they even open up. :)

[Carl LaFong]

I am delighted to see such a thoughtful discussion taking place here (I mention RN and Joe and Augustus specifically). This is the first time for me to peek into this section and it is refreshing to find frank, intellectual analysis of sex work. Outstanding.

Martha Nussbaum, a professor of Classics and Law at the Univ. of Chicago, has written what I feel is an excellent discussion that touches upon some of the issues discussed here. The book is "Sex and Social Justice" and is a great read (I think it's an Oxford Univ. Press imprint). I've heard her taking hits from both the left and right so I figure she must be doing something right.

Anyhow, I just wanted to express my appreciation to all the posters who have contributed to this part of the site.

Carl LaFong

--
"We call contrary to nature what happens contrary to custom; nothing is anything but according to nature, whatever it may be. Let this universal and natural reason drive out of us the error and astonishment that novelty brings us."
Michel de Montaigne

[neo]

better prostitution in a controlled and designated environ where the provider is there of her own free will and not being abused
as for people in a relationship , it is purely a personal choice that each person will have to make. As long as no one gets hurt and everyone gets what they want. Like the song goes "there are worse things I could do...."

[Joe Zop]

Amen, neo.

Carl, thanks, and can you tell us a bit about Nussbaum's book? Sound like a very interesting read, and one I'll need to look for, as I tend to agree that someone who's getting it from both directions probably has something intruguing to say...

[Philip Augustus]

Hi, Joe, long time no see, and do you know if RN's OK?

I'll second you on asking Carl LaFong (thanks for kind words) to give us a precis of Nussbaum. I don't think there's too much surprise in her getting hit from both "sides", though, inasmuch as PC is in many respects a re-run of Victorian "earnestness" and prudery. Where I live, the feminazis often get together with the religious right to picket brothels; if you want to spoil the love-feast, say the A Word....... ;-)

[Joe Zop]

Haven't heard anything from RN at all -- are you listening, o muse of the thread -- but I've been swamped with work of late and have only been checking in briefly until I get caught up, hence the silence.

No, actually, it was your stunning revelation that drove me away -- I was certain from reading your posts that you were a seven-footer :-) and I'm still processing the damage to my world view...

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
I mailed her with a brief note asking if she's OK, haven't heard back. Funny thing, Dickhead and Terry also disappeared at the same time, I was wondering where the party was......

Really? Then I must spend all my life on the Net, mustn't I, get the respect that doesn't accrue in RL to a speed bump ;-)

[Fedup]

It seems we all disappeared at the same time... I'd said most of my thoughts du jour and I think others had too. The change to the new forum was a bit of a interuption too.

The "American Women" forum took a rather odd twist for the worst too... nothing but fat talk.

Here's a story that should get you all going... I only live one county away from these goons:

"The year is 1921... people's minds are closed tighter than a gnat's ass..."

Oh shit!... hold on a minute... the year is 2002!!!

http://www.baynews9.com/newsstory.asp?storyname=2002/June/1/porn

Not exactly prostitution... but I'm sure you can figure out how they feel about that too.

Everyone get out their flag and stick it to their car please.

[Philip Augustus]

Great that you're alive and well and housed and OK, RN -- pity you don't have a dog, but you can't have everything! Good to see Fedup, too.

This reminds me of the way they say women who live together synchronise their menstrual cycles -- we're all bonded.......

No, I didn't think you were ignoring me yet, RN -- I've been ignored by experts and you don't make the grade ;-) It was only a day or two.

I didn't fancy joining the Nashville discussion, too specific -- I've never been to the States, and for the same reason I don't post to American Women. What state is that story from, Fedup?

Just finished a SF novel that has, tangentially, high-tech whorehouses and stuff (VR); and the assumptions seem to be that all the customers are sadists and the girls what one would expect when that is so. I think we should send him (he's a Brit) to Blore House to improve his education......

[Philip Augustus]

PS -- meant to show that "wh*r*houses" was the writer's word not mine, but was having big problems getting post through and it used an earlier version.

[Joe Zop]

Glad to hear things are going ok, RN. Kinda figured you were moving, after your previous reports in that regard. (And for the record, I'm only 6'2" or 1.88 meters tall, hardly a giant in any way...)

Ok, I'll try to start a discussion going here again...

One of the recurrent themes on this board, not simply or so much in this thread, and elsewhere in discussions men have about women, is the whole idea that women constantly "want" things from guys, expect them to an inordinate degree, and that basically the only thing they tend not to want is what guys will gladly give, which is sex. Now, I tend to think this says as much about guys as it does women, as well as societal role, but it does bring up the whole issue of expectations and attitudes around "paying" for sex both inside and outside of the industry. In prostitution it's a given that there's exchange involved, but that only seems to help things somewhat, as women are still characterized as money-grubbing wh*res, as though somehow there should be something else involved in the exchange (though I don't know what -- gratitude for getting screwed would seem to be something for the male side of this particular equation.)

So here's my question, and I'll toss it out to RN as the resident spokesperson for the fairer sex (though as I note fairness seems to be lodged somewhere in the complaints) as well as my fellow punters -- in what way does being involved in the process of prostitution change or shift one's attitude about the other sex, if at all? Obviously, I'll couch this by acknowledging that this opens the door for gross generalizing, and I'll note that this occurs to me as an aftermath of our last exchange on the old board, and that there may be a degree of chicken and egg involved, but anyway... Do women involved in the industry start to look more at men in terms of being cash machines, or as the discussion in the Thai section would say, as walking ATMs? Do men start to think of all women as having their price, and as only being after money? How does this affect people when they operate outside of the parameters of prostitution, if at all?

Since this is a thread about morality, there are moral conclusions one could draw from pretty much any answer...

[Dickhead]

Everybody has their price, be they M or F, SW or not. The hobby has reinforced my vague notion that this was the case. Another thing I have noticed is that when dating or trying to pick up, I decide a lot quicker whether I'm interested in performing delicate emotional surgery, or not. Also I find I am more relaxed when I go to bed with an [alleged] "amateur" for the first time, at least partly as a result of my experience with numerous professionals (well, and some of it could just be getting older, maybe, possibly, perhaps).

I was in Mexico for a while but mostly I haven't been posting cuz the subject matter's been less interesting on the new board.

DH

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
Interesting question, high pockets. What comes to mind first is this: I spent my formative years in a succession of unilateral loves (maybe I should have picked Dante for my handle instead) and learnt to regard at any rate all normal women as outside my reach. In my day, if the girls didn’t fancy you back they weren’t straight or charitable about it, but rather offensively moralistic – how dare you think of me Like That (ewwwww), I’m not that kind of girl. Many would even pretend to be virgins; God save the mark, I believed them.

When, some years ago, I found a WG whose day job was aerobics teacher, I wondered whether any of her class were in unrequited lust for her, and if so how they would react to meeting her in a brothel. And what the class would be like afterwards. It was a further titillating shock the day I found moonlighting law students (the only time the client gets to screw the lawyer, huh?), of whom one wanted to be a Q.C. Maybe she will end up as a judge and chair royal commissions, or become a Cabinet minister; I sincerely hope so! Again, I can only identify with the poor nerd who sits next to her in the university library and yearns hopelessly. And so I fell to wondering whether any of the girls I had desperately fancied in my youth, or been in world-without-end love with, had been moonlighting in brothels or as escorts. And about what my life would have been like if I had known this – and been generally less “innocent”, because I also took couples’ facades at face value. The couple who go to the Paris clubs so the husband can watch the wife being gang-banged was equally off my mental radar-screen.

The effect is inter alia a sense of bitter regret for a repressed youth in the wrong culture in the wrong epoch, and consequent total misapprehension of the way the world actually works. Since sexual confidence is a positive-feedback process, I wish I could have had a decent education from an outstanding courtesan before the provincial prudes and feminist harridans messed with my head. If you can steal a time-machine, RN, we’ve got a deal!

To focus more on Joe’s question: in (over)reaction to this, it is something I now tend to wonder about any attractive woman, whether she has a second job. I am aware, as I used not to be, of the variety of day jobs that are supplemented in this way. Not so as to despise her for it, of course. Just speculating. Whether this has corrupted me I find difficult to say: since I’m outside the market for amateur partners in any case, I don’t think it’s made me a more unpleasant person, though I could, alas, be wrong about that.

[Joe Zop]

Well, those are all intriguing responses. I guess I asked the question for a couple of reasons (beyond rekindling the fire in here a bit) -- first, because there always is an undercurrent of frustration that drives this board, with men on the hunt for women to have sex with, the difficulties in easily obtaining that, and that frustration ends up expressing itself in a variety of ways; second because I wonder how this affects the core differences in the way the sexes view the sexual act (men tending to think of it first and foremost -- and at times exclusively -- as a physical act, women tending to think of it as an expression of intimacy); and third because, I guess, I wonder if we think about what kind of "drunks" we become when we have a lot, whether it's the mean or happy drunk. In this case sex being the drink of choice.

RN, I absolutely agree with you that the whole "something in return for sex" argument is a silly one in that both sides are equally culpable (trying to determine high moral ground between the vendor who wants to get the highest price for merchandise and the seller who wants it as cheaply as possible is a silly exercise, but more to the point here is how one places oneself in this rather than that role and the whole mercantile framework) but I bring it up because at its core it's an expression of Dickhead's very straight-forward statement that everyone has a price.

On a basic level I do tend to agree with Dickhead's statement, though it depends on what we mean by price, of course, be it $$$ or flowers or jewlery or a home-cooked meal or a car or the words "I love you" or a ring or looks or pheremones or whatever. Unlike his reaction of making the decision more simple, for me it makes it more complex and difficult, knowing that since everyone has a price so do I, and that becomes part of the equation I need to understand in any situation. Part of the delicate negotiation in any relationship is determining the price and then the willingness/ability to pay. I think Philip's response, which basically wishes for mass infiltration of sex professionals into society as a way of counteracting his programming about the attainability of "normal" women, is another guise of a similar sentiment -- how to somehow make everyone be available, in other words, how to have an equation that gives you a chance to be with who you want and to have clear parameters about how that might happen.

RN, the aspect you bring up about single girls who charge for it in their personal lives, and your occasional impulse to do the same, is exactly what I was getting to. You note that you kept work and lovelife separate, but what's the implication for those who don't, or even by the thought that that's a line that's attractive to cross? If one defines interpersonal relationships strictly in a mercantile framework, where does sentiment, attraction, mutual interests, etc. end up ranking on the scale of things? I know they're still there, but both parties in the equation inevitably have their own ranking process. It seems to me that by bringing money into the equation the issue of power is brought front and center, one way or another.

I also think this board clearly demonstrates that your statements about the male psyche and insecurity are dead on. Men constantly see themselves as being at risk because they are placed in the role of aggressor, which means they are regularly facing failure and trying to deal with the consequences of it, as well as needing to go at it again. (I think, as an aside, that's why baseball is such a popular sport among men -- where else can you fail seven times out of ten and be a superstar?) This insecurity is bred by being at risk of being rejected, not to mention issues of sexual ability (women can get by with lube, even if that's somehow seen as a horrifying cheat on arousal whereas men need to get it up, hence the million threads on viagra, even among those in their twenties) where men's dysfunction is impossible to camouflage, unlike women's. All this leads to a desire to have everything simple and quantifiable -- hence the desire to simply know what someone's price is, so it's possible to say, not worth it, too much, or hooray.

It's interesting, Philip, I was never a particular socially comfortable person growing up (used to say I never said a word to anyone until college) and though I've decidedly gone in the opposite direction in that though I regularly speak to groups I'm still basically an introvert at heart. My experience is one of really never being much involved in the dating scene, never really pursuing a formally defined "girlfriend" per se, but having some nonetheless. I think I went on three formally defined dates in my entire life, and found that process incredibly difficult. I found trying to understand the social rules around opposite-sex relationships completely baffling and impossible, and having sisters who pretty well did the same didn't help any. (Thank the gods I somehow managed to fall into a decent marriage.) But I never really thought of anyone as unattainable on an a priori basis, and I guess still don't. I wonder if somewhere underneath all this lurks our sense of our place in and control of the world -- I was raised to believe that not only could I do anything, I'd better not settle for less than spectacular, and that the whole equation depended not on the world or other people, but on my own ability to harness and focus my abilities. (Oh yeah, btw, talk about a double-edged sword -- rah-rah, go get them, but don't screw up. Nice way into RN's insecurity stew.)

I think your point about facade and RN's about understanding the male psyche are parallel tracks.

Finally, to try to bring this rambling mess to a close, I'll return to my drunk scenario as a way of taking on my own question. I'm someone who, on those rare occasions I get blotto, am basically one of those love-the-world drunks as opposed to the aggressive kind. I find that being around the sex industry has had a similar effect on me, in that I've probably become more rather than less tolerant of people's needs, motivations, and foibles as they seem all to come from the same package of ingredients, all of which I also contain. But my general view of things, unfortunately, is also that most folks I come in contact with in the sex industry, on either side of the client/provider divide, tend ultimately to get their frustration level amplified rather than reduced, and that inevitably has an affect on their outlook.

[Philip Augustus]

To RN:

"Youth is wasted on the young."
-- George Bernard Shaw :-)

You obviously like to build others up, a nurturer. Isn't it depressing how many people seem to think that there is only a fixed quantity of self-esteem in the world, and the more others have, the less there will be for them?

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
Another great essay!

I’m neither a happy nor a mean drunk, alcohol in quantity makes me sleepy or maudlin – but I understand what you say about “being around the sex industry” making you tolerant and benevolent. I would claim to be a fellow-exception to any general rule that it ramps up my frustration level. OK, it has happened that I have fallen unhappily in love with a provider in connection with getting laid, but I don’t see why that’s any worse than falling unhappily in love with a non-provider in connection with not getting laid.

Regarding Dickhead and his “price”, you are so right to classify the words “I love you” as a price. It is perhaps my greatest indictment of the fair sex that, given a choice between the honourable man who demonstrates love in action and the cad who says “I love you”, they almost invariably choose the latter. And then they call us shallow! I like what you say about the simplicity of knowing everyone’s price-tag.

You’re also right about “control and place in the world”. Critics of the scene say it’s about power, and of course it is – but power to do what? I don’t want the power to hurt or humiliate a working lady, but given my background I do appreciate the power to say, “I’d like you, please, let’s go”. That’s my “power to choose”. I guess the feminazis don’t understand or care about the difference.

Even more I like what you say about “trying to understand the social rules around opposite-sex relationships completely baffling and impossible”. It’s too much game and façade. (Someone once said to me, in a tone of astonishment: “Philip, you’re the same person with everyone you talk to!” Eh? And who else would I be?) The girls may have to present a false personality, but I think that in the brothel I myself can be….. ultimately authentic. Or what RN calls “primal”, a good word that. Unclothed in every sense.

[Joe Zop]

Not at all to derail the conversation, but...

In regard to the whole "I love you" thing, I tend to think that men and women approach that in rather different ways -- first, men all too often approach "I love you" in the way Americans do when they say, "I'll be with you a bit later" which is a meaningless way to get what you want, in the latter case a moment of breathing space or blowing someone off and in the former, laid. It's a rhetorical device without meaning if it's said too easily. I had to break myself of the habit of saying stuff like "in a minute" when travelling abroad, because people take it as a real promise as you're outside of the societal context where it's supposed to be meaningless. (I spent a couple of hours in Nairobi fulfilling casual promises to see merchants' wares because they came up to me days later and reminded me of my "promise" to come over.) Women trying to figure out guys' intentions are like those inhabitants of other societies seeking the true articulation of feelings from men who are unused to that kind of expression -- there are implications of committment and continuity involved, and I think it's understandable in a relationship to look for those. I think for women the statement often means, "You're someone I'd want/consider having children/a nest with" whereas to men it means, "I dunno about the whole family raising thing, but I'm all in favor of repeated creative attempts at conception, especially if there can be elevators, whipped creme, or weird positions involved." Or else it means, "I'll tell you what you want to hear; now can we please talk about something else, since this self-examination stuff hurts?"

Honestly, I don't think it's fair to rip women for wanting to hear it -- why should they be taken to task for being just as insecure and uncertain about where they stand as men? Why should they have to be the ones who aren't clueless when they're faced with guys who would say absolutely anything to go to bed with them? To quote Firesign Theatre: we're all bozos on this bus.

[Philip Augustus]

Juliet puts in her two cents:
"Attention, affection, companionship, validation, etc. I think people sometimes pretend it's all about money or sex because
they're afraid to admit that they long for these other
things......"

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
I agree that we’re all bozos on this bus, and the corresponding male error is perhaps to assume that a woman doesn’t love us if she’s not jumping into bed. I don’t make that one myself, because I’m comfortable with the idea of platonic love. I would still maintain, however, that paying attention to the three magic words at the expense of actual behaviour is a dangerous and even self-destructive thing to do. For every predatory man who tells them ILY just to get their pants off, there is another man who gives them real love in action, but is shy of saying the words. I don’t see why the words ILY should be a miracle cure for insecurity and uncertainty – I suppose I belong in Missouri.

How did we get into this in the MoP context? Ah, yes, it was that everyone has their “price”, and in this case some seem excessively happy with counterfeit money. With the debates in “American Women” in mind, I wonder if people find that the legendary Brazilians and so on pay less attention to the words ILY and more attention to actual caring and considerate behaviour? Myself, I have no idea.

[Joe Zop]

And that's not even to deal with the different things ILY means based on cultural context...

Actually, I think the idea of counterfeit money is a perfect metaphor in this thread -- after all, prostitution has a great deal of that currency as a necessary and welcomed part of its equation. Monopoly money is perfectly acceptable tender as long as everyone's playing the same game. (I know that Terry's against that, but his is a brave and quixotic quest, I think.) I don't at all disagree with you that women can at times be blind to who actually cares about them, but we men are every bit as good at misreading signals. (I had a conversation a couple of years ago with a woman I knew who worked as a stripper and she told me she'd tried to get me to sleep with her for years, but I apparently wasn't interested. Clueless, oblivious and dazzled is more like it.)

RN referenced being in "the life" helping her discern "woman-hating losers" better; certainly I know tons of women who desperately could use the same skills. At the same time I could also wish some of my buddies understood that there's more to a relationship than big tits, as their attraction to top-heavy emotional cannibals astonishes me.

Of course, within the context of my original question, I also consistently see both men and women who enter into the sex industry in search of something (and sex is usually not really it, though it's involved) and end up disappointed that they didn't find it. For men, that can be an intimate relationship where they're somehow "special" beyond the time limit of time purchased, and for women it can quite often be some level of, how can I say it, maybe self-worth or reinforcement of self-image? (Not at all discounting the economics, of course.) I'm constantly amazed by the number of absolutely stunning women I've met in the biz who start out a conversation about themselves by reciting a list of their bodily flaws. Of course, as RN's noted in the past, it's also an industry where your desireability gets measured in that way, and where like it or not you've got some degree of an expiration sticker pasted on your nether cheek, at least for some clients. At the same time, if you look at the archives of some of the conversations on this board, the number of men who feel "cheated" because sex workers somehow take advantage of them emotionally or financially is astounding if all they're after is sex.

But of course we all remember the slights more sharply than the praise :-)

[The Virgin Terr]

i've been away for a while mostly because of difficulty in logging in to the new system, which u'll note has forced me to drop the y off my name. anyway, i got a laugh out of philip's coining of the phrase "differently charismatic" several weeks ago in reference 2 the proliferation of "politically correct" speech in our language recently; it's an apt description for those of us lacking in what i guess may be termed mainstream charm. how about "charismatically challenged"? also, philip, for someone who claims 2 have never been in the u.s., u have an impressive knowledge of it as evidenced by your recent reference to missouri as the "show me" state.

in reference 2 joe's recent query regarding how experience with the sex industry changes someone, for me i'd have 2 say it has had a positive influence of humanizing beautiful women, in that i've been able 2 experience intimacy with them which previously had been unattainable. simply being able 2 physically touch someone freely has that effect. not being able to has the effect of making them seem ethereal. i much prefer perceiving and experiencing them as real human beings.

i have a new question for you all: have you supported in the past or would you support in the future any organization devoted 2 decriminalization? it's a dream of mine 2 create or help create such an organization, perhaps based on civil disobedience and defiance of current laws and mainstream attitudes. i wonder just how much latent support for such activity exists among the millions of people who currently secretly support the sex industry via their direct participation in it?

the virgin terry

[Philip Augustus]

Counterfeit money – or Pokemon cards, where kids can have fun collecting and comparing the variants, but can be conned into believing that cards have an objective dollar value (i.e., independently of what other kids will pay for them).

If your stripper tried to sleep with me for years, I’d probably miss it too. What about “woman-loving losers”, then? “Top-heavy emotional cannibals”, LOL!

I will confess, I continually seek “a relationship where I’m somehow "special" beyond the time limit of time purchased” – I can’t help it, though I can help the degree to which I expect it (not much) and how cross I get when I don’t get it (ditto). I regard being a valued and liked regular as a reasonable objective. You’re right about the indignation evinced by some guys being a pointer. I had a TG (living in my country) cultivate me by phone, until she worked up to asking me to do a pro forma marriage for some relative, whereupon I said a polite no and she disappeared. But I wasn’t mad at her, and wasn’t sure why she didn’t stay in contact to keep me warm as a repeat customer; shame, or the assumption that I would be mad at her?

Know what you mean by self-dissatisfied stunning women, too. That goes for the absolute number-one courtesan I’ve ever met, who appeared to enjoy, nay, need the sex, perhaps due to this perception of herself as unattractive. As you say, too, there’s no way you can talk such a woman into perceiving herself as beautiful, whether she’s professional or amateur, though we shall continue to try, shall we not?

[Philip Augustus]

To RN:
Only an Australian would perceive Joe and I as living in the same time zone! J

You’re right about Juliet! She doesn’t want to register herself, but if I cut and paste the conversation into e-mails for her, and paste her comments back, it’s doable.

It’s a funny thing, but what you describe is done every day by women who would be very indignant at the P word, but it’s called “dinner at <whatever>”. It’s only when it’s actual banknotes that people get upset.

I like what you say about the “easy exchanges” in the sex industry, and the sense of cheerful acceptance. Exactly what I’ve always felt.

Did I mention Herodotus and the Lydians here before? He tells us that, instead of being married off with parental dowries to the parental choice, the Lydian girls all worked as prostitutes until they’d accumulated their own dowries, then married whom they wanted. Go, Lydians, go!

[Joe Zop]

I agree, RN, but I think the devil is in the detail of how much one "hardly knows" someone, and how much the woman holds the pronouncement as the key to the kingdom, as it were. Many guys easily translate ILY into "I want/desire you" in the same way that ILY in, say, the Thailand sex scene can mean, "let's take care of each other." Others of course take it as a sacred statement of committment. And if the dangle is that saying the words is the only way to move forward in the relationship, there are plenty of people, both male and female, who will say them because it*might* be true, though they wouldn't swear to it on a stack of bibles. And of course there are plenty of both men and women who don't learn a darn thing from their mistakes in this regard, as what they want is still what they want :-)

In the context of Philip's response here, I think we're also talking about the difference between someone who comes on the scene and puts on a big romantic production (which certainly declares one's interest) and caps it with the ILY pronouncement as opposed to someone who's steadily there for someone when they need them, supportive, but shy about doing the grand production. Everyone likes to be fussed over, and everyone can have their head turned by it, but there's showing and there's showing.

And Terry, I've monetarily supported such organizations (check out COYOTE, for example) though I've not lent public support, as unfortunately in my work I deal with folks to whom such a public declaration would be viewed as the execution of a successful professional suicide.

[Joe Zop]

Ah, RN, but the scenario you describe (charging someone who is persistent but you're not attracted to) isn't necessarily win-win. It might be win for you, in that you're getting $$$ and essentially sidelining someone who's trying to have a relationship with you, but what the man is "getting" isn't necessaily what he was after/bargaining for, and there's a degree of disingenuousness about the whole process. Translating a potential or would-be suitor into a paying customer does change the fundamental nature of the relationship, and while that might be fine from your perspective, there are two sides to the coin.

Now, if the guy is clear on the change and ok with it, because basically he wants your body and not to be part of your life, then that's fine. And that might no doubt work in a situation where his interest is entirely sexual. But there's distinctly the possibility of damage here, as even if he says he's ok with it, it might well be that he perceives the rules and price you've set as the only way to get to you. Seems to me like a good way to create a stalker scenario, to be honest, or someone who at the very least feels he "owns" you in some way. A clear "no" seems a better approach, or handing him a business card that has your rates, which also send a pretty clear message.

At least in the industry there are clear parameters which can help make clear that situation.

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
What does “Let’s take care of each other” actually mean in the Thailand sex scene? Being as nice as we can to one another as long as the ships are within hailing distance? Do you know how the Thai language divides up the emotional spectrum?

What you say about the “key to the kingdom” is precisely what I had in mind. If the woman makes an IF – GOTO gate here, then we know what’s going to happen, don’t we?

[Joe Zop]

Originally posted by Philip Augustus
To Joe:
What does “Let’s take care of each other” actually mean in the Thailand sex scene? Being as nice as we can to one another as long as the ships are within hailing distance? Do you know how the Thai language divides up the emotional spectrum?
It mostly means -- I'll have sex with you as much as you like as long as we go shopping when we're not screwing, and you support my entire extended family. (Which, in the western scheme of things, still ends up being fairly reasonable in cost.) But the main issue on point is the ease and speed with which the statement is made, as it's a clear quid pro quo.

And I'm afraid my Thai is too rudimentary at this point (working on it, and expect to learn tons during my extended time there this fall) to know enough to make critical delineations. I'm still wading through translations of the various regional mythic texts as I get time, right now.

What you say about the “key to the kingdom” is precisely what I had in mind. If the woman makes an IF – GOTO gate here, then we know what’s going to happen, don’t we?
Yup, it's George Mallory logic at work -- climbing Everest "because it's there" -- and often with the same result as with him, meaning lost, dead and frozen for 75 or so years :-)

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
Thanks! Sounds as if ILY is Thai shorthand for a certain sort of strategic alliance that, like the best alliances, is of benefit to both sides. Some cultures, including I believe the Judaism of Jesus' day, have the institution of very short-term "marriage", which is what this sounds like; Catholic marriage is a much longer-term strategic alliance, whereas other Western marriage falls somewhere in the middle. However, the Western ILY doesn't really tell us much about the terms of the deal, does it?

Going back to the Missourian approach, I forgot to mention that I can say ILY unsolicited -- though I hardly ever do -- but being asked to say it freezes my screen.

You're using Mallory on the wrong guy, Joe: although I've never been any higher than 3770 metres, I always considered his to be the perfect answer to the question; and he had a good death.....

[The Virgin Terr]

my participation as a prostitute client has changed me alot. it's helped me overcome sexual shame and perceive women as sexual beings also. in contemplating criminalization and the harm it brings to people who are simply trying to meet their own needs, i can only know bafflement and feel rage for those who advocate it. desire for godlike power to be able to destroy them who i perceive as inhuman and unspeakably vicious and evil. i'll be going to my grave alienated from the mainstream of humanity, and this particular issue as much or more than any other explains why. those who think sex is "dirty" and sexual freedom immoral are in my mind an abomination, and i trust that eventually nature will rid herself of humanity if humanity persists in condemning itself for it's own sexuality.

[Joe Zop]

Philip -- I agree with Juliet regarding anti-heterosex feminazis; they've always been a rather vocal minority in any event. I wish her sense of the religious right spread beyond those large cities, as in the heartlands their anti-sex crusades are quite powerful, and their grassroots political agenda revolves around control of local school boards. Hence there is still a fair amount of pressure on sex-education measures, ranging from abstinence campaigns to anti-abortion scare tactics (nothing like showing school kids pics of aborted fetuses, eh?) to the ever-popular attempts to either not teach evolution or include faith-based theories as well. Always good to have the local Montessori school also host fire and brimstone teachings on the shortly upcoming apocalypse (based on the fact that it's Sodom and Gemorrah out there), as happens where I live...

And my statement wasn't simply about a lack of pro-sex information (I can go into any bookstore and find something) but about the corresponding lack of structural or institutional societal support. I don't disagree with you that there's a fair amount of pro-sex propaganda, but here it's generally very targetted at folks who are already enlightened as opposed to being a mainstream aspect of "happy person building." It's for "liberal intelligentsia" as opposed to those who are without much of either liberality or intellgensia :-) I'd like to see it be dealt with as part of the sex education process (though that will never happen) so not only do you learn how babies are made and the specifics of various organs from a biological perspective, you learn what the standard ranges of human sexual response and processes happen to be, physiological differences based not only on pregnancy but on human sexual response. I'd like to see a scenario where marriage counselors easily can just send someone to sex counseling as a normal, non-shaming and inexpensive way of ceasing to fuck up their relationship because they're not properly fucking up each other. While the absolute stigma about being part of a species that actually has sex once in a while has subsided, I think it's a long way to say that the other side of the coin is the one facing up.

This doesn't, of course, in any way whatsoever conflict with your quest for the differently attractive, and I completely agree with you about doctors. But of course their method is usually to deliver the news about what you need to do, and, unless it's via a pill or a knife, they're generally not very helpful about the how.

Hmm -- what do you think about the possibility of getting sex workers officially reclassified as health care workers? :-) After all. if it's what the doctor ordered... and I'd love to have insurance coverage as well, thank you very much. O Nursey, I've got a prescription that needs filling!

[Philip Augustus]

Terry:
My sympathies; I get around that by writing in Word offline, logging on, logging in, and pasting. I understand your position on lack of good sex leading to lack of love and perhaps thence to war, but we’ll have to agree to differ on that one.

Joe:
Funny how fundamentalist loonies are quite all right as long as they’re not Muslim fundamentalist loonies, isn’t it? Apropos your wish to teach “what the standard ranges of human sexual response and processes happen to be, physiological differences based not only on pregnancy but on human sexual response”, I am reminded of Camille Paglia’s insistence that a feminist should know something of biology, physiology, endocrinology and neurology before pontificating about men and women. In both cases it will be a fight, as Western liberals have been bamboozled by generations of social-constructionism. These may be positive to sex, but they still don’t understand it. Human nature in general and sexual nature in particular is not what either religious or secular Pollyannas want it to be.

“What do I think about the possibility of getting sex workers officially reclassified as health care workers?” Where I live we’re practically there – as regards professional sexual services for the disabled, but only for the disabled. This is not due to any re-evaluation of prostitution in general, but simply because two different flavours of political correctness have collided head-on. The disabled man’s rights to sexual experience take precedence, and everyone somehow contrives to “forget”, in this context alone, that this is “the sale of women’s bodies”.

[The Virgin Terr]

i had a dream this a.m. which has connected a few threads recent to this discussion. it involved a gorgeous young woman i know. in it, i was able 2 eat her out, but still lacked the confidence 2 go a step further, the ultimate step of intercourse. this brings up what i perceive as my main problem in life and particularly with relating 2 women; lack of confidence. i'm sufficiently physically attractive and intelligent 2 succeed with women: my downfall is and always has been related 2 profound personal insecurity. activity with prostitutes has certainly helped overcome that 2 some degree, but thanx 2 criminalization and the resultant scarcity, stigma, and expense of indulging has prevented me from conquering this problem. i believe in a world where prostitution were decriminalized, it would be the most common form of heterosexual relationship and virtually eliminate sexual problems such as mine. it would also virtually eliminate the problems women most frequently have with men which have also been discussed here; i.e. being taken advantage of by suave deceitful charmers, as such naivete would be rare in a world where sex was freely enjoyed and it's benefits to all openly known. it would be a rare woman indeed who would consider her attractiveness to men a curse when that attractiveness becomes a reliable meal ticket instead of a lure for manipulative losers.

as i've gotten older and learned the ways of the world so to speak my confidence problem has shifted in focus somewhat away from myself towards my fellow humans. beings which are stupid and sadistic enough 2 criminalize something as beneficial as consensual sex, (and make no mistake about it, decriminalized prostitution would become the most common form of consensual sex, and nonconsensual sex would be virtually eliminated), are difficult 2 perceive as being inherently attractive psychologically. hence the evolution of my perception that we humans are a spiritual cancer which should and eventually will become extinct if we don't mend our ways.

i'm curious, p.a., where do u live?

the virgin terry

[Joe Zop]

Again, I don't have the same generally nihilistic view that you do, Terry, nor do I at *all* think that legalizing prostitution would do anything to affect rape (which is not about sex but power and control) but I can empathise with your issues of self-confidence, as I think that's a universal chord. I'm not sure I'd go so far as you to saying that legal prostitution would become the most common form of consensual sex -- I think that basic human relationships, which, despite the impression one might get from reading this board, do exist and can be healthy and happy for both partners, are still and would remain the core and common aspect of life. We've not seen a disappearence of those relationships in places like the Netherlands where prostitution is legal and readily available, for instance.

I also don't see all or even most women deciding their attractiveness translates into a meal ticket in that scenario. Some might, of course. People want different things out of life, so while some might see dollar signs, others might simply see lack of stigma, and most will still be on the quest to be loved, cherished, and simply less alone in the world.

Personally, I find confidence, attractiveness and self-esteem are all related to outlook (though I'm not at *all* discounting the truth of Philip's differently attractive situations.) I'm generally a depressive -- runs in my family -- but I've definitely found that if I go through life defining people as having negative designs on my freedoms (which clearly many do) then I see only the bad side of them (which everyone including me has) as opposed to their positive aspects. There are very few people I've run into, including the most fanatic, who I don't find I can engage in a healthy conversation about our differences in perspective, and where I can't affect either some degree of change or at least greater understanding. It's work, and you don't put a light-bulb on in someone's head, but you can affect gradual perspective changes, and that's how all of us develop our attitudes toward things. And if nothing else, by figuring out what's good about them and appealing to it, you challenge someone to either go in that direction of increase their level of self-loathing (not that many won't choose the latter.)

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not some sort of guileless happy idiot; I back down from confrontation *far* less often than I ought to, and I get pissed off as well, but in general I've found that my indignation or anger, except in scenarios of imminent danger, are counterproductive to helping develop those things or environments that I want. I figure the way to fight the intolerent is by being as ultimately tolerant as I can, including toward them.

Philip -- your explanation regarding the disabled decidedly helps explain how you've been couching your quest for recognition of the differently attractive. I suspect, unfortunately, in the current climate of beauty worship that it's a decidedly uphill battle (just read through the "fat" diatribes in the American women section for starters) not that it's not an important issue and one worth highlighting. To me, it brings up that entire issue of "thrownness" which I've referenced before in terms of priviledge -- it's not as though I did anything to become American, white, male and tall as opposed to, say, short, female, an African of the Luo tribe, whose chances for escape from or rising above my circumstances are decidely more problematic.

But by the same token, the male obsession with issues of female beauty as defined by the culture (young, thin, big breasts, a general category of facial features) does anything but reinforce that as well. Juliet's past comments in regard to "competing" on the attractiveness scale are very appropriate. We're all conditioned by culture -- the question is, what do we do about it.

And, for what it's worth, my method is to always copy longer responses into my computer's memory (CTRL-A and then CTRL-C for PC users) before I hit submit. That way I don't lose things unless my system crashes, which generally doesn't happen.

[Philip Augustus]

Terry:
Although I agree with Joe on the relationship between amateur sex, prostitution and rape, I know what you mean about punting breaking down shame and insecurity; I think you might make even more headway against that if only you lived in a different jurisdiction, without, as you say, criminalisation and stigma. Have you been in the big European, Asian and Latin American honeypots?

I’d rather not specify my location too precisely, if you don’t mind: I’ve cheated somewhat by citing examples from both this country and some of its neighbours, creating a composite. Let’s just say northern Europe?

Joe:
After height the most desirable male characteristic is probably confidence, which is where both Terry and I crash and burn – I’m not actually THAT hideous, which is why I prefer the differently-charismatic to the otherwise-attractive label. But hey, an inability to blow one’s own trumpet and strut one’s stuff should count as a disability too. The thing I like about brothels is that they have to do the advertising and competing, not me.

[The Virgin Terr]

i'm too computer illiterate to know what the hell u guys r talking about in reference 2 saving messages. i just need 2 keep mine shorter and accept it if they occasionally get lost. some of the messages which get posted here r 2 long anyhow.

come on, p.a., don't be so paranoid! u can at least give your country's name. r u afraid the frigging morality police r going 2 hunt u down and flog u in public for being such a shameless punter? if i were wealthy enough and had time enough 2 travel the world, 2 countries in europe i'd check out r the netherlands and switzerland, because both have effectively legalized my favorite recreational and therapeutic drug, marijuana, and i love mountains and prostitutes. if i didn't have such a case of social anxiety, i could probably enjoy a carefree hippie life bumming around the world, checking out alternative lifestyle communes and finding a place where i'd belong.

i lived in the american southwest near the mexican border for a few years, and it is with mexican women that i've had most of my experience with prostitution. mexico seems to be saturated with very young and attractive ladies, perhaps because they still have a relatively high birthrate so their population isn't aging like america's.

[The Virgin Terr]

i had 2 cut the previous letter short for fear of losing it. picking up where i left off: had some sweet times in mexico, where, in case u didn't know, prostitution is "tolerated" within certain zoned areas of their cities. it's de facto legalization, or decrim, and given the latitude of freedom with which the women there may operate, and their inexpensive rates due to the relative poverty of the country, it was a paradise for me compared 2 america. the worst aspect of it was the language barrier, but that wasn't such a big deal. it would have been nice however to have been able to communicate much more comprehensively with the girls in order to discover which ones i could have enjoyed intellectual companionship with as well. again, if i had the money, i would conduct a search for a prostitute with whom i could develop a complete and comprehensive relationship with, someone with an abundance of physical beauty, libido, intelligence, iconoclasm, and thirst for adventure and knowledge.

never checked out the scenes in europe and asia. i'd definitely like to check out places like the philippines and thailand. there's a book titled PATPONG SISTERS written by a sexy american female grad student who lived in bangkok while doing research on prostitution there. she enjoyed herself immensely there, lived like a queen on her student stipend because things were so cheap. good book.

j.z., why do u place asterisks *around* certain words in your posts? re. how decrim. would impact the amount of sexual activity in society, perhaps my personal viewpoint is skewed. i know i would certainly get laid alot more, as i'm sure alot of other guys would also, but i think what might surprise alot of people would be how much this would expand things for women in general, who need more reasons or encouragement than men to overcome their naturally more inhibited nature, and the physical risks posed by contraceptives, pregnancy, increased vulnerabilty to HIV infection, and emotional issues (sorry, RN, women r different from men, in ways which dispose them towards lesser sexual activity). this is idealistic, but decrim if it happened would necessarily be accompanied by much greater acceptance of sexual freedom and promiscuity in general, and that alone would make a huge difference in helping women break free from current restrictions and be empowered to make choices which most under current conditions can't or won't do, such as accepting money for sex. perhaps decrim wouldn't result in most sex occuring under conditions of prostitution, but undoubtedly it would lead 2 a huge increase overall in the amount of sex people would engage in.

the virgin terry

[The Virgin Terr]

responding 2 the rest of your letter, joe, i agree that rape isn't about sex per se; but i do think a world which didn't criminalize consensual sex or other consensual behavior would be such a nicer world to be a human in that the social conditions which create rapists to begin with would for the most part no longer exist. same for terrorists, and all other sorts of antisocial behavior.

i admire your ability 2 get along with those with whom u disagree, but i guess i'm just not built that way. views which i vehemently disagree with necessarily alienate me 2 the extent that i can't trust a person from which they proceed. without trust, there can be no friendship or respect. since most people hold such views, my world is necessarily quite lonely.

[Joe Zop]

Terry, the asterisks are just for emphasis -- an old habit from the days before web pages, when that's how it was done :-)

I suspect you'd like Amsterdam, as everything's very straightforward there, though very often definitely done according to the clock. Not all that expensive a trip from the states. Places like Thailand are a good deal more like Mexico in terms of unofficial tolerance as opposed to outright legalization, and things are a bit more casual there in that it's pretty easy to get someone to stay with you for longer periods of time. It might, though, be a rather dangerous place for you emotionally, as there are a lot of folks who lose their heads, hearts and wallets over there because they're treated so differently from what they're used to by the women there. "Patpong Sisters" is a nice read; you might also take a look at "Private Dancer" by Stephen Leather, which is a free download (www.stephenleather.com) -- it's not as well written imho, but it gives a nice sense of the underlying tensions therein. Given your experience with Mexico, I'd think that Brazil would appeal to you greatly as well, as I'd say similar aspects to Thailand are present, with the cultural and sensibility differences not being quite as large.

While I agree with you that women are more physically at risk in the sexual equation, I simply don't see the removal of the stigma of prostitution as being the balm that suddenly makes the female population think of their orifices as equivalent to cash machines or turns them into raving sexaholics who suddenly feel the urge to sleep with guys who they previously wouldn't. Clearly, there's been a lot of change in sexual attitudes in western society over the last forty years or so, and things are far more tolerant than they used to be, but I just don't see the criminalization of prostitution, much as I disagree with it, as being the big shackle that holds back the rest of the revolution that's keeping women from sleeping with guys they're otherwise not sleeping with. I truly wish that were the case, but I just don't see it that way.

I do, however, think decriminalization can help a society take another look at its mores and assumptions, and there are some very interesting things out there on how attitudes have shifted in the Netherlands. But it's not a headlong dash into utopia nor am I aware of any study that says that overall sexual activity goes through the roof. In fact, most studies I've seen say that US teenagers of 18 or 19, for example, are far more likely to have had multiple sexual partners in the last year than their European counterparts (which probably also helps account for the higher US rates in AIDS, pregnancy, syphillis, etc.)

Clearly, though, a healthy discussion has positive results, as the Netherlands, which has an aggressive and open display not only of available sex but of available and public sex education, has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, far, far lower than the US, as well as a later general age for beginning sexual activity. There a far more healthy attitude overall toward discussing sex in Dutch society in general than you'll find in Britain or the US. It's possible that may be related to decriminalization, if only because the clear and visible nature of the sex trade means the Dutch must be more active in their educational efforts, as there's no avoiding the issue.

[Philip Augustus]

Terry:
LOL! Mountains and prostitutes. Good combination. Some dangers, but you know where you are with them, and get healthy exercise and some great views…. I know Switzerland a little. News to me that they’ve legalised marijuana, but then I don’t smoke. What part of the country do you know best? Of course, Switzerland is no place to live for people who have trouble with bourgeois social codes. I’ve lurked a little in the Mexican sections, but I don’t think I’ve ever met a Mexican….. Never been to Thailand, it’s far too hot for me, but I’ve met Thais in Switzerland and here. And Brazilians here and in the Iberian countries.

I do know what you’re trying to do, Terry. You think that because meeting a provider short-circuits a lot of social bullshit, you can deploy your good qualities to better advantage, and that they will appreciate you because you’re a nice guy and treat them kindly. I used to speculate in that direction myself, though my friends were very sceptical. A provider once agreed that they are less impressed by surfaces than amateurs – before breaking my heart.

Joe:
English tabloids STILL use the word “naughty”, which tells us a lot. They also use “vice girl”, but that’s partly because “prostitute” is such a long and difficult word….. “Naughty vicar in vice girl shock”, that sort of thing. At the same time, a lot of students are hooking their way though college, which means that in twenty years’ time some top professionals will be ex-providers, it will be interesting to see what effect that has. In fact, of everywhere I’ve been, the UK (outside London) has the best NATIVE workers, whereas in other West European countries the locals are often cold or junkies. What a paradox.

[The Virgin Terr]

i've never been 2 switzerland, p.a. know a little about it , of course. i get a weekly newsletter which keeps me well informed of what's happening in the world of drug reform and the on-going "war on drugs". most of europe it appears is much more tolerant, particularly re. marijuana. the u.s. to my disgust continues 2 attempt 2 bully other nations towards the harsh intolerance and severe criminal penalties we have here, officially.

mexicans did strike me as being friendlier and more down-to-earth than most americans. perhaps wealth gives us "bourgeois" attitudes, at least many of us.

from what i know of dutch society, most of the rest of the world ought to be following in their footsteps. i too was aware of the comparative statistics re. teen pregnancy. i wasn't aware that dutch teens are less sexually active, or become sexually active at a later age. if so, that surprises me and frankly goes against my own ideal, which is that adolescents should become sexually active early, with the knowledge, guidance and support of older adults. this is a bit off topic, but i do feel very strongly that we should do this, instead of preaching abstinence and forcing young people into clandestine and often risky behavior, and i also feel that adolescence is a crucial opportunity for developing either positive or negative attitudes about sex, which may last a lifetime. if we're ever to break the generational cycle of puritanical hypocrisy, we must stop attempting to force or intimidate our youth into mandatory celibacy.

although the dutch and some others have become more tolerant of prostitution, i'm sure they have a long way to go in ending the social stigma. as you may know the u.s. laws prohibit foreigners with prostitution records from entering the u.s. again, the u.s. does what it can to dissuade countries like holland from becoming more tolerant. anyway, my point is that one can't judge how women would react under a society which was truly free and tolerant, because there aren't any which come that close. you've forced me a bit on the defensive on this one, joe, but i prefer to maintain my faith that with some extreme radical social change, we humans are capable of becoming rather similar to our close relatives the chimpanzees, who are well known for having a whole lotta sex.

[Joe Zop]

Philip -- I've had the same problem as you, at times. What I do is go into the forum control panel under options and turn all the cookie options to "no" and this seems to take care of things. I've found that at some point, usually after a week or so, I can change things back and they work again. I suspect it has to do with how this board stores cookies, but haven't tracked it down. I agree that the endless loop is frustrating -- you appear to be logged in, write your message, and then nothing. But I think the overall quality of conversation on this board has improved, and your posts disappearing would definitely leave a hole. I hope my suggestion will work for you and that you'll reconsider.

[Dickhead]

Actually, JZ, I don't know if you've ever BEEN to The Netherlands, BUT ...

It is legal to VISIT a prostitute at 16. To legally BE a prostitute you must be 18. And, the age of consent is only 12 IF the parents do not object; otherwise it is 16.

So let's be careful out there.

Dickhead

[David]

Virgin terr,
(Post 11 -- 06-19-02 21:59)

"who of u would pay for affection? i mean, would u pay someone u like and are attracted 2 for a session of cuddling along with conversation, or while watching a show 2gether, or just to relax? how about for kissing? caressing?"

If I went to see a prostitute, that is exactly what I would be paying for (also for sex, but this both first and last). Let me note, however, that this is *not always* what happens on a date. The "selfish motive" is an approach to life, and I don't believe it would be possible to prove that dates are run tit-for-tat (I sincerely hope that this isn't always the case).


"My question is, why don't human beings routinely do such things? why must some of us go through life feeling destitute of love, of affection, of connection, in our lives? why is it taboo to express these needs openly and straightforwardly? does this seem crazy to anybody out there besides me?"

Some humans do, but not many. And yes, this does seem a little crazy to some other people. Still, I think that we are a rather small part of the population.

David

[The Virgin Terr]

yes joe, if u have any kids u must leave them in the woods and let the wolves raise them, the same way we throw young people to the wolves when we fail to teach them about sex and relationships. every generation has to reinvent the wheel anew. each generation has to make the same exact mistakes the previous one did. this cycle can't be broken; it's written in holy writ, espoused by priests such as yourself.

[Traveller]

welcome back to the connected world, rn. hugs too.

from the conversation, it seems clear that in some ways, us guys around here are in some ways approaching the subject from a different part of the room than what you do, and that seems kinda natural.

firstly, i agree with you that in an environment of violence, abuse and police harassment, a sex worker should probably be at least 30, hold a black belt in at least two martial art forms, own a gun and be able to do a 200 lb bench press. i'm not a cop, nor violent and do not consider myself abusive in any way. neither does it seem that most contributors here are any of those things. thus, we probably oversee the kind of problems that less considerate johns are giving girls.

we probably all consider sex a very nice leisure activity, and thus have a vast difficulty in understanding why it can be that not everyone (including girls) think the same. (yes, i am aware that there are all kinds of social and religious biases, they are for real and of course they have to be considered for real when it comes to the effect they have on the sex worker, but then again we do consider those biases all rubbish, don't we?).

when you say you don't go out on a night with a hooker wondering how it will go - "you tell her" - i don't agree at all. yes you do wonder. a lot. will she be one of those 1 in 4 (maybe 1 in 8 now, age has a detrimental effect on the odds i guess), who will be cuddly, friendly and seemingly enthusiastic about all kinds of basic normal bedtime activity, or will she be cold, unwilling to do whatever like kissing, letting you eat her out, etc, and only act as somewhere to offload?

finally, i perfectly well see your need to make a distinction between "real sex" and sex with a worker in order to keep your mental health in order. this is the place we clearly approach the table (or the bed :) from different directions. again, viewing sex as a very pleasant leisure activity, we do - at the bottom of it all - want real sex!! it is actually there sometimes too (ok - agreed - only a few). and in my experience it has been with young girls - not **** but 19-21 year olds new to the trade. it can sometimes be amazing what happens if you don't bargain for odd "services" or prices, and just activate the antennaes and take in what the girl is comfortable with and what she is not.

i know, and i have expressed here before, that there is a serious concern that such encounters may lead to the "crying in the morning" syndrome - some times it happens and other times not -we gotta take our chanches.

as regards seriously **** girls (heck - i would never really ask whether anyone was 17 or 20 - if i tried to make anyone believe that i would have a very big nose) - i have not knowingly done that since i was 19. as mentioned in an "ancient" post here, i did indeed a couple of years ago have an encounter in a public pool with a bikini-clad 15-year old cutie (kissing, with hands in all the unappropriate places), but i left it at that. she was gorgeous, and would most likely have indulged in "real sex" not knowing better. but i guess she would also have cried in the morning. seriously too. good reason for staying away from further adventures.

so i guess rn, you are right in what you are saying. a pity, but anyway......

[Joe Zop]

Another welcome back, RN -- I hope the rest of things are as reconnected as your phone :-)

I've got to agree with Traveller that one definite aspect of encounters with prostitutes, from the male perspective, is very much one of wondering how things are going to go. The truth is that unless one is with a regular (and sometimes even then) it's far from certain how things will unfold. That's one of the reasons you see constant discussions on this forum about who provides a GFE -- something actually probably at least if not more prevalent than issues of specific sexual services provided. Some of this is simply normal human concerns about "meshing" on some level (generally that of maintaining the fantasy illusion as opposed to feeling that you're simply the next part to come down the line in production-line screwing) and some of it is definitely "the thrill of the hunt" which is part of the sexual process (and the need for which is the downfall of many a man, I might add.)

Personally, I find it very off-putting to define everything in advance -- ok, we'll start with X and move to Y and end with Z. In those instances I'm constantly aware of the clock ticking, the artificial nature of things, etc. It's far easier to know someone's general boundaries and then operate within those, or to discover them as you go along. (The latter is how normal encounters in life work, which is also why they can contain a higher level of stress, disappointment and unmet expectations in addition to amazing thrills.)

Why do we want strings? The better to tie you with, my dear :-) so we can have our way.

[Paddy]

Hi RN,

Welcome back!!! Have missed you and your unique insights into the feminine psyche.

Could you help me with a problem that I'm having with my lady in Prague? She happens to be a SW there in additon to being a waitress, barmaid, etc.

When I was in Prague last month she stated that she wanted to come to America to visit me for about 5 days. Great. I'll send her the ticket and treat her like a foreign dignitary here. However, when I wanted to "pay" her for her time here in America in lieu of lost wages over there, she became quite upset and angry. I just figured that if she left work over there to be with me in America that she would be out a lot of money and I wanted to compensate her for her lost wages. She has two children that she's supporting. I was just trying to be fair and make things equitable for her. Well, she took it the wrong way and I probably violated some female ethic or principle or something.

Any thoughts or ideas? Your insights about men and women are quite remarkable. Again, welcome back from from all of your "groupies" in America.

[Paddy]

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your input. You're right in that my offer almost certainly came across as "payment" and not as a good faith attempt at compensating her for a week of lost wages from her three jobs. She's almost certainly viewing our "relationship" as something more than just a John and a SW. I should have been more sensitive (the wine didn't help) to her possible feelings and viewpoints.

It's becoming apparent that seeing a SW outside of the typical encounter can be a bit more complicated. Special rules and sensitivities must be observed. In retrospect, I should have handled this differently. Thanks again for you insights, Joe.

[Joe Zop]

Umm, amen, Dickhead, to the extent that's appropriate. I halfway think Denny would agree...

[Fedup]

jeeze... I go on vacation and you all have a party without me

I was sorry to see PA go... he had many good things to say. I'm glad to see you're all still around.

Hope your situation improves Paddy... obviously a moment you wish you could reel back in.

George W got up in front of the world again today and said some more bs like "the Lord will keep us safe"... I wanted to puke. For those of you living outside the US: How do other countries view the US at this point. The propaganda machine is so overwhelming here that it's hard to see around it. I know this isn't exactly "morality of", but then, the US does pressure alot of other countries to become "moral" like the US (as we watch the news of how Worldcom bilked investors out of 4 billion dollars - the same "moral" buddies George has his dinners with).

The teenager sex spat between VT and JZ was interesting: I find myself leaning towards JZ's opinion. While young girls, IMHO, are capable of sex... they really lack the emotions/experience to understand it. Just because a monkey has the fingers to pull a trigger doesn't mean you should give it a gun.

Someone mentioned the emotions of going to a sex worker a while ago. I wouldn't go to a SW for some cuddling and affection... I'll go for a quick pop of my rocks (temporary satisfaction) with a girl I wouldn't normally be able to pull. For me cuddling and popping are two exclusive concepts (which sometimes occur at the same time obviously)... sometimes a fuck is just a fuck. Paying someone to fake intimacy with me would be nothing more than an expensive, quickly forgotten illusion.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by Fedup Someone mentioned the emotions of going to a sex worker a while ago. I wouldn't go to a SW for some cuddling and affection... I'll go for a quick pop of my rocks (temporary satisfaction) with a girl I wouldn't normally be able to pull. For me cuddling and popping are two exclusive concepts (which sometimes occur at the same time obviously)... sometimes a fuck is just a fuck. Paying someone to fake intimacy with me would be nothing more than an expensive, quickly forgotten illusion.

Precisely, FU, and welcome back. You know one thing I like about condoms? They level the playing field by allowing the man to fake orgasm as well. This can be a huge "face saver" at times. Well, I guess condoms could be "face savers" from the female point as well!

So was this a hobbying vacation and will there be a trip report? Just curious as I will probably be marooned in the US until January.

DH

[Joe Zop]

Hmm, I agree and disagree. It depends on mood. Sometimes you just want to get your rocks off in the most raunchy experience possible, and walk away unstressed, relieved, and unfettered, and sometimes it's about an intimate experience that involved a sense of affection, attention to the exploration and pushing of the buttons of the body and mind, and something that's slightly different than animal passion.

Hooray for both, say I, and utter worship and multiple academy awards and orgasms for the provider who can effortlessly read her client's mood and desires and switch accordingly.

And I'm sure RN, as with many other providers, could easily provide us with examples where plain ol' sex is the least part of the equation.

[Joe Zop]

Originally posted by RN
Joe thinks more like a women that I do sometimes!

Umm, well, thanks, I think. Hmmm. But it's more anthropology than biology -- there are actually more than enough Josephines around my family so I don't need to play the part :-) My approach is actually absolutely a male one -- wanting to "fix" things and keep them simple, and and feeling that it's usually easier to figure out how to keep women happy while not compromising my beliefs than it is to try to clean things up after they're unhappy, which never seems to work, as unlike men they tend to remember little things (both good and bad) forever. I've just found direct attempts at compassionate honesty (combined with a willingness to apologize) to be the simplest approach, even though that can also can blow up in your face, as I'm just not smart enough to keep track of anything else.

I do think, though, that Paddy's very right on one aspect -- it is more complicated when you're dealing with a sex worker in the netherworld of a relationship. I agree completely with you, RN, that it needs to be clarified, but the sex worker element definitely adds all kinds of perceptual layers and landmines. IMHO the main special sensitivity that needs to be involved, at least until it's absolutely crystal clear what kind of relationship it is, is a much more up-front discussion and approach about "what you are" as a duo than you might have in other circumstances. In this case I think it's doubly complex as the woman involved has other jobs as well and probably some of the discomfit comes from her not strictly identifying herself as a sex worker. (Kind of, I'm not a prostitute, I just play one at work...)

[Fedup]

Yes RN... my brain tells me the same but my judao-christian background has programmed me to not listen to my brain.

As I stated in my post over on the American Women forum: I'll soon know if I should continue dabbling with GF's and one nighters or just head straight for Cuba and a life with endless hot pussy.

[Prokofiev]

FedUp,

A "hired girl vacation" has precious little to do with a long-term relationship. Don't confuse an hour with a woman for cash -no matter how good it is- with having a girlfriend. Two completely different ideas which DO NOT compete with one another. Nor is one a SUBSTITUTE for the other. Throughout history, men have juggled a wife and family with hookers, girlfriends and mistresses. Having only a wife or girlfriend can and does work for many men. Having only dancers, hookers and massage parlor girls as female companionship wears thin VERY fast. Don't make the mistake of choosing one over the other - it's not an either/or situation. Explore and investigate all options and you will soon figure out what makes you happiest. It will lead to a richer, more interesting life.

[Joe Zop]

The problem with heading for Cuba (or wherever else) is that sooner or later you have to go home, and while you might be sated you're still left with a lack in your normal life. If you find the absolutely right person and things truly work, you're set, whereas in the other scenario it's a constant search.

The issue of men and women and how they approach the world as a couple, in whatever form that takes, is what matters. To begin with (and this fits the hired-girl scenario as well) it's all about face-to-face, as you explore and learn each other. In order to successfully get to a long-term relationship, there must be a move away from being totally and simply face-to-face toward being side-by-side, supporting each other as you take on the world and life. This latter scenario is where things very often break down, as the basic attraction began with the FTF, and the move to SBS can seem to one or the other like a loss of interest as opposed to what it really is -- an acceptance of a complete partner in life, a presumption of both support and supporting. Side-by-side is far more complex and problematic, as it's not simply pheremones but, to me, the history of our species suggests it's worth it.

I'm pretty much pro-hedonism in all forms, and I'm basically in favor of getting laid as much as is possible, but there are also other aspects to life, and none of us can either afford or sustain an entire life that completely consists of seeking out a new bedmate every night. In the end, we don't want to be alone, especially as we face the prospect of change and the disappearance of those who we grew up with and who know who we realy are, and we want someone who shares more with us than fluids spewed against polyurethane. Doesn't mean we can will it to happen, or that it will occur according to our timetable. Keep looking, Fedup, and courage -- you've only got to be right once.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by joe_zop
[i]The problem with heading for Cuba (or wherever else) is that sooner or later you have to go home, ]

Not true! Home is where the hard on is. Plenty of countries out there to emigrate to.

[Joe Zop]

Point taken, and people have definitely emigrated for reasons of far less clarity or importance -- but I'm still not so sure that looking for the "great good place," as they used to call it back when, is exactly a practical or desireable solution for most folks.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by joe_zop
Point taken, and people have definitely emigrated for reasons of far less clarity or importance -- but I'm still not so sure that looking for the "great good place," as they used to call it back when, is exactly a practical or desireable solution for most folks.
Yeh, but the people who post on this board aren't "most folks." They are more adventurous than most and by and large more well-traveled. What's impractical about emigrating? 99% of our ancestors did it, and emigrating to Méjico, for example, is very do-able. All you need is to be 51 years old and be able to show a monthly income of I believe it is 300 times the Méjican daily minimum wage (about $4.25 per day). Piece of cake. Well, I guess the hard part might be making it to age 51. Another example is the Bahamas (certainly not my first choice, nor my second, nor my third ... ); you can get not just residency but full citizenship by investing $250k US. Buying a home that costs that much qualifies, or buying a business, or just parking that amount of money in a Bahamian bank. Just trying to be helpful as always.

Dickhead

[Paddy]

Hello RN,

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions in reference to my well intentioned diplomatic blunder.

You're quite correct in reference to your example in that if she had not been a SW, I would have never offered her the money for her lost wages. In a way, I discriminated against her. I should have treated her just like any other lady.

Another motive behind my offer to her was the fact that she has two teenage boys to support. Being a parent of two adult children I know how expensive they are. Soo...

Well, you live and you learn I guess. One other thing, I'm frequently blind to the obvious it seems and I should have seen this one coming.

Thanks again and welcome back.

[Fedup]

Yes... well said Proko and Joe... it's really just a programming vs rational thought issue at this point. I'm not too sure what my problem is anyway: I've had no issues with fooling around around here.

RN... that guy sure put a big foot in his mouth. But I think the incident says more about the character of your friend than the guy. She obviously had some residual emotional issues or she would have just given him a knee to the balls (which he deserved for being so stupid). Examples of problems dating a SW over a "normal" girl?... Well there's that whole "I wonder if I'm the first guy here today?" question. Also, guys already face the "Am I good enough compared to her other lovers?" issue... having a GF who's seen or done everything in the book would raise some questions with me. Men already have problems with going after a person's weak spots and exploiting them for control. Dating a SW leaves alot of room for these types of men to abuse her mentally... and that's likely the type who will date a SW. You're not going to see goody2shoes, bible boy dating a SW are you?. Not that I'm saying any of the previous is morally right... just that I can see it happening.

[Stranger99]

Don't know if I needed that or not, but this forum opened my mind even further.

I am new here, so I might bring up issues already discussed some time ago. Forgive me for that.

Just a few personal issues related to prostitution:

1) Sense of void in the aftermath....to be honest, this has happened to me also after sleeping with some girlfriends...but it seems greater here.

2) Is going with a prostitute a betrayal of your loved one?

3) Indirectly supporting the worst part of the society, meaning whenever you pay for a service to a non-independent prostitute (controlled by organized crime)

[Dickhead]

My opinion is that, here in the United States, the majority of non-independent prostitutes are NOT controlled by organized crime. Some may be, but not the majority. Most of the non-independent prostitutes I personally have come across in my 30 years of mongering were controlled by pimps, which to me falls more under the rubric of "disorganized" crime.

Also it is my opinion that if someone is in a relationship, they should NOT be visiting prostitutes (unless of course, their partner knows and approves, which seems unlikely). However, I don't have a problem being monogamous when I am in a "relationship" or even just dating. My feeling is that some men are naturally monogamous while others aren't.

But then again, I'm a

Dickhead

[CBGBConnisur]

Whether or not organized crime is involved in US prostitution, there is plenty of organized crime involved in prostitution in Europe. Places like Paris and London, there are many women from former Eastern Bloc countries who are used by organized crime. In the East its even worse, the Japanese Yakuza is one of the most notorious organizations involved in prostitution, they are even bold enough to exploit European and American women to work in brothels in Japan. The Russian mafia is notorious in both Europe and the USA in exploiting prostitutes. I saw on the news a few years ago near Baltimore, MD, a brothel that housed Russian women was discovered by LE. European governments such as those in Germany and The Netherlands have taken steps to regulate and legalize prostitution to ward off the effect of organized crime and it has acheived results. The result being that the mafia thugs go to France, Italy, and England to practice their trade.

[Joe Zop]

stranger99 -- first, welcome as every discussion benefits from multiple voices.

1. The Void -- I think that comes in many flavors. Sometimes it's related to some sort of social or religious discomfit (had that when I was younger for a while) sometimes it's "buyers regret" (I paid all that money? For an short experience that most everyone else gets for free? Or -- depending on the whys and wherefores -- for an illegal act?) and sometimes it's a sense of recognition that this was artificial at its heart as opposed to an experience that grew naturally out of a "real" relationship. But none of those are necessarily good or logical reasons, and everyone reacts differently. Been a long time since I've felt the Void, to be honest.

2. Betrayal -- I agree with Dickhead, even though I am in fact that unlikely case he mentions where the partner knows and approves.

3. Organized crime -- frankly, I can feel just as bad about sending money to faceless multinational corporations as opposed to independent businesses, so I can also feel fine with the idea that I'm supporting an independent contractor. Given that I've little idea how much of the money I spend everyday than ends up in the hands of organized crime (are the guys who run the trash route, the vending route, the construction company part of the mob, given that they've been involved in all three) I tend to just make sure I've some sort of an idea I know what I'm getting into, in that I prefer to frequent sex workers who are independent, or who are clearly employees, as opposed to those who are pimped out or at all coerced.

[Joe Zop]

RN -- that's a difficult issue, and I think it depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is where you are in the development of the relationship. It's sure not the kind of thing I'd drop into first-date dinner conversation unless I wanted to use it as a kind of litmus test. There's little question that such information complicates things, but so do other things, such as information about divorces or past loves. You're right about the litany of worries you wouldn't have, but by the same token there's also that big fact hiding underwater that could surface later and completely destroy things simply by not having been revealed. I mean, if I was in a relationship where I really thought I knew the person and I was to find out after a year or two that not only had they been a sex worker but that they'd withheld that information from me for fear of how I'd take it, it would be pretty upsetting because of what it would say about trust. It would probably be more upsetting not because of the information itself but the implication that I couldn't handle it. I'd inevitably wonder whether anything I thought I knew to be true about that person and our relationship was really so.

It would be even more upsetting to be blindsided by that information in a public way by discovering, say, an arrest record, odd phone calls, or sotto voce conversations with other men, as then not only are you not trusted, you're potentially a fool (emotionally speaking, whether that's true or not.)

And yes, I'm kind of saying damned if you do, damned if you don't.

That said, let me note that speaking entirely from my own perspective and experience as opposed to generalizing, I live with someone who's been the victim of abuse, and it's part of my job as a partner to understand how that has affected the way she looks at the world, where her danger points are, and to find ways not only to shield her from situations that I know will stress her but to provide small stresses and situations to help her become stronger so she can be able to handle those big stresses. It's my job to understand where she is in her developmental curve, and to convey my opinion on that so I'm not controlling her world in some inappropriate way while being concerned about her welfare. Simultaneously, it's part of her role to provide the kind of stimuli and situations I need to overcome my various foibles and insecurities and the same kind of transparent feedback. To me, that's what a relationship is all about, and you can't do that if you don't really know who you're talking to.

Here, of course is where it's complicated -- if you know your partner well enough to know that he's probably not going to handle that information well, then you're both probably not going to want to reveal it, and probably going to need to see whether or not this can really be long term, as it's not clear that you're going to be able to really be open with him.

Again, I think this is a YMMV scenario -- I've personally got a big and strong enough ego that I rely far more on my own perspective and intuition when it comes to reading people than by societal judgements (which probably explains why I'm as likely to hang out with criminals or drug addicts as I am to hang with movie stars or ministers of culture -- and have done both.) I expect a degree of inaccuracy and concealment in all relationships -- we all have our foibles and weak spots -- but the more intimate the relationship, the more I expect the major things to be out in the open if it's emotionally possible to do so. What I want from a partner is basic trust that I'll do the right thing given the opportunity and the information I need.

Bottom line -- it's a risk either way. Such information does inevitably have consequences -- from perhaps uncomfortable conversations to wonders about whether or not you actually understand what makes your partner tick -- but that's the nature of relationships in general. IMHO there's no way for them to be simple in any event, so we're better off knowing, embracing the complexity, and learning whether or not we're capable of dealing with it. But, then, I'm generally in favor of adults acting like adults, and am the first to admit that I'm often disappointed :-)

Personally, I'd prefer to know, as it sends a basic message of trust and inclusion. But I prefer to know everything in any event. I'd want it as something we could both explore in terms of what it says about us as a couple, and in terms of learning the sensitive places we both have about it, when to avoid those, and when to poke at them.

[Joe Zop]

RN, first, I was just gently tugging your chain, as we all make compromises to try to be happy. Such is one of the sadnesses of life. I think your reasoning makes total sense, and I'm very sympathetic about the dilemma, which I see as fraught with peril. Those who frequent sex workers are not held in high societal regard either, though clearly the perceptual difference between johns and prostitutes is akin to that of casual drug user versus dealer. (In other words, the men are weak, but the women are morally corrupt.) As I've stated here before, in the field where I work having public empathy or going very far toward pleading the case of sex workers will get me tossed out of large parts of that arena pretty quickly, so far be it from me to make pronouncements about how one ought to act faced with the realities of life.

To me the key is in one statement you made -- "My "true" friends (only two) asked questions, but ultimately didn't care less what I was doing for a living." My idea of a life partner is someone who falls into that "true" friend category, but I'm well aware (and anyone reading this or the American women thread, among others, will be also) that's the exception rather than the rule. I have nothing but admiration for someone who's struggling to make it alone as a single mother (I know so many in that situation) and have had many conversations with women about the compromises necessary when in that situation. And we all start with survival, safety and security and try to work our way up the ladder, happy for every higher rung we can reach and fearful of losing the lower.

I am curious, though, given what I understand you now do for a living with your job counseling and educating in the field, how the issue will manage to stay buried, as it seems a natural topic of conversation. As you say you've got ex-friends who are dissing you to mutual friends as well, I have to confess that it seems to me only a matter of time before something comes up, one way or another.

Heroes -- yes, see the discussion regarding the same of several weeks ago in the Thai women area. You've been a pretty consistent flag-bearer for women in the profession in a forum where such actions haven't always, to say the least, been met cordially, and that takes a degree of courage.

And, by no means do I think you should remain single unless that's your choice -- as far as I'm concerned, anyone and everyone, male and female, who can manage to demonstrate the intelligence, patience, tolerance, and good will that pervade your posts needs to reproduce and mentor as frequently as possible, as grace and empathy are always in far too short supply in the world.

[Fedup]

RN... Who do you want to end up with? A "true" lover... or someone that you have to hide things from?

It's in your own best interest to divulge your previous lifestyle. I don't have a problem with those in the sex industry: A very good friend of mine is ex-dancer (and I'd rather date her than many of the girls I've dated in the past). If we'd met as lovers rather than as friends, and she hid this from me, I would have dumped her when I found out. I have three reasons for this:

1) She lied about a major part of her life ( I would have asked about her past at some point and she would have needed to blow smoke to hide)

2) Now I'm wondering what else she hasn't told me (Does she have Black Widow Syndrome?)

3) She didn't hold me in high enough regard to allow me to make my own choice.

I have a four to six month "window" during which time I expect to hear such things as "I used to be a SW". Obviously I don't want to hear this on the first date (it would actually indicate that it's still a hangup for you too)... but you'd better tell me before we're seriously attached.

You said: "...but I also don't want my choice to be a sex worker in the past, to affect our lives as a couple in the future"

Everything you've ever done in your past affects your future... that's the way it works.

You also said: "...Perhaps it's just easier if I remain single for the rest of my days"

Tell ya what... If you and I are still single in two years I'll come down and give you a visit :)

[The Virgin Terr]

i have a belated comment relating to the brief discussion sparked by stranger 99's negative reference to organized crime. organized crime owes it's existence to the true worst element of society which is the corrupt and repressive politco-legal system which bans many activities deemed immoral which nevertheless a significant percentage of consenting adults engage in, such as prostitution. it takes a certain amount of ruthlessness to defy the establishment, but not as much as it takes to be a part of it and do something like take someone's freedom who is simply attempting to exercise his or her natural right to personal freedom.

[The Virgin Terr]

against a part of my better judgement, i'm going to weigh in once again on RN's most recent concern since she has brought it up again. RN, there is a time in any relationship between initially meeting and having formed an intimacy; one doesn't go from being strangers to being emotionally involved in the blink of an eye. there is a time in any relationship when it's appropriate to bring up any and all issues which your prospective partner should know about you if he is to make a truly informed decision re. how he feels about you. this is to dispel your weak argument that there's never an appropriate time to discuss important but potentially dicey subjects such as having been a prostitute. also, i can't accept your claim of shamelessness; if it were true, you wouldn't feel any need to conceal what is obviously an important part of your own history. i'm puzzled about why you keep bringing this up. if you want to bury your past, fine, do so, or rather attempt to do so, for secrets often become weightier and weightier albatrosses to carry around within oneself. but if you truly had no shame you'd have no need to agonize over this issue: you'd simply fully disclose it at an appropriate time and be happy with the results, because i'm sure you wouldn't wish to have an "intimate" relationship with someone who can't accept your past, which of course has a bearing on the person you are now.

[Joe Zop]

Originally posted by RN
It's a deal!! I'll be waiting on the couch with a six-pack....wearing nothing but a big red bow. *cheeky grin* LOL

Wait, I forget -- did you say you worked for Australia's tourism board ;) as well?

[Stranger99]

I can't remember who said a few posts ago that:
"men are able to pretend they love to get sex and women they will have sex in exchange of love" (or something like that).

This brings me to another issue: is sex per-se only a man-thing?

I think it is.
This explains the rationale of prostitution: I will pay you this amount, I will take care of my needs and you will not expect anything but money from me.

Having said that I do not mean that women do not enjoy sex as much as we, men, do. I doubt though their ability to get that pleasure without having an emotional/mental involvement with their counterpart.

[Fedup]

mmmmmmmm... Foster's...

oops!... sorry RN... Canadian beer hound showing again...

I mean...

mmmmmmmm... RNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by stranger99
I can't remember who said a few posts ago that:
"men are able to pretend they love to get sex and women they will have sex in exchange of love" (or something like that).


It was I, Dickhead, your faithful servant. "Men give love to get sex; women give sex to get love."

[Joe Zop]

C'mon, Fedup, you could go

mmmmmmm, Touhey’s...

or

mmmmmmm, Coopers.....

at least!

[Joe Zop]

RN, sounds luscuious no matter what's on the menu...

And as far as your attitude on one-night stands, that pretty much does sound like the male point of view, I must say, though I've met a number of women who feel the same. (And the clingy line is straight outa the male playa book.) Perhaps one of the absolute key attractions about prostitution is just that -- no strings, no implication of continuance. Obviously, that has its good and bad points (no real performance incentive, for example, although obviously one does generally shoot for return business) but in the sex-for-hire equation it's pretty clear where both parties stand.

The problem with one-night stands is that they're generally not necessarily clearly labelled as such, so one never knows -- maybe it was unbelievable and unbearable attraction that has longer term implications, etc. In prostitution you don't have to try to read your partner's mind in terms of what they thought of the process -- it's implicit. In real life, both parties aren't always on the same page.

[Stranger99]

RN: Take it as a compliment: you are male minded.

I wish there were more women like you around with whom you could, in a way, be clear upfront on what it is all about. I think though that even on something starting as casual sex a woman will eventually expects you to ask her out for dinner or something.

This is even more true when a woman is over 30: the ticking of the biological clock puts pressure on you to settle down and stop messing around with one-night stands.

I know there are exceptions out there (I personally know a very few cases and you add to this list).
I also don't know if it is human nature or social conventions: maybe Eve actually liked sleeping around and it was Adam the one pushing for long term relationship.

[Dickhead]

Nursey, I think you're a little young for the ticking biological clock syndrome by US standards. I don't usually start hearing that shit until the gal's around 34 or so.

It's not really fair either because a guy only gets one dick but a gal can have lots if she plays her cards right ...

Every time I buy Foster's at the liquor store (bottle shop for Aussies), it's made in Canada. What's up with THAT (but I like Canadian beer too)?

To tie to the subject, prostitution seems even more morally sound when I'm drunk.

[Joe Zop]

Regarding the Fosters -- hey, if you buy Guinness in Australia, it's also made there, and just it's not the same (sorry, not as good) so it's the nature of the beast. Breweries are everywhere, which brings me to yeast, and thus, obtusely, back in the general area of the subject...

I agree with Dickhead, here, RN. Numbers of women are very much into just catting around in their twenties, but the clock starts really making major noise in the next decade. I don't think it's all that different for men, either, though, as I've seen tons of friends get that particularly male "must get married right now to the next vaguely acceptable candidate and don't really care who she is" look around that time in their life.

I do think that for women, though, this behavior represents a quantum shift in socially viable behavior, (being labelled a sl*t simply doesn't have the same overall social force it used to) a direct result of freely available birth control, feminism, and more general chatter about sex. Hooray for that, and it will be interesting to see what things look like in another

And I also agree with the observation that alcohol makes tons of things more morally viable. I wonder how prostitution rates (hell, or marriage rates or lots of business propositions) would change if a sobriety test were mandatory for participation. For sure the military enlistment rate would drop...

[Joe Zop]

Traveller -- I absolutely understand and in no way do I think what we're talking about should negatively impact your fun. For me, the point is more that if the overall stigma goes down then people will relax a bit and just be sensible and human about the whole thing. (Despite how I'm probably coming off for argument's sake, I'm not some sort of germ-paranoid-condom-on-each-toe-o-my-god-is-that-fluid freak :) ) It's unfortunate, honestly, that the whole AIDS epidemic has gotten people so worried, as that ends up being the focus of everything as opposed to the overall scene. But that's where we are right now, and I mostly worry that those concerns will lead to more ridiculous situations as opposed to promoting an easier look at sex work as a whole. And to me, it's more the option and the encouraging environment than the requirement regarding licensing, etc. I'm actually not much in favor of compulsory anything.

And, hey, I'm also one of those folks who end up in a variety of wild places (much of my work travel involves the third world) so I'm decidedly with you as far as the "real" thing. Let's face it -- I don't exactly see Bangladesh, for example, getting "organized" in their prostitution efforts any time in the forseeable future, since they can't get the rest of their overall infrastructure in place...

[Joe Zop]

Originally posted by Dickhead

BTW, Costa Rica does have rather strong laws against "facilitating prostitution." In other words, pimping is illegal. This is exactly correct in my dickheaded opinion.

This is one aspect I too generally agree with, but sometimes the devil is in the details. Escort agencies, web sites featuring more than one sex worker, hotels where assignations take place, bars where sex workers gather, men who live with sex workers (even as husbands), etc., have all, in various places, been seen to fall under the "facilitating" banner. Given that Costa Rica has some degree of past notoriety for child prostitution, I don't think that's the case in this instance, of course. There's no question that people trafficing in women or children deserve to be in a facility where they can know how it feels, but in many places those laws are a big stick used to isolate sex workers and make it impossible for them to operate.

[jwny72]

I think the legal and social status of prostitution is just a manifestation of a general tendency towards sexual repression in Judeao-Christian culture. In the spirit of pure speculation, I'd like to pose the question: why is this sexually repressive attitude (the sex taboo) present in our culture? What purpose does it serve?

[jwny72]

joe-zop,

Walton family = Walmart? Seems to be what you're saying, but it wasn't totally explicit. I didn't know they gave heaps of money to the Christian Coalition. Figures.

Well, if I were the enlightenened, benevelant dictator of the world any and all religious fundamentalists (Christians, Muslims, Jews, whatever...) would be de-programmed. Those zealots, of various stripes, cause too much damn trouble in the world. Buddhism seems to be the only religion that doesn't produce the tendency to impose on othes in one way or another. I'd leave the Buhddists alone, but force everyone else into de-programming "camps". Jews and Muslims and Christians would all be forced to interbreed and raise the children together, as ONE tribe. Those who insisted on maintaining the old interpretations and loyalties would need to be liquidated I suppose...

Jeez. I almost sound like some kind of fanatic myself, eh? The anti-religious fanatic. Just so no-one gets alarmed, I don't really support the idea of killing ANYONE for any reason. I'm just fantisizing about a world without repressive religiousity in a "wouldn't it be nice" sort of way:-)

[jwny72]

"Gotta admit, that would be a very different approach -- claiming the pro-prostitution position as being the moral high ground. Anyone want to try stating that case?"

It would take someone well versed in the "spiritual benefits" of sexuality (some kind of pagan or perhaps a Tantric Yoga expert). I'm not up to it, though I do feel that being free sexually is "morally superior" (whatever that means).

[The Virgin Terr]

making the case for prostitution as "moral" would be easy except for the fact that humans in general are inclined towards irrational reasoning and fears. it's simply a matter of being well informed, rational, and mentally free from religion and puritanism. if u believe that pleasure and freedom are good things, how can any paternalistic/moralistic arguments in favor of the right of the state 2 control our minds or bodies make any sense?

re. jwny 72's question, i have a couple of different responses, related but somewhat different. first, if u research many religious cults, you're bound 2 come across examples of cult leaders such as david koresh or jim jones who order their followers to be celibate while they themselves then take their pick of any and generally very many of these followers to satisfy their own libidos. so, by this example it seems that restricting the sex lives of low level individuals clears the way for high level individuals to more easily indulge their own desires. second, and i think this answer is more applicable to mainstream societies in which the control of lower level individuals is much more subtle, i think the reason for the control is more about economic exploitation. marx understood this well in perceiving the critical role of religion as being the "opiate of the people". in order for exploitation to occur, there must be control, and that begins and ends with control of the most basic passion, sex. i think this is also the same reason for drug prohibition. if people become too preoccupied with their own pleasure and happiness, they are less inclined to work like slaves. equally important to capitalists, the masses are programmed to redirect their suppressed libidos into consumerism, deriving pleasure from buying and owning things instead of more simple and basic things like sex.

[Crash Gibson]

A quick lesson here on exactly what the Christian Conservative movement is, fellas:
Fundamentalist Christians have an absolute belief in THEIR version of the bible and all the laws and cannotations it holds, guys. In a nutshell, they don't care about freedoms, Constitutional protections, society, or anything other than THEIR views and yes, imposing them upon others. They'll tapdance through the legal system with various crusades (jihads?) like pro-family legislation, teaching creationsim in the classroom, anti-gay laws, etc. But they're only interested in the cases that prove their point; not the ones that they lose. Here's a test: ask any Xian Conservative what they think about Roe vs. Wade, and they'll get that glassy eyed look and tell you the Supreme Court "got it wrong" on that one.
Their quest is to replace our "godless" government with a theocracy, where Jesus' word is the only law, and they themselves as the only ones qualified to interpret it for the rest of us.
Fundamantalist religions are all the same, whether it Muslim, Christian, or Jewish, or any other one. It's an absolute belief not only in one's own soul and destination, but in their DUTY to impose it apon the godless masses.
Think of that next time you cast your vote for some shyster because he talks tough on crime or he hugs a firefighter or reminds you of John Wayne. Stop and think who this clown is really working for.

[The Virgin Terr]

elaborating on a hypothesis of why human societies have sexually restrictive laws and conventions: because it's perhaps the most effective way for a ruler or ruling class to psychologically castate or spiritually subject the lower classes, so that there's no question whatsoever regarding who's the boss. traditionally, rulers themselves have been exempt from obeying the laws they use to control their "subjects", wielding their "divine right" to do whatever the fuck they please.

[Stranger99]

RN: First of all I am sorry if my statements did hurt you somehow. It was the last of my intentions.
I really do think good of you and, having had the opportunity to read your posts over the last few weeks, I really think you are a great person worth knowing and spending time with.

I think you are second guessing me when you say that I would not want my daughter to be a prostitute for the shame she would cause me as a father. This is absolutely false. I am her father not her "owner". If that was her choice I would respect it (not like it, but respect it) and, by the way, I do have a daughter.
I might want my daughter to be like you as a person (as I think you are very intelligent and with great personality), I simply would not like her to do your job.

You were asking me why.
Simply I would not like her to deal with people who see her as a "breathing" object. I would like for her a job where she could be appreciated for more than her body or loving skills.

I know, I know that it is not like that in all circumstances and that you can establish great relationships with the person you deal with but reading the posts of the majority of the people on this forum, this is what they are looking for and that's the way she would be seen. No matter she would not care, I would not like it, as a father.
I am sure you met great people while working. I am also sure you could have met them under different circumstances. It is your personality that made you build great relationships with people, the job happened just to create the opportunity.

I would like her to live her sexual life as freely as it can be, enjoying every aspect of it, without necessarily being her mean of support.

Answering also to Joe. I do not see prostitution as something "evil" (evil would be working for a Swiss bank or running a Nike factory in Malaysia) and also I did not say that being a prostitute is the number 1 in the most-undignified-job-on-earth list. For what that matters, working on an assembly line, cleaning toilets or at McDonalds are at the same level.
Depending if you work to live or live to work. The above jobs are probably in the first scenario.

I simply said that I would not like her "aspiring" to be a prostitute and no matter how politically correct everybody tries to be, I believe this is the way that all of us see it.

RN, you were mentioning in the past the problems of eventually having to tell somebody you care for about your former job. I guess this fear falls under the "c" in your list of possible answers that you didn't want me to use (and in fact I did not).
Also, what made you leave that job?

[Joe Zop]

stranger99 -- First, I reacted to you saying "deciding" not "aspiring" and I see a clear difference between the two. I think it's understandable and laudable to say that what we aspire for our kids are jobs where their full capabilities are used and appreciated. That's exactly why I used the examples I did -- no one much cares about the full mental or emotional capabilities of a waitress or a cleaning person; they care about whether the meal gets served or the room cleaned. Neither of those are the kinds of jobs a father wants their kid to ultimately aspire to having, but we'd understand if they took those jobs to make money to move toward something else. We all want our kids to reach the absolute top of their potential. And, again, in terms of the whole "evil" aspect, I wasn't at all saying you were labelling it such -- I was riffing on your comment about society framing things in terms of "morally" ok or not.

Personally, I think the kind of stigmas and societal hangups that float around sex work manage to completely obscure the issues in the most fascinating ways. Let's look at the issue of someone being a sexual surrogate, working in a controlled environment around helping people with sexual disorders. We don't consider sex surrogates to be prostitutes; they exist in a kind of moral limbo in the minds of most people, (hey, they're clearly "helping" people!) but the fact that their job means they get sexually involved with patients still manages to impart some queasiness for most. If we were to build a spectrum, I think it would be fair to say that we'd generally be happy to have our daughters be psychotherapists, professionals who would help these folks deal with their sexual problems on an intellectual basis, and we'd be happy enough to have our daughters be physical therapists, which can involve direct physical contact with patients. (We'd be happy enough, as well, to have our daughters be physical trainers or nutritionists, also things having to do with the body.) But how many people would be as happy to have their daughters be sexual surrogates? Somehow when the two things, sexual issues and physical contact, get mixed together the equation changes. And prostitution isn't viewed with the same degree of glow of healing that treating sexual dysfunction is, so it gets even less a good viewing.

RN, to take a shot at your question about why people see sex work as a lifestyle -- I think it's a historical legacy, as prositution has been pushed into a subculture arena, and many aspects of subculture, anywhere from drug use to being a goth to whatever, do revolve around lifestyle choices. A job is lifestyle neutral, and at this point, fairly or not, being a sex worker is simply not generally seen as a job in the way that other things are.

[Joe Zop]

RN, as always, you're full of firsts -- not too many people would feel it necessary to apologize for not working as a prostitute. :)

Since you note that you had surgery, let me simply say I'm happy for you that you have your kids, as I know such surgery can be psychologically very tough at such a young age.

[Dickhead]

Q: What do you get when you cross a 300 lb Ohio trucker with a drunken Aussie yobbo?

DH

[Joe Zop]

I think the answer would be something in the general direction of "overfilled urinals" and, no, RN, I don't think that's at all directed at you...

First of all, with your description I can do nothing but wish you the best in finding that right person to make the current flow though all the connections. I'd caution you against thinking in terms of putting your own life on hold because the children come first, because, of course, that's also a message they'll receive.

As to your social situation, let me suggest that to some perverse extent you, as a someone who's able to pass easily among the footballers and drunken yobbos, are actually someone who's far more a risk than a drunken blonde at the end of the night. She's easy to be turned down by. You're someone who's not only a far greater risk to be turned down from after a night of casual innuendo, but you're also someone who's more of a risk should you say yes, as not only does one have to live up to all that drunken banter, you're more of a problem to wake up to as a "mate" in the equation.

Do you really have a far greater set of serial killers and rapists wandering around in WA than before, or is that simply another example of general urban infetion?

[Joe Zop]

Amen, Proko, and sorry to have botched -- not once but twice, to my unending horror and shame -- the attribution! :D

[Warpig2000]

Hey RN- if I ever follow my dream of getting a job out of Christ Church NZ on one of the US Millitary Sealift Command supply boats that goes to the Antarctic base in McMurdo, I'll have to fly over to OZ when I'm through with the trip and have a cold beer or two with you ;-)

[Joe Zop]

Rohypnol is also a huge problem in the university town near where I live, and has contributed to some terrible incidents (one young coed because so disoriented she fell out of a window and died.) As far as the attraction, I think it actually has some connection to the comatose aspect -- though women are usually described as "pliable" as opposed to comatose -- so one can do as one pleases. This syncs with the understanding that rape is about control, doesn't it? The scary part about it is that because it's a "party" drug as well, it seems that there are guys who simply gloss over the rape aspects and somehow think of it as bing on a par with being drunk or on X. I've had some truly disturbing conversations in that regard, from people who should know better, mostly young guys without much sexual experience who simply view it as a way of increasing their chances of scoring. (Shudder!)

But you're right -- such is modern life, it seems. I'm told there's a heroin problem in the little village of 2500 where I now live, which is simply astonishing in terms of pure numbers...

It's interesting though -- if we think back into the past women were probably every bit as much at risk as they are now. Certainly rape and violence are nothing new, (we can think of all the elaborate social conventions aimed at not allowing wo,men alone with men as indicative of awareness of danger) and I doubt the percentages on acquaintence rape have changed much over time (The old phrase "Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker" isn't exactly a formula about informed consent). But of course you'd probably never be in a bar having drinks with men in years past, so I think it's more that the context has changed more than anything else, and with women being more independent the sense of their physical vunerability in society is more apparent.

Ah well, wandering off topic, sorry. To come back to it by way of talking about roofies -- do you know of anything that talks about rape statistics in connection with legalization of prostitution? That would be a rather powerful case statement, if there was a positive correlation...

[Stranger99]

joe
I am not sure if I understood correctly here but basically what you are saying is to have sex workers do some containment action on potential rapers.

I think you cannot put all rapers in one box. On one hand you have the domination/submission scenario; on the other hand you have a bunch of losers that turn to rape (believe it or not) as a way to have sex.

In the country where I am originally from, for instance, it is not uncommon that many rapes are committed by immigrants. It is notorious that immigrant communities, in countries (like Italy) which are new immigrants destinations, are composed for the majority by working men and that their chances to blend in socially (and therefore find sex within a normal relationship) are low because of racism, prejudices, economic status, etc., though resorting to rape as a sex source.
I think what you are suggesting might work in this type of scenario (leaving alone the fact of being able or not to afford a sex worker) as in reality what you need here is a masturbation alternative to decrease the hormonal levels.
Maybe it would also work in the husband/wife rape situations.

On the other hand you have a number of rapes committed by people whose way to relate to sex is based on violence where violence is not the mean to get sexual pleasure but instead is sexual pleasure itself.
I don't believe you can have a placebo effect replacing acting with the real thing and probably the rape is for the raper just the surfacing top of the iceberg of much bigger problems.

The only way the de-criminalization of prostitution is going to affect sex workers against rape is, in my opinion, only through a very long term effect in they way sex workers are socially perceived.

I strongly disagree but wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are many people who raped prostitutes that would never rape a non prostitute woman.
I think these people perceive that raping a prostitute is something less of a crime since they would consider the rape as a job related risk (same as a car accident for a Formula 1 driver).
Uncounsciousle they probably think of the prostitute as a sub-human type of species.

I know this is going to sound ridicoulus but it gives you the idea of the long way to go that is still to be completed: a couple of years ago in Italy a raper was acquitted because the victim, at the time of the rape, was wearing jeans and therefore could have not suffered a rape unless she had not collaborated, to a certain extent, with the raper.

[Joe Zop]

Let me be clear here -- in no way do I think legalization of prostitution is going to take care of hard-core rapists, either by "offering them a target" or by "containment." I'm not in the least advocating exposing sex workers to danger or potential harm by dropping known rapists into their laps. I'm not convinced that it will affect those with a true, solid psychological predilection toward rape at all, honestly. The stereotype of the rapist on the prowl is generally different from the reality, however, even though it's what women tend most to cite and fear.

The majority of rapes are not committed by these snarling anonymous predators, as the huge majority of rapes are acquaintence or date rapes, (75% is the conservative figure in the US) and the most commonly cited causes/explanations in those crimes are miscommunication, drug or alcohol abuse, and lack of respect for women (in other words, aggression and desire for control.) The massive -- and every-increasing -- numbers involved here point not to the evolution of some new level of genetically programmed rape machine, but instead to some clear societal dysfunction.

And what I am saying is that the availability of a controlled scenario to work out desires is exactly what prostitution is about.

You're absolutely right that there are rapists (and killers) who target prostitutes because of the attached social stigma, of general anger against women, religious warpedness, etc. I hope your scenario of a gradual reduction of that stigma takes place, though I don't think logic plays a huge part in the motivation here, and I also don't see the legalization or decriminalization of prostitution as affecting these folks much in a positive way. If anything, it's more likely the removal of societal stigma will be seen by these truly twisted folks as another example of how society as been "corrupted" and thus another thing to be blamed on sex workers. But, again, I think this is off the main point.

Your comment on the socio-economic status of immigrants, and the connected tendency toward rape mirrors US statistics of violent rapists (distinguishing here from date rape), which say that the vast majority of rapists are poorly educated, unemployed and/or unskilled. In other words, broke, frustrated, and socially undesireable.

"probably the rape is for the raper just the surfacing top of the iceberg of much bigger problems"

I agree with this, (see my prior paragraph) and what I'm saying is that rape is the manifesting behavior of those problems. And in point of fact placebo or replacement behavior is precisely the kind of treatment behaviorists advocate for dealing with such scenarios.

Look, I recognize that rape is a hot-button issue, and let's face it -- there are all kinds of simply insane things that come through the courts about rape, and we're still in the very early stages of having assaults on women, particularly sexual assaults, treated with the gravity they deserve. As a corrolary to your example, in Texas about ten years ago a grand jury refused to bring charges against a guy who raped a woman at knife-point because she convinced him to use a condom for fear of AIDS, saying that implied consent. Simply nuts, and the kind of societal mixed message that gives a blessing to screwed up sex-role attitudes!

[Prokofiev]

J.Z.

"the massive ...and ever increasing number of rapes..."

Do you really think it's massive and increasing? I think the reporting of rape is increasing. And numbers probably rise with population growth. But do you honestly think that higher %'s of women are raped today compared to 25, 50 or 100 years ago? I doubt it. Date rape and wife rape is a rather new idea. Not too long ago, the cops would laugh at any woman who claimed she was raped by her husband or boyfriend - someone whom she had slept with many times. And while I don't take violence or rape lightly, I DO think there is a big diference between raping a stranger and a long time sex partner. I'm sure I'll catch a lot of hell for this - from RN and others, but the degree of "violation" is diferent. In the US it's OK to beat the crap out of your wife, but hold her down and screw her and you're looking at 30 years. Fair? A good idea? I think not.
I await your wrath . . . - P

[Joe Zop]

Proko -- you may well be right that it's simply that more rapes are reported now that previously, though it's kind a horrible thing to contemplate the idea that one in three women have been victims of sexual assault throughout history, and that it's still only one in ten rapes that are reported. What exactly does that say about us as a species?

I think you somewhat mischaracterize date rape -- just because it's acquaintence based doesn't mean most of it in that category occurs between people who have had sex before. It can happen between friends, spouses, girlfriends and/or boyfriends, people who just met, etc..
Especially considering that 60% of all rapes involve women under 18, and that 57% of acquaintence rapes happen while actually on a date, I don't think that really implies that these are mostly long-standing relationships, and they're sure not marriages for the most part. But you're certainly right that it still happens quite a bit.

And you're right that wife rape is a relatively new legal situation, but it's mostly been about the removal of an exemption for men about raping their wives, as opposed to adding a new clause.

As far as your take on things, well, I don't know that being in a relationship somehow implies that a woman becomes property, to do with as you wish and I don't see that having sex with a person somehow "implies" future consent. Violence is violence, and beating or forcing sex on a woman you're married to or involved with should be just as much cause for jail, as far as I'm concerned. Marital rape isn't about having sex any more than anonymous rape -- most researchers who have spoken with husband-rapists conclude that husband-rapists rape to reinforce their power, dominance, or control over their wife or family, or to express anger. The only thing different about that and "normal" rape is just the presumption that it's your right to do so.

To me, the violation of trust involved and the difficulty of escaping from your rapist makes it worse as opposed to mitigates it. Bad enough to do it to a stranger, but to someone you allegedly care for? If you're not getting sex, or not getting it in the way you think you should in the relationship, there are decidedly other options.

(And apologies -- this has strayed rather far off-topic from my original query to RN...)

[Stranger99]

I tend to be doubtful or at least perplexed towards US statistics.

I mean, one every three women was a victim of a sexual assault: this is a huge number....
The multi million dollars lawsuits (Mike Tyson type of cases) have bastardized the system which is now flooded by true and pretentious data. This is probably an explanation of the rising number of assaults being reported.

Let me make an example. I live in Michigan, in a very liberal, culturally and economically rich, cosmopolitan small city and every month I receive the city magazine with a crime map in it showing the previous month crime occurrances and location.

I am astonished to see that there are at least 5-10 sex assaults per month (the majority by acquaintances, the rest by strangers).

Now, very incidentally, the city I am from in Italy has more or less the same social characteristics and pattern (dimension, university city, population density and composition, etc.) of the one I am currently living in, here in the US.
Well, in my Italian hometown rapes happen once a year (if that) and when they happen they make a 9 columns headlines on the local papers.

So, here the frequency is 10 times higher which is sort of scary but my point is, is this realistic?

[Joe Zop]

Well, Stranger, I live near that exact town, and I tend to be amused when locals in this university town get all aghast at their crime stats, as they're ridiculously low proportionate to other places. And that includes sexual assault, which happen to be very high in university areas, but are nothing compared to more inner-city urban areas. I plotted crime statistics many years ago for the police department of a city of only slightly larger size about an hour north, where the crime was far, far higher.

I think this goes to Proko's point about part of the increase being more rapes reported than in the past. I think it's a cultural and definitional thing, in that acquaintance rape doesn't get reported as often in other countries. But I think it's worth noting that the US rates are not the worst in the world.

[Darkseid]

Some men rape women because of the stricter laws defining rape. A lot of men are married to women who are prudes because of American society's double standards or are married to women who aren't really interested in having sex with them so these men either try to force their wives to have sex and thus get reported by their wives to have raped them or they try to have an affair, but if they get caught, they lose everything they own to their ex-wives. Some turn to prostitution but prostitution is illegal here and they would also get arrested. So what's left, try to rape a woman and not get caught? This is still a dumb option because if they get caught, they also get arrested. They then go back to the first option which is force sex from their wives and then the wife reports it. A lot of rape cases reported are date rape or marriage rape which is absurd. Foreign women are taught to be submissive to their husbands when they demand sex. This is the only culture that women rebel against men because they know that they have more legal pull than men in America. This is why I prefer foreign women over American counterparts. I think that couples should be sexually compatible before they get married but that's not always the case because some women (or in fewer cases men) marry for money or status.

[Stranger99]

Well, there are always 2 ways of looking at things.

For example: the number of inmates in the US is ridicolously higher than any other western country.
What does this mean?
Does it mean that that the US are a more violent society or does that mean that in the other countries people get away with crimes more easily?

I think the US are in general a more violent society and this opinion of mine is reinforced by the fact that statistics I thought to be high (the one of the city where I live) are in reality lower than the average, as Joe explained.
So, RN, it could well be that the poor Italian women fear reporting the daily violence they suffer from their husbands as they know that this would lead nowhere and to even more violence but it could as well be true that in the US it is more frequent for people to use violent means to get what they want (now I know where the US foreign policy comes from...).

In all honesty I believe it is a little bit of both.
The court system here works better and the punishment for rape crimes are truly proportioned to their gravity which is probably the reason for more reports (and for more abuse of this system).
In Italy a more severe law has been in discussion for over 10 years now, and the catholic representation in parliament (which is cross-party and therefore always in majority) cannot agree to include in the law the rapes within the sacred-family circle. So they boycot it and the result is that we are stuck with an old law that allows rapers to get away with their crimes relatively easily (which could partially be a reason why fewer crimes are reported).

Finally, I am sure there are cultures where the women are generally submitted to their husbands but when talking about Western Europe there shouldn't be any problem in comparing statistics with the US (or Australia) as I believe the overall social patterns are the same.

[Crash Gibson]

Hey guys,
Here in the U.S., we're seeing the slow decline of good, clean fun available in ways it traditionally has, and i think it's posing some legitimate problems.
Nowadays, you get popped for DUI, you get loud and fight with the old lady and the cops come, you pick up a SW, whatever....you're life is pretty much ruined. Your name is in the paper, your job is in jeopardy, you're generally a pariah castaway from your family and friends and bosses.
At the same time these high walls of morality are being erected (no pun intended) we're being bombarded by sexuality in the media more than ever! It's kind of like a kettle of water put on the stove while the temperature gets cranked up slowly higher and higher. There's no safe place for a guy to "blow off steam" anymore, lest he wind up living on macaroni and cheese at the YMCA while he does the unemployment/divorce tango at the same time.
Not excusing rape here by any means, but a guy can only tolerate so much. Keep closing down the strip joints, peep shows, hooker strolls and massage parlors and goddamned girl scouts won't be safe selling cookies door to door anymore.
Europeans have for centuries accepted the fact that a certain segment of their population is going to participate in bad behavior (be it drugs, prostitution, whatever). Instead of wasting their energies shovelling sand against the sea, they focus on containing it as best they can in areas they can monitor it.
And don't go giving me this line about "the negative effects" such leniancy has on the rest of their culture. European children trounce American kids in school scores. Europeans live better quality of life with attention paid to family, arts, and entertainment. And yeah, they even suffer fewer instances of heart disease and live longer too!
I love my country, but man we get our moral panties in a bunch way too easy.

[Joe Zop]

Date rape stats do need scrutiny as they are an inflammatory issue, and particularly as the first major study on the issue (which had its stats as being well over 60% of college women being victims of sexual assault) ended up being a complete farce and damaged serious consideration of the issue for quite a while -- they'd defined sexual assault in completely ridiculous ways (such as "unwanted looking") and it got lots of play. (Flawed methodology and unwarranted conclusions in studies is one of my pet peeves, and I look at those aspects a lot.) But I've also looked a bit at some of the other studies, and their methodology seems to be fairly solid. And the assent on the numbers is fairly universal -- it's not just women's groups who are citing them.

Booze is definitely a serious contributing factor, but from what I've read, it's more likely that the guy was drinking than the girl -- 75% to about half -- it may well be that a lack of correct signal reading and lowering of inhibitions is greater on the male side, to an extent every bit as great or greater than "buyer's regret" (though that's speculation) especailly given that a woman has to go through a fairly humiliating process to report a rape. So a contributing factor to the he said/she said equation may be a guy's inability to properly understand the nuances of "no." While two people getting drunk and screwing is certainly nothing new, it may very much be rape if I have ten beers and she has none and I know she wanted to sleep with me and that her protests were just part of a charming seduction ritual, cause I know how damn charming I am when I'm drunk.

Even if you cut the percentage of every single rape statistic in half as a way of ruling out the potentially bogus ones, they're still appallingly high.

I agree with Dickhead on the prison side of things, and would add political grandstanding in lawmaking and sentencing to the list. And no disagreement with LynnTrash that the fun quotient has been declining here, hence my original query about legalized prostitution and rape statistics.

[Dickhead]

Just to clarify one thing I said, when I said "reported" rapes, I did not necessarily mean reported to the police. I was more meaning "reported" in the sense of women who reported (in a survey or whatever) having been raped.

DH

[Boxcc]

The problem I have with date rape is the fact that it is usually not rape at all. At least, IMHO, the girls that do get "raped" were asking for it. No, I don't mean they secretly wanted to get raped. I mean that they said no, but went back for more, so to speak.

For example: Two people meet at a bar and are a little tipsy. They go back to his place and start to make out. They are passionately necking and petting. He gets her top off, but as soon as his hand gets in her pants, she says no.

At this point, no should mean no. The girl has a moral obligation to end all activities at that point, get up, and leave. If she does anything else at that point, like get back to the business of making out, then she is giving implied consent. Because, what the guy hears her saying is that "I am just playing hard to get, I really want you, but I don't want you to think that I'm easy."

If you say no, and really mean no, then do something about it. If you say no, and don't want to have sex, then you need to leave so that there is no question whatsoever as to your motives.

If the girl says no, and stops all sexual activity, but the guy continues, then it is rape, and the guy should be castrated.

But, if the girl continues this cat and mouse game, saying no, then going back for more, then she gets what she deserves if she winds up getting the shaft!

I don't believe a woman should ever be forced to have sex. Everyone should have the right to say no and mean it. But, if you do say no, get yourself out of the situation quickly, to avoid any unpleasantness.

--just some thoughts

[Joe Zop]

So you're saying that saying "no" to intercourse means an immediate "no" to all activity such as necking and petting, which has been going on to that point? I put my hand on her crotch and she either has to screw me or leave? So because she doesn't want to sleep with me at that point, my existing fun also has to grind to a halt? Uggh -- I don't want to live in your world.

[Dickhead]

How about if you meet a gal at a bar or wherever and she agrees to come back to your house, but then decides she doesn't want to fuck (after she already said she DID want to)? Of course that does not entitle you to rape her, but my question is: are you obligated to take her home? This has happened to me a few times and I always did take her back to her car or whatever, but recently it happened, and I was sober enough to drive when we went to my house, but after a few additional drinks I did not feel like I was.

What is my obligation? I have a hard time seeing why I should pay for a cab in this situation. I told her to just sleep on the couch but she said she was "afraid to." Not afraid to come home with me but afraid to sleep on my couch??? I offered to call a cab, and did, and then she said she needed money for the cab. I told her I needed a Ferrari and went in my room and locked the door. I have no idea what she did.

I don't agree with the poster who said she has a duty to leave once she decides she doesn't want to fuck, but I am sure as hell entitled to kick her out of my house if she pulls that shit. Aren't I?

[The Virgin Terr]

dickhead, i think you're right regarding the situation you just described, and i also think you were right on about the reasons america imprisons so many. it's also worth noting i think the fact that "primitive" non-hierarchical, non-sexually repressive cultures in which most property is communally owned and shared, such as native americans, had virtually no crime or need for criminal sanctions.

regarding this rape discussion, i recall reading some professional "expert" citing data which suggested that a direct correlation exists between the amount of sexual repression and the amount of sexual violence in different societies. this seems likely to be true in my view. anyone have anything to add, such as more specific knowledge of any such data or studies on the subject?

[Dickhead]

Heebie Jeebie talked about Brazil being violent, which it for sure is, but I wonder if they have much rape.

God, there is this Brazilian gal in my Spanish class who is so foxy and sexy and friendly and MARRIED ...

[Boxcc]

joe_zop, I wasn't saying that you have to stop your activities as soon as you reach for her crotch and she says no. I was just pointing out that if a girl says no, then goes back to necking and petting then she deserves to be fucked because she is asking for it.

My point was that the girl cannot call rape, after the fact, if she said no, then didn't leave. In my world, if a girls says no, but comes back for more, then she is getting fucked. But, if she says no, and means no, then she should get the fuck out.

[Dickhead]

Let me state that I agree with JZ that the incidence of "true" rape is indeed high here in the United States. This is in no way inconsistent with my earlier statement that the incidence of "bullshit" rapes is high as well, at least in my view.

I agree with a lot of what VT says as well. I usually agree with VT, and I often agree with JZ, and I usually agree with RN but even when I don't I usually admire her approach.

But I am an unregenerate dickhead, so I have to say that women have an innate advantage due to being sitting on a million dollars. We are overlooking this and shouldn't, in my view. The penis is a superior instrument as far as urination is concerned, but fails in comparison with the vagina in most other aspects. The vagina is more easily protected and less prone to injury, especially during a street fight, and cannot be easily detached by a psychotic lover in the middle of the night.

I believe this is significant since it may be the case that our physical vulnerability makes us more aggressive in order to defend ourselves.

How about this: Testosterone is a natural source of aggressive behavior. Socialization seeks to control this. Control leads to resentment. Resentment of control causes or leads to sexual misbehavior among those who are inadequately socialized.

Proposed solution? Safe and legal prostitution readily available at a reasonable price.

Just throwing that out there. I am inadequately socialized, but the inadequate upbringing that led to the inadequate socialization led me to prefer to fight with other men rather than beat up or rape women and I am not quite sure why.

DH

[Darkseid]

Brazil may have more violence than most US cities but they are not of the nature of rape. The nature of violence in brazil is usually about money and debt. The people in the fevelas which is the concentrated poor population of Brazil (which is why you never take the bus that passes the Downtown area), commit violent crimes which are related to hold ups and carjacking because they want money so this is the quickest way to get it. Brazil is more laid back sexually so there is a much lower rape statistic than even the safest city in the US but the violence is greater than that of Detroit, MI because there is a higher concentration of lower class people. When people go to Rio, tourists are shown only the upper class of this city and the bus tours NEVER stops at the fevelas where ALL the violent crimes are concentrated. Also, NEVER argue with a Brazilian guy against his favorite soccer team, this can get you a bottle on your head. The US because of its strict and puritan laws against prostitution and sex is still the highest in rape related crimes.

[Joe Zop]

Dickhead, your approach is a very nice encapsulation about what I was leading toward in bringing up this topic in the first place (I can hardly wait to see RN's massive and, as promised, scathing, response to all this stuff.) Let's face it, society is basically a construct wherein base desire is all forms (from murder to greed to whatever) is partially curbed in return for some promised degree of comfort and safety. It's the degree of curbing and control that's always at issue.

boxcc said -- "I was just pointing out that if a girl says no, then goes back to necking and petting then she deserves to be fucked because she is asking for it."

See, that's where we diverge. To me, what she's asking for in this situation, after she's made clear that things are not going to escalate to intercourse, is more necking and petting. If a guy can't handle that it's up to him to back off -- I don't buy the "excited beyond all control" excuse. If that's true then you ought to stay home and whack off as opposed to interact with others. Otherwise this is an impossible slippery slope -- she "asked for it" because she didn't stop kissing him even after she said no to going any further, because she was in the room with him alone, because she walked out with him, because she kissed him, let him feel her up, wore those clothes, etc. There's a difference between being in a hot and heavy makeout session with someone and necessarily being with someone who's prick-teasing, though of course at times they overlap

And let me say that there's nothing wrong from my perspective with a little prick-teasing in any event, as long as the ground rules and limits are clear enough. I know we've gotten far past it these days, but I personally think seduction rituals and teasing are good things, and can add to the experience. Play is play, and even someone who leads you on doesn't somehow forfeit the right to say no. (And since in truth she's saying "not now" as opposed to "never" that can also be alluring.) Can that be frustrating? Hell yes!!! -- heightening desire is precisely the point. Is that grounds for telling her to take a hike? Up to you, and certainly moreso if it's something that keeps happening and you're feeling like she's not worth either the wait, frustration or pursuit. Is it grounds for forcible entry? Not in either my eyes or those of the law. Look -- if you kick her out (with or without taxi fare, depending on your level of discontent) or break up with her because you're tired of being teased and not fulfilled, it's not as if it's not clear why it's happening. Then it's up to her to decide how she wants to respond to what is essentially a choice about having sex or calling the relationship off. There's nothing in that equation that hasn't played out a million times, from high school onward -- it underlies the whole dating scene.

I'd take one of Dickhead's (great, as usual) statements further -- not only does control leads to resentment, but frustration leads to greater desire for control. And control is what rape is all about. My original postulation was precisely that -- legalized prostitution could lead to a lower degree of frustration, thereby leading to a lowered need for control, thereby leading to a smaller incidence of rape, particularly date rape. If your girl has left you high and dry, and you in the back of your mind is the knowledge that you can simply head out and buy relief, then your urge to force the issue could be dissipated.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by joe_zop
[And let me say that there's nothing wrong from my perspective with a little prick-teasing in any event, as long as the ground rules and limits are clear enough. I know we've gotten far past it these days, but I personally think seduction rituals and teasing are good things [/i]

I think "seduction rituals" are very different than prick teasing. We disagree on this issue. Although, I don't think saying you just want to make out and pet and don't want to fuck is prick teasing IF this is really what you mean.

Prick teasing is sort of like what Potter Stewart said about obscenity. I can't give you an exact definition, but I know it when I see it. And, I think it is damaging to the entire dynamic of male/female relationships.

If you think about how the average American grows up, women are always telling him "no": first Mommy, then grade school teachers, crossing guards, school bus drivers (mostly women these days), and finally postpubescent girls.

Whereas, oftentimes Daddy lets you do more fun dangerous stuff than Mommy does, your football coach encourages you to be aggressive, and your guys friends are always encouraging you to DO stuff, never to NOT do stuff.

I think this may be significant.

DH

[Joe Zop]

While I generally classify making out and petting as foreplay, I don't think foreplay necessarily always ends in play itself, and making out and petting can be fully entered into with no intents of going any further than a mutual degree of excitement and enjoyment. My comment about prick-teasing in that context was not because I think making out is prick-teasing, but because it's a common epithet hurled at women who make out and don't screw.

And as far as prick-teasing goes, please note that I said "a little." I completely agree that hard-core prick-teasers -- who get their jollies out of teasing and exciting men and who have no intention of ever going through with anything other than saying "no" -- are damaging to the male/female dynamic. (Speaking of issues of control and power...)

But I see nothing wrong with a moderate degree of "you know you want me, you've gotta earn it" activity. That's fun.

And I agree with you completely about the roles of yes and no in society. It might be that women tend to say no because they are generally the ones later saddled with cleaning up the various messes that result from stuff guys encourage each other to do. :)

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by joe_zop
It might be that women tend to say no because they are generally the ones later saddled with cleaning up the various messes that result from stuff guys encourage each other to do. :)
Agree and brings me to my pet peeve. I go to Méjico a lot and I meet women and I ask if they are married and they say, "Sí pero se fue." (Yes, but he took off).

So my pet peeve is guys who are not responsible about birth control and think it is a big joke and not their problem and then don't support their kids. Not only is this just flat ass wrong, but it makes it harder for a guy like me to get laid. This falls under the heading of leaving the woman to clean up the mess that the guy contributed to making.

Sometimes I'll be asked if I have kids and when I say no, some guy will say, "That you KNOW OF, ha ha." I hate that, and it's not true in my case, and I always call them on it. One guy said to me that any guy who says he is sure he has no kids is either a liar or a faggot. By the time that fucker regains consciousness, his clothes will be out of style.

Not only was my vasectomy the best money I ever spent, but my ex-wife paid for half of it. And, before I had it, I never had unprotected sex, not even once.

In The Bahamas they have a thing called "out-children." These are children that married men father by women other than their wives, and they feel no obligation to support them, although they MOSTLY try to support the children they have with their wives. I never understood this until I learned how the country was settled. Plantation owners from the Carolinas sailed there with their slaves to see if the land was good for growing cotton. It wasn't, so the plantation owners sailed away in the middle of the night and left the slaves there. That was because life, in the form of slaves, was so cheap that it was more economical to buy new slaves when they returned than it was to feed the slaves on the return voyage.

In the US, if you see a kid who is half black and half white, it is a fairly safe assumption the father is black and the mother is white (at least 90% of the time would be my guess). In Jamaica, it is the opposite. So, the black kids pick on the mulatto kids, because the assumption is that if your dad was white, he was a john and so yo mama's a ho.

What goes around, comes around. Pussy should be on a rack by the door like anything else. Clean up your own fucking messes, guys.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
Ello boys :) I'm back...
And here's another scenario I'd like to hear your opinion on...
A few years ago, I went home with a man. We had fooled around all night at the club, then went back to his place and fucked for a couple of hours. ALL with my consent. Then I said I had to leave. He said he wanted me to stay for a while longer, and I said no. He slammed the bedroom door, belted me across the face, threw me face down on the bed and fucked me. He rammed me so hard, and for so long, that my inner thighs were bruised afterwards. So were my arms from all the struggling. AND he didn't use a condom this time. Was I raped, or did I give "implied consent" by being there in the first place?

That is rape and the guy is a psycho. I just don't understand men who hit women, let alone rape them. Even though I grew up with a lot of violence, there was no hitting women in my family (although the women hit the men). I myself will fight anyone who fucks with me no matter how big they are, and I have a bad temper, but I have never even come close to hitting a woman. It is just anathema to me. Why is that?

But I have always attracted masochistic women who liked to be tied up and shit like that (my ex liked to be choked during sex - very scary but I aim to please). The ex also had rape fantasies and was always trying to get me to do the fake rape shit. I could not get it up under those conditions (although I have no problem with tying a gal up if that's what she wants). You would think that might anesthetize me towards violence with women but in truth it was just something I did because they wanted it (same with anal but now I refuse to do that).

I have read and heard that many prostitutes have a history of physical and sexual abuse, but maybe that's a US thing. I think it is probable that a majority of US hookers are drug addicts but did they become hookers to get drug money (my bet) or drug addicts to deal with being hookers (don't think so)? Whereas, most other places I've been, the majority of hookers did not seem to be drug addicts and thus I conclude they become hookers cuz there are no other jobs. Maybe if you're a junkie people can beat on you all day and all night and you don't really care?

I never really believed that say violence on TV could cause violent behavior, but I am beginning to think I may be wrong. A constant media bombardment of violence and gratuitous sex and gratuitous violence and gratuitous violent SEX, be it rap music, movies, or whatever maybe just rubs off after a while and since on TV you don't see and smell the blood and get it all over you, maybe you just get desensitized. You read about rape and violence but you don't as often have to deal with first hand. So maybe the perpetrators of some of this stuff have the inchoate concept that she will be fine in time for the next episode?

Because when I am in a fight and I smell blood, my own or the other guy's, something snaps in my head and I go over to the dark side ....

[The Virgin Terr]

i think sexual repression is highly correlated with female repression, socially speaking. islamic societies are probably the most repressive in the world, and women there have virtually no rights. this is because the burden of repression falls almost totally on women, and merely being attractive is considered an immoral and punishable offense, except within the privacy of the marital bedroom. to me sexual repression and all it's attendant misery, such as male frustration at not getting laid, and violence against females who cross the ridiculous boundaries placed around so-called "good girls", is pure evil. humanity is evil and will always be so unless and until it can acknowledge that sex is one of the best things in life, something to be celebrated and indulged, not vilified.if i could i'd make it a requirement for everyone to participate in public sex on a regular basis to ensure that the sick evil which is sexual puritanism could no longer exist.

RN, of course you were raped in the incident recently described. i don't give a shit how many times you've had sex with the guy, or how recently, you have the right to leave when you want. regarding your assertion that prostitutes get raped instead of "good girls", there's probably validity to that i'm sure, but i think you're still missing the point some of us are trying to make, which is that in a hypothetical sexually free culture (which doesn't exist to my knowledge), prostitution would not only be legal, it would also be as legitimate form of sexual activity as state sanctioned marital sex is currently. there would be absolutely no stigma involved. since this is hypothetical this is only conjecture, but it is my belief that if such conditions actually existed, there would be absolutely no sexual animosity of any kind, and the idea of rape would be simply unthinkable. we'd live in a utopian world, or as near to that as possible.

[Dickhead]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RN
"Dickhead, I would be very wary of ANY statistics on sex workers and their history of drug/sexual abuse."

This opinion not based on any stats but rather on 30 years of field work. DH

"BUT street based workers make up only around 2% or the sex industry here. I have read that it's about 10% in America,"

Far higher than that in my humble and dickheaded but well experienced opinion. DH

"but either way it's certainly the minority. Stats for the ENTIRE industry suggest that drug use and child sexual abuse is the SAME as in the general community. As a matter of fact, there is a LOT more drug use in the entertainment industry (nightclubs and pubs) and the transport industry, than there is in the sex industry. The biggest problems occur in the street workers, who are often victims of extreme poverty, violence, homelessness and drug abuse before they start working. Being the most visible side of prostitution, people see that stuff and lump all sex workers in the same box with them."

I think you are confusing me with someone who doesn't know anything about prostitution. DH

"[i]"Whereas, most other places I've been, the majority of hookers did not seem to be drug addicts and thus I conclude they become hookers cuz there are no other jobs."

Not so. Many women (probably the majority in my opinion), are hookers because there are no other jobs THAT PAY SO MUCH."

A first world perspective. May be true of hookers in Australia but not in Latin America. DH

"Women don't really have that sort of earning capacity in any other job, especially if they have children or have no tertiary education. Even if you DO have other abilities...I have formal qualifications in a few different fields...sex work is a way to earn large amounts of money in a short amount of time, which means more time with the kids and more time to enjoy your money! I have worked with women from all sorts of professional fields...real estate agents, teachers, nurses, and heaps of students who are studying to be lawyers, psychologists, doctors, etc. When faced with the choice between a 40 hour week in a supermarket earning $450, and a 20 hour week earning well over a grand...which would you choose?"

Well, I have chosen to earn FAR LESS money in order to do a job that is more satisfying to me and more socially valuable, and I am not materialistic, so my viewpoint may differ. But I recently was with a hooker from Colombia who was a chartered accountant. She was working as a hooker not because she could make more money doing that than being an accountant, but because she could not get a job as an accountant AT ALL due to the economic situation in her home country. So again, I think your perspective is highly first world (which is perfectly understandable). DH

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
"I see sex crimes as something very different. I mean, if a man was really angry and just wanted to lash out, why wouldn't he just beat me to a pulp? I've always seen rape as a very "personal" attack...and it goes much further than just control. It's the ultimate act of masculine domination. It's not just a show of physical strength or power...like a sound beating would prove...but a reinforcement of "the power of the penis" if you will. "I am gonna put my dick right inside you...and there is fuck all you can do about it. I'm gonna show you who's boss". The same goes for male to male rape, and although there are two men involved, I believe the "Take this" mentality is still a part of it. A rapist doesn't just hurt your body like in the case of a beating...he INVADES your body. It's a punishment, and an assertion of dominance."

I agree 100%. DH

"In places where prostitution is legal and largely accepted as "normal", the community is probably more likely to have a more relaxed attitude to sex in general."

I disagree 63%. Look at all the Catholic countries in Latin America. Prostitution is legal or tolerated and "normal" but attitudes towards sex are NOT relaxed (Brazil may be an exception; I havn't been there). There, it is more your good girl bad girl thing. Date your good girl on Friday night and then go fuck a hooker on Saturday night because you certainly wouldn't want to fuck your girlfriend, because then she wouldn't be a good girl. Seen it a thousand times in Méjico.

An obvious exception would be the Netherlands. DH

"My theory is that men from sexually repressed cultures believe very much in the "good girl, bad girl" stereotype."

Agree but many of these cultures are the same ones where prostitution is accepted and normal. For the record, I do not think prostitution reduces rape; it only reduces sexual frustration and therefore may be effective in reducing bar fights, but not rape. DH

[Joe Zop]

>I would think it would be difficult to get completely accurate stats about that sort of thing anyway...because the creation of a legal sex industry (not decriminalised) usually causes an illegal industry to flourish along with it. With an illegal industry still operating, any benefits that may come from the legal industry may still be overshadowed.

Well, yes and no. In this case, if there's any correlation between rape stats and either a legal or decriminalized sex industry that should still be apparent even if there is still an underground. Looking at, say, the rate in the Netherlands, Nevada, Thailand, Sydney, Brazil, etc. may or may not tell anything, but it would be nice to be able to take a look. One should still be able to see a trend, if it exists, between those countries where prostitution is either not illegal or is more or less officially tolerated and those where it's clearly labeled and treated as criminal.

I've found it incredibly difficult to track down decent rape stats by country and region in any event. (Not to mention the issue of the veracity of comparative statistics, but one has to start somewhere...)

>I know I read some things about the crime rate in Sydney after decriminalisation (because I remember them saying that crimes committed by women dropped quite dramatically), so I'm trying to find that stuff as we speak, to see if they mention rape stats.

Which makes sense -- as part of the thing I've always heard, particularly from street workers, those who are poor, and even moreso from those who are with a drug habit, is that prostitution means they don't have to steal.

And we've clearly got no difference in our definitions of consent. If there's any doubt at all about what's implied, it's simply not consent. 'Sides, personally I not only want consent, I want active and enthusiastic participation :D

[Joe Zop]

>"BUT street based workers make up only around 2% or the sex industry here. I have read that it's about 10% in America,"

>Far higher than that in my humble and dickheaded but well experienced opinion. DH

Really? More than 10% of sex workers in the US are streetwalkers? What percentage would you give? I don't think that's true even in the NYC area. Almost anywhere I go has massively more massage parlors, escort services, brothels, and the like than streetwalkers.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by joe_zop
>"BUT street based workers make up only around 2% or the sex industry here. I have read that it's about 10% in America,"

>Far higher than that in my humble and dickheaded but well experienced opinion. DH

Really? More than 10% of sex workers in the US are streetwalkers? What percentage would you give? I don't think that's true even in the NYC area. Almost anywhere I go has massively more massage parlors, escort services, brothels, and the like than streetwalkers.

Well, counting gals who work out of bars independently or with a pimp in the background, I would say more like 20%. For one thing, there are a hell of a lot of "lot lizards." But it could be highly regional, and I do have a lot of experience in Vegas, where there are a lot of maybe not street walkers but "bar walkers" for sure (and most don't have pimps in my experience).

And, I personally don't count massage parlors unless you can get full service. Most times you can't. You and RN may disagree. Dickhead ain't paying for no hand job. Maybe if I get arthritis or something.

I HATE PIMPS!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dickhead]

Well, sort of, but not really. If I were referring to free lancers I'd include escorts and girls working out of apartments. I'm not. Maybe my definition is "prostitutes working in public places" or something like that.

Also, I think I meant to say re parlors "many" times you can't get full service, not "most." Really, I haven't been to many parlors and it's been a long time since I've been to any. They keep getting busted here and we are having a local crackdown the past few months. We also have John TV here and I don't think I want to be on that for my students to see ...

So you da man when it comes to the parlors.

[Joe Zop]

Ah, the semantics of the sex trade! Always confusing :)

[Dickhead]

Mobile working girls? Perambulating prostitutes? Itinerant hookers? SW squared (Street Walking Sex Workers)? Moving muff?

[The Virgin Terr]

RN, the point you and everyone else seem to miss about the modern world in which we live is that the biggest bullies, the biggest power trippers, the biggest coercers and rapists, are the governments that we all must live under and submit to. it is these governments which set the tone by which individuals operate, and whose examples most individuals follow. modern governments have absolutely no respect for individual rights and freedoms. call me a dreamer, but i think if people were raised from the start of their lives with the knowledge that the world they have entered is one which encourages and nurtures their inherent instincts, the incidence of maladjusted, angry, alienated people would be almost nil. it is the fact that we all learn or at least many of us learn from an early age that the world we have entered is hostile to our needs which is the primary reason for violent and coercive behavior among individuals.

i have some other news for you. i'm not advocating a world of "sex on demand" as you put it. guys may be indiscriminate sexually compared to women, but even we aren't hot to fuck every woman who might want us. i should know; i have a very difficult time seducing women, but even i have been the rejecter rather than the rejectee on occasion. my point is, with sexual freedom, most everyone i think could find consensual partners to satisfy their basic sexual needs. under present circumstances however, since most potential partners are off limits to us for various reasons, and especially because we lack the freedom necessary to seduce (i.e., by offering money) a person we desire, there's a whole lot of us having to deal with alot of frustration.

[Dickhead]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by the virgin terr[i]" modern governments have absolutely no respect for individual rights and freedoms."

Whereas ancient governments such as the slave holding Greeks and Romans did? Imperialistic mercantilists such as the Habsburg Empire did? The seagoing slavetrading monarchies of Portugal did? The British who stole our queen in 1122 did? The Ottoman Empire did? Napoleon did? The Inca empire did?

I think not. I'm as much of an anarchist as the next guy, but come on, VT. DH

"i have some other news for you. i'm not advocating a world of "sex on demand" as you put it. guys may be indiscriminate sexually compared to women,"

Thank god for low standards. DH

"but even we aren't hot to fuck every woman who might want us."

Speak for yourself. Dickhead's motto: If it moves, screw it. If it doesn't, screw it anyway and see if it starts moving. DH

[Joe Zop]

I was guessing it was Eleanor of Aquitaine, French mother of Richard the Lionheart and John -- though I think she actually left whatever Louis it was and married was it Henry? a few years later than that.

Hmm, so now we know a bit more about just what kind of Dickhead we're dealing with :D

[Dickhead]

You mean a mick? I never said that before??

Dick the Mick

[Joe Zop]

Probably -- I've already mis-attributed twice recently in this thread, so I'm making no claims to a memory that actually works as it should LOL.

[Dickhead]

Aah Rubbie that really sucks but just remember, the author of this probably has sex once a year in the missionary position under the Christmas tree, and comes after three strokes.

I believe the god in whom neither of believes would say, "Judge ye not, that ye be not judged." The god in whom I do not believe is a merciful god when called for, yet a vengeful god when called for. Mean people like this have much to fear on judgement day.

A large percentage of US prostitutes are in fact drug addicts but I view that as a criticism of the drug laws here more than anything else. Hell, a large percentage of US non-prostitutes are drug addicts. A lot of people would say I'm a drug addict because I drink a lot and like to smoke pot. I won't deny it. Denial is a river in Egypt as far as I am concerned. Others are strung out on work, legalized gambling, or the strongest and most dangerous drug of all, religion.

When I dropped out of high school, my mother advised me that I would be pumping gas (petrol, Rubbie, not farts) for the rest of my life. Then she said, "If you're going to be a gas station attendant, at least be a good gas station attendant." I am fairly confident that if I had told her I was going to be a prostitute, she would have said, "Well, at least be a good prostitute." And I bet you are! It's not the job you do, it's how you do it.

To quote Cheech and Chong: "I used to be all messed up on drugs. Then, I found the Lord. Now, I'm all messed up on the Lord."

Dickhead

[Joe Zop]

RN, whether or not your response letter makes it into the paper, I'm pretty sure it would be welcomed here, though having the good grace to actually be on topic we might not know what to make of it :D

[Joe Zop]

Your approach is a very solid strategy -- not only would you simply be dismissed by the writer and other readers if you were too incendiary, you'd likely not be printed. I've just gone through a rather similar (and prolonged, with multiple letters on both sides) exchange in a local paper with someone from the religious right who is against teaching condom use in schools, using a misreading of a scientific survey to support her position, which has has been what I attacked as opposed to the fact that she's a complete idiot. Reasonable, lightly chiding, and factual is the only way to go, I think. My only suggestion would have been to use some of the addiction stats you've presented here in support of the stereotype statement, but I love the way at the end you tied in tax support of other programs and place sex workers firmly in the column of financially responsible citizens.

[Traveller]

RN, big hugs - sorry I have not been able to post for a long time, but it has been getting awkward with all the tech changes in this forum.

Anyway, your posts would definately qualify for a Ph.D in sociology and a professorate if viewed from a purely academic stand (this is not a joke). Bad news - they are not viewed like that and you know it.

For some reason, sex is a taboo area even in modern western society.

In Scandinavia, p4p is prohibited and criminalised in Sweden, and the other countries are considering the same.

We all agree that there is a connection between prostitution, drugs and organised crime. The word is pimps and pimping mafias. They exist.

I have been fortunate enough to avoid this part of the industry. My experiences mainly extend to expensive night club hookers in European cities - quality experience for all sakes (chicas from all over the world - ridiculously expensive but a full night of the real thing in exchange) - no faking and no hustling.

I have also tried on the "non-professional" scene (BS!) e.g. in Russia - big fun too.

Most of the girls I met in these scenes were actually sober, intelligent, adventure-seeking people who had the sense to make a buck too. In other words lovely girls.

Government employees do not understand this. They are people who seek a low-risk, low-excitement life. They also, unfortunately, represent the majority.

So, consequently, people employed in government tend to dislike risk-takers (ban by law base skydiving, mountain climbing and any other stuff that may tend to go wrong), adventure seekers (we want to live a quiet and safe life), and sexually adventurous people who like to have sex (that is indulging in pleasure - life is supposed to be one of suffering....)

This is what you are really up against RN - not politics as you see it or common sense - but people who wiew life and how to live it totally different from your wiews.

That said, I have a lot of memorable experiences, and great times with girls of "the oldest profession" who maybe matched my desire for adventure and life way more than anyone else. I once said on the board that you would make a great mom for anyone's kids RN - and I maintain that opinion. Very much.

[Dickhead]

Now, Rubbie, I never said you were "sheltered." In fact, I doubt that very much. What I have said is that having spent your life in one place, you have a perspective based largely on one place. No more and no less. So do a lot of the Yanks who post on the board. Probably the Pommies do too, but being a Mick I try to ignore them.

Dickhead Needs A Spanking

[Dickhead]

Well, yeah, but you are "preaching to the choir." Of course I think prostitution is a "victimless crime" between two consenting adults and I do not believe it to be criminal at all. If in fact there is an inherent correlation between "organized crime" and prostitution (I take no position here, surprisingly) it is merely because some assholes (arseholes?) decided it should be a crime in the first place.

If I thought it was a crime, then I wouldn't participate in it. Same thing with pot.

So again we get back to the Costa Rican model. If you are >= 18 years old, and I am >= 18 years old, and you want to sell me some sex, and I want to buy some sex from you, it is legal. No ifs, ands, or buts (well maybe some butts). No "zones," no "times," no nothing. Just pussy on a rack by the door like anything else. But if you or I are < 18, big trouble (allegedly, anyway; not too sure how it works in practice cuz homey don't go there). But there is a national ID card so if I didn't find out that you were a minor, I have no excuse.

Therefore, no pimps.

I HATE PIMPS. Improve society, beat up a pimp today!

My website, www.ihatepimps.org, has been shut down but you can call my toll-free number, 1-800-IHATEPIMPS.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
Ok, here's a bizarre question, and I won't be surprised if you don't/can't answer it...just wondering.

I know you feel the same way about pimps as I do. So...you see a girl who you find really attractive, she tells you that she doesn't do drugs and she's paying her way through Uni with her earnings, BUT she tells you her pimp takes three quarters of her pay. Do you sleep with her?

I was wondering about it myself...on the one hand, I would want to give her the money for her schooling (and maybe prevent violence from her pimp for losing a booking), but on the other hand I despise the thought that she is gonna hand over the cash to some greasy arsehole after the job is over. Not really sure about what I would do. What do you reckon?

I would sleep with her, give her the money, hunt down her pimp, beat the crap out of him, take the money away from him, convert it to small change, and shove every single coin up his ass/arse sideways. Then I would tie him up until he shits it out (wouldn't take long, I promise you!), make him change it back into larger bills, and give it back to her.

Plus I don't give a shit if she does drugs or not, as long as it isn't needle drugs. The Bible in which neither of us believes says, "Let he among us who is without sin cast the first stone." And, since I've never committed a sin, I have no worries.

How's that sound?

[Dickhead]

Oh I took no offense/offence at that. I just smoke pot. I don't even think about it as a drug. A lot of US prostitutes use cocaine. I tried cocaine a bunch of times like 100 and it never made any sense to me (and yes unfortunately I tried it with a needle twice but that was over twenty years ago and all I can do about that is apologize). But I am very hyper and I have never needed anything to amp myself up. If there are those who do, I have no problem with that but I think that drug is very dangerous. Also ridiculously expensive.

Now, drug-wise and connecting to prostitution, to me the problem is tobacco. I hate it. I often see a good looking woman, and then she sticks a cigarette in her mouth and I say, "Well, she just went from an 8 to a 2."

That is yet another reason why I like Méjico. There is some "social smoking," which makes no sense to me, but the overall rate of smoking is low, perhaps because the average person cannot afford to smoke on a regular basis. My recollection of Australia is that smoking (tobacco) is somewhat less common than in the US.

So I really hate tobacco smoking, needle drug using, PIMPS.

[Dickhead]

Here in the US, speed vs cocaine is a class issue. Speed is much cheaper and is used by the relatively lower classes while powder cocaine is used by the upper classes. Now within cocaine you have your snortable (expensive, upper class) powder cocaine, which can also be injected. Then you have your smokeable "crack" cocaine, cheaper and used largely by blacks. So, to summarize:

Powder cocaine: rich whites and rich blacks.
Crack cocaine: poor blacks
Speed: poor whites (very popular in rural areas)

I only tried speed maybe 3 or 4 times as it was obviously redundant to my personality. I tried cocaine a lot more times just to be sociable back when a lot of my friends were doing it. I think it had less effect on me than it does on most people. But, I was usually drunk at the time so it's hard to say.

Again I say that if you look at US prostitutes, many (I hesitate to say a majority) are on drugs, but which came first, the chicken or the egg (remembering your joke that you posted a few months back, ha ha)? If in fact drug addicts turn to prostitution (I do believe this does happen, at least over here), is the answer to the problem legalization of drugs or legalization of prostitution? I think it is reasonable to assume that if prostitution were legalized here that the price of pussy would drop. So, then would the drug addicts turn more tricks or find some other way to support their habit? I think the latter = burglary, bad checks (cheques) and so forth.

I think I just made an argument against legalizing prostitution. That scares me. So, we'd better legalize the drugs FIRST.

No, I think the ultimate answer to this possible problem is for American women to give out more pussy. Then supply and demand would be more equalized. This could raise the unemployment rate for prostitutes, a potential negative. But, analysis of supply and demand for pussy is complicated by the fact that pussy is one of the few things where you can give it away and yet still have it. I feel a thesis coming on ...

[Dickhead]

RN, according to your own description it is not the LEGALIZATION of prostitution that drives up the price; it is the REGULATION. I don't see any reason why it needs to be regulated. It isn't in Costa Rica and it works just fine.

[Joe Zop]

Clarification well taken: physical bonding is definitely a better way of putting it, and I'm not in any way trying to mitigate the myriad levels of charms and attractions it holds. But even as you describe it -- "wanting the woman of our dreams, however briefly" -- with the various added garnishes of the tawdry, the exotic, the inknown, etc., it's still a basically uncomplicated issue of coupling between two people that has all these societal layers unnecessarily heaped onto it. I'm someone who generally never wants something simple when I can have something complex :) because there are more layers to explore and experience, but there are times when some of this stuff can just be a complication and distraction as opposed to an added attraction.

[Stranger99]

This is the same dilemma you face whenever you buy something: do you buy Nike's shoes knowing they are made by children, or do you buy your mexican made car knowing that it was built by underpaid workers, do you buy pot knowing that you are giving money to the drug industry?

The problem, especially in a third world scenario, is that I don't know how free is the freedom of choice for women being in the business.
It would be nice if you could just pay a penalty as you do for instance for organic food. Are independent escorts the choice here?

The social implications bother me and there is no winning position you can take: going with a prostitute under these circumstances is going to strengthen or weaken her dependance that she has with the form of organized she depends from? What about not going with her?

[Joe Zop]

Personally, I think certain aspects of the crinimal element should be brought into the sex industry -- I've always wanted to bang a gun moll. :)

[Dickhead]

I have no problem with organized crime. It's disorganized crime that infuriates me.

[Joe Zop]

Hmm, never saw an Edward G. Robinson movie featuring a gum-cracking hottie with an Aussie accent, but we've all gotten much more multicultural and internations since those days... :)

[Fedup]

I agree RN. My condolences go out to anyone affected by this lastest act of religious horseshit. Funny how the most devoutly religous (and supposedly peaceful) are the first to go out and kill innocent people.

I'm a very tolerant guy but the fact that very few Islamic people are even concerned (and certainly don't speak out) about these acts is starting to rile me. How long do they think it will be before whites start reciprocal bombings.

To keep this on topic...

Always wear a condom!!!

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by Fedup
religious horseshit

Isn't that redundant?

[Joe Zop]

Well, I rather think it's necessary to disagree on your point about Islamic expansion, given that Egypt and Spain, among others, were forcibly subjugated, that the Taj Mahal was built by Afghan warlords who took over and ruled part of India, and that the crusades were by and large a response to Muslim military actions (though there were other causes there, of course, and the Catholic Church was a million miles from blameless in all that.)

No real disagreement from me on the Israel question -- I'm convinced in fact that the real victim of 9/11 was the Palestinian cause in the US, which was gaining an increasing degree of sympathy during that year, most of which has now either dissipated or been made unpalatable and thereby silent. But this side of the discussion is far off topic -- I was thinking less in terms of this side or that, religion or not, and more about the part of human or societal behavior that articulates a need to control belief and behavior as it relates not only to terrorism (state or otherwise) but to the issue of prostitution.

[Dickhead]

Well I will bring it back on topic by saying: "Who wants a prostitute who wipes her ass with her hand?"

[The Virgin Terr]

utopian solutions? one needs god-like powers 2 enact such things. for example, in my opinion the reason religions are so popular and governments so powerful is because most people r dumb as rocks and also neurotic. if such a thing as god existed this problem could be solved, but then again it wouldn't exist in the first place, would it?

i laugh or tear my hair out listening 2 the american media whipping up fear and hatred of saddam hussein and islamic terrorists. i doubt saddam is any worse than the asshole currently in the office of the american presidency, and i personally fear my own government much more than the distant threat of the islamic nuts. the people most oppressed and threatened by those assholes r those living within the domain of islam, just as real freedom loving americans r most threatened and oppressed by american law enforcement. if people wised up they would recognize their real enemies aren't foreigners, they're the right-wingers living next door, or within their own borders. it's all about idealogy 2 me, not nationality. a right-winger is a threat anywhere, religious nuts r menaces 2 everyone, but most especially their own neighbors. the poor people of afghanistan, particularly the women, were living in hell under taliban rule.

[Stranger99]

Joe & VT,
I read recently some articles on an Italian paper written by Gore Vidal (I think he lives in Italy, now). What is your opinion on him?
I was positively impressed although I don't kow if he is sort of exagerating with the idea of conspiracy.
Some of the things he wrote are very close to what VT says.

Going back on the forum topic I have a couple of questions:

1) to the guys:
How can you tell upfront when you deal with a sex worker if she is going to truly participate actively or just be there for the sake of business hoping that time will go by quickly.
I mean, are there any signs that will tell you upfront (possibly before you decide yes or no) that your money will be well spent?

2) to RN:
With new customers, your attitude towards them was always the same or was something in particular that the new customer might do or say that will put you at ease with him and treat him more friendly?

[Darkseid]

I believe that religion is a way to take away freedom. It is a way prudes use God as an excuse to control people. Our laws are based on overly Puritanical beliefs and values. They promote censorship in ALL ways. They ban pornographic movies or videos with too much sex or fake violence which is totally victimless. Their excuse is that it will corrupt the kids. They use kids as a shield and as a scapegoat to pass ridiculously stupid laws that take away freedom to solicit sex for money or go naked on the streets. These overprotective American laws are like those safety bars that my overprotective parents put on my bedroom window to prevent me from sneaking out to clubs when I was in high school and boy was that a traumatizing and confining experience. I KNOW what it is like to be in an overprotective and confining situation. It is like being in jail especially seeing the safety bars every time I woke up in the morning. I am fortunate to keep my sanity. I wasn't even allowed to hang out with friends because my mother thought that the neighborhood I lived in was a dangerous area. These laws that involve vixtimless crimes are at best ridiculously overprotective and unnecessary. They in fact cause rebellion. It causes black market prostituion (pimps and all) and pirates. This brings the crime scene into America. I notice there are no black markets for prostituion anywhere else where prostituion is legal.
This same abuse of religion is apparent in Islamic terrorist violence. They use religion as an excuse to kill people for the "sake of God". They also use God as an excuse to put burkas over women and treat them like shit because these terrorists are really a bunch of homos that hate women and the way they look. They would rather see naked men than naked women so they cover up their women thinking they are repulsive. Their religious excuse to cover up their homosexuality is that the sight of a beautiful woman would cause them to struggle with lust and make them rape them. This is how the burka thing originated from a finger pointing person who raped a woman so the judges wanted to protect rapists from falling into lust and ordered burkas to be worn by women. And by the way, that gay judge executed the woman who WAS RAPED and spared the rapist.

[Traveller]

Darkseid, yes, organised religion has always been a means to control people - above all. In the medeival ages, it was the way of giving legitimacy to the "king by the grace of god" etc. The christian (catholic) church has always sought power, and got it too.

These days, the same thing is happening in the moslem world - the religion and state power is interwowen. In the West, now being "educated" - we tend to consider this medeival and 14th-century-ish. Probably right too - lack of education tends to foster a climate for primitive, by-the-word religious zealots.

But on second thought - what are the people of the highly educated, modern, scientific western world (to which I certainly belong) doing?

Oops - they still try to make religion a main factor of state government!!!!!! With all those university-educated people making up the voters??

Bush (as American politicians in general) makes a big point of his church-going. No Euro country has the WWII German "God with Us" state of mind that the US has. ("God Bless America") - why? Why not someone else or everyone? What has God got to do with our follies anyway?

But also Euro countries still have the religious politics - various "Christian"-democratic parties are in power - some more founded on religion than others.

South America? An abundance of the world population controlled by the Vatican........

Thus, religion is still a major factor in controlling people, as it was 1000 years ago. In some respects, it has a serious function, establishing rituals, routines and basic morals that society will always need. And in some respects (NOT regarding the individual, but the society as a whole) a way of controling people's behaviour may be required to keep us from becoming wild animals - I read a "novel" some years back describing a chimp society which was based on how those are - it was disguised as a story based in a US big city ghetto/gangland scene, and you really recognised it as that till it was revealed that it was a description of chimp life in the jungle..

The problem is, some people will always want to use it to kill everything they dislike. Like prostitution, drinking a beer every now and then, my teen kids hooking up with the opposite sex (and probably make out too) etc.... Which we in the West at least don't consider a religious or moral issue anymore (sowwy - maybe not speaking for the majority - guess lots of people out there still do consider it that way).

Erw.....a favourite topic of mine this...sorry.

BTW RN - I actually agree with you completely that the issue is not one of legalisation (and control) but one of decrimialisation.

As rgds the "connection factor" - I saw a very saddening new film the other day about bonded prostitution in Europe - a East Euro 16-year old kept against her will in WE. I recalled once meeting one such girl - a few years older, but however cute her looks, I could not for all of the world want to think of sex....just letting her cry out on a shoulder was enough by all means. The ugly part of the scene is real - and although I realise it is only a part of it (I have met several happy hookers) it gives ammo to the ones on the side fighting it. They even announce internally that they should not be "bothered with details" (as like there were different kinds and moods of hookers) but consistently speak of "traffickong of women and children" and focus of the term "children" - which is to mean anyone under an arbitrary 18-year old limit..........(but gives the benefit to the propaganda of sounding like a crying little real small child).

Politics is not about making the world better.

Politics is about having power. Which you only get with voters. So pat the voters. Make it look like you are doing something substantial, and take popular stands...

God........I have to stop or I get banned.......or my computer heats up......

[Dickhead]

"isn't legislation aimed at controlling criminal behaviour?" - RN

No, it is aimed at maintaining the dominance of the ruling class. Everything else you said I agree with, as I think you were aware. If legislation were aimed at controlling criminal behavior, i could go to the store right now and pick up a six-pack of some good weed. If legislation were aimed at controlling criminal behavior, we would not have a minimum wage law but a maximum wage law. If legislation were aimed at controlling criminal behavior, our government would break up the cartel that sells the dangerous, addictive, and stinky drug: tobacco.

If legislation were aimed at controlling criminal behavior, these child molesting priests would have their balls cut off. If legislation were aimed at controlling criminal behavior, these fashionable low riding pants would not be sold in any size bigger than 12.

Well, I guess it depends on who is defining criminal behavior. The Dickhead Criminal Code would have very few pages.

[Darkseid]

Canada has the right idea with their laws of prostitution. They are totally against pimping! They make laws protecting prostitutes rather than arresting and incriminating them. They are more tolerant of sex than the US could ever be. In Canada, I read that it is illegal to make money off of prostitutes. Technically, escort agencies are illegal but the agencies find a loophole in the laws. They claim the money they collect (usually 30% or less, more would be suspicious and would make their agency get shut down) is for advertising these escorts. This is still a better situation than criminalized prostitution in the US because at least the law enforcement gets involved and makes sure that the escort isn't being exploited. In the black market prostitution we have in the US, prositutes work for room and board only and/ or drugs. Criminalized prostitution is caused by rebellion against the strict moral standards and laws of our country.
More than half of the prostitutes in Canada work independently and are advertised in the Mirror. Some work for an agency but give up a cut of their earnings to the agency for "advertising" fees. Strip clubs with sex are illegal still. The ones in the main city only do contact lap dancing. The strip clubs where you can get sex are located outside the city in the middle of nowhere. The service is not as good as the independent escorts but it is an experience still. The owners of these strip clubs are considered pimps by law because the prostitutes give up half of their pay to the owner. The clubs would be shut down if they were located in the main city because technically, it is pimping.
A weird thing about Canadian laws though tolerant, is that street prostitution is illegal. I guess this is because they are hard to keep track of. Also, street prostitution may bring in the black market pimping into the situation like it does in America.
I think that if the United states adapt the regulation of prostituion rather than criminalization, things would be a lot better. For most women, prostitution is a much better alternative than working minimum wage in McDonald's or Toys R' Us. It also pays more than what the johns themselves make. As I posted in previous posts, it is the overprotective and over puritanical laws our our country that CAUSES crime. Most people here are not happy with our puritanical laws so that is why there are so many rapes and black market prostitution. Notice that Canada and other countries where prostitution is regulated there is about zero rape cases there. Meanwhile in New York alone, more than 3500 women per year get raped and I'm not talking about spouse or date rape, I'm talking about stalkers and other bastards that drag women into alleys at knifepoint.

[Traveller]

the purpose of legislation - is it to control criminal behaviour? technically yes. but defining what is criminal behaviour is a political issue (lawmaker's stuff).

politicians tend to want to criminalise the stuff their potential voters don't like. secures votes.

prostitution in its own right (including the happy hooker variant) is offensive to lots of voters (including wives, mothers, next-door neighbours who don't get it themselves, religious people etc.)

so society (politicians) do as the feminazis - never mind the happy hookers - show off the sorry ones and then criminalise the whole business (never mind "details").

rn we do really agree - i have only been showing the way politicians and priests serve it to folks. does not mean i agree with the approach. certainly any real "criminal" acts connected with p4p (coercion, bondage, violence, ****, etc.) is criminalised otherwise (the lawyer is talking here:-) so the only remaining reasons to criminalise prostitution "per se" is morality or religious views (which are not excessively expressed in this forum in a way that could have a chance of being "politically correct").

btw - i read rn's frowns over low-cut pants with a chuckle - please get this: yes, a teen (e.g. 15) girl sometimes has the sexiest, most attractive looks and body any man can imagine. the fashion industry encourages this by employing models who look as close to that as they can.

but the whole fantasy that allows men to drool over such images is built on an illusion - namely that the little cutie has the mental capacity, experience and whatever else of a woman 10 years older - which we all know is not the case. so rn, rest assured that while we may look and drool at that sexy teenie (and god forgive be trapped for a night too) us in the know are aware it won't work - yer wits will get us pretty soon. and i wanna bet you are not as ugly as you think :-)

[Darkseid]

You got an excellent point there traveller. Politicians want to please EVERYONE especially those prudes, feminazis, jealous wives and mothers. They want their votes so they ban prostitutes altogether for their sakes. Banning of prostitution is all about winning votes. These prudes and jealous people make up the other half of the United States population. Some of the prudes are men! That makes them overpower the minority like us in votes and therefore these prudes have their way which is I think personally the wrong way. Queen Elizabeth may also disagree with prostitution but she sees a better solution than banning it which is regulating it. She is NOT pressured by voters to do the wrong thing which is to ban prostitution and cause a crime filled black market but instead she allows it with certain rules. This is one of the flaws of our system. I'm not saying it is a bad system altogether but politicians feel they have to give into the demands of prudes or else they won't be voted in.

Darkseid

[Dickhead]

The formal justice system is ill-equipped to deal with pimps. The formal justice system is too nuanced to deal with a subject this simple. Street justice is required. Beat up a pimp today. I disagree hookers should be entitled to pimps for protection. Get a big dog.

[Dickhead]

So now I am confused as to whether we are agreeing or disagreeing. I have no problem with a hooker hiring a security guard; I see no difference between a big yobbo (although I'm still not too sure EXACTLY what a yobbo is!) and a big dog. I would suggest a tough little mick instead of a great big mate, though; it ain't the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

I see a big difference between someone who has already made an independent, adult decision to be a hooker hiring a great big bloke for security, versus some guy who is too lame to earn a living any other way than being a fucking pimp and provides these same security services yet has a degree of control over the hooker. Maybe it comes down to commission versus straight salary. If the great big bloke gets more money the more tricks the hooker turns (a "cut"; had to be careful I spelled that right!), then he has an incentive to be a de facto pimp. I've never liked working on commission or for tips and would prefer that whole economic concept were eliminated.

France has similar laws about "living off a woman's earnings." I haven't seen much evidence of these laws being used to harass hookers; I see them being used to harass pimps. Harassing pimps is good and should be an Olympic sport. I don't think a real man lives off a woman's earnings, or another man's earnings, however derived. I think a real man pays his own way in life using whatever legitimate skills and abilities he has.

This leads to another question which might stir up some shit: If women really, truly, have the same type of sex drive as men, why are there not sexually frustrated women paying men to fuck them? I don't think the average woman has the same sex drive as the average man. Some women, some times, yes, but overall, no.

Flame away.

[The Virgin Terr]

RN, you're a weird chick! i can't imagine a woman of your age who isn't a cow or the hunchback of notre dame complaining about lack of sex! the problem with sexually frustrated women is how choosy they are, not that there's no guys available eager to service them. i'll bet on a typical day u meet many guys like me who are too mousey or think they are too mousey to attract women, who have basically given up trying, who would jump at the chance to pamper you with sensual and erotic pleasure, if they only knew of your frustration. i'm sure i would. sheet, girl, put a frigging ad in the paper. you'll be overwhelmed with responses!

i should add that i'm not really a mouse, i just play one in public. i have no problem whatsoever dealing with prostitutes, but since solicitation is a crime and since the world is full of jealous assholes and puritanical assholes, adopting the camouflage of a mouse is good for my physical health, if not my psychological.

[The Virgin Terr]

RN, i'm not hunchbacked or ugly or stupid or gross in anyway, but i guarantee you if i go out to a bar and hit on women, i face rejection over 99% of the time, simply because i don't know how and refuse to even try to learn how to seduce a woman using guile. and i don't use prostitutes for any of the reasons you state, quite the contrary. i'd love to have a relationship with a prostitute, i'd love being a "pimp", providing a prostitute with emotional support in exchange for her financial support, so dickhead wants to kill me now. hell, i'd love her for free, i just want someone to love, someone not fucking hung up on monogamy, and yes, someone physically attractive, but not necessarily a knockout. i think prostitutes provide a necessary service, i think what they provide can fall into the category of loving, so therefore to me loving a prostitute, if she enjoys being a prostitute and is nurturing towards her customers, is loving the best sort of woman there is. and i absolutely despise society for taking such a noble calling and making it illegal, unsafe, and something universally reviled.

the "available" women you refer to are unavailable to someone who doesn't believe in sexual repression, socially mandated monogamy, or the easter bunny. unless that guy is someone like hugh hefner perhaps, someone enormously successful and rich, because guys like that attract women regardless of their other traits. my problem besides alienation is lack of success. women don't go for losers, which is sadly what i am at this point. sex is so psychological. genitalia are pretty generic, it's the person attached which makes the experience what it is. i doubt you would have consensual sex for free much less pay for it from a man you perceived as a loser, regardless of his looks or desire to please you, just as i wouldn't with a woman who is visibly repellent to me. her pussy might be identical to a beautiful woman's, but it's the rest of her body which has to turn me on.
likewise for you, i'm sure, the man must have a certain kind of personality for you to want to fuck him.

i imagine it's not that easy for you for the same reason it's virtually impossible for me. that reason is society is intolerant of blatant sexual come-ons whether originating from men or women. plus you're correct in asserting that it's very difficult to separate sex from emotion, and prostitution helps to keep the 2 separate. why must you have such a sharp dichotomy in your relationships? what i mean by that, is it seems to me that you either have to have a very possessive relationship with a guy, or else you want no emotional involvement whatsoever. why not something in-between, why can't there be caring and companionship between people who aren't possessive of each other?

[Dickhead]

RN, you couldn't walk up to a guy in a bar, buy him a beer, ask him if he wants to shoot some pool, and then after chatting for a while and deciding you like him, just ask him to take you to a hotel? I do that shit to women all the time and I am successful like maybe one time out of fifty (2%) but I still try. But you are young and good looking AND FEMALE so my guess is your success ratio would be well over 80%. Eliminate the married guys and my guess is 99%. PS you should pay for the hotel under these circumstances (my assumption is you'd rather not bring a stranger home although guys have to do this all the time) and give him cab fare home.

One time in Auckland I was hitting on this gal and the music was over and the bar was closing. I asked her if she wanted to come back to my hotel for a nightcap and she said, "I've had enough to drink; let's just go straight to your room." That's about as overt as a woman has ever been with me. You don't think you can pull that off? What the kind of yobbos do you have over there? You can tell him up front you never want to see him again; this gal knew darn well she would never see me again since I told her I was leaving the country the next day.

VT, I'm thinking you wouldn't last too long as a pimp. But, yeah, that's pretty weak if you want financial support from a woman. Just my opinion.

[Joe Zop]

RN, you bring a new facet to the concept of sexual electricity, that's for sure LOL! I suggest you target tourists :) since they'll likely be out of your long-term hair fairly easily. As far as DH's suggestion to you, I agree, but I'd add the idea that you might want to move to a less familiar bar simply to reduce your issues about dealing with follow-up contacts.

I don't have the same complete line in the sand that Dickhead does regarding a man being supported by a woman, but I do think there needs to be some sort of equitable distribution of what one brings to the equation. Emotional support is certainly important and part of the equation, but there are many shades of that, and if it's simply "I got your back" then it's the parasitic equation most here deplore (especially when it's that unhealthy "you need me" or "no one else cares about you" scene that is the stuff of the pimp cliche.)

[Joe Zop]

RN, absolutely, I think it's the same -- in both cases there's a clear full-range relationship as opposed to an exploitative one where one benefits financially while being an emotional parasite on the other. Couples should be able to decide who works, who stays home, whatever, and I deplore the fact that anti-pimping laws mess over sex workers' families as opposed to go after true pimping situations. You involve kids in the scenario, and you have a family as opposed to a business arrangement that may have an emotional patina. The trick, of course, is defining the true nature of the relationship so clearly explotative pimping scenarios are disrupted but families (with or without children -- and I'd say being married clarifies the relationship as much as can be done) are left unbothered. But who brings in the income and how they do it is irrelevant -- it's whether there truly is a "couple" at the heart of things, or whether there's a "stable."

VT, I don't disagree with you in the least that sex workers deserve (and perhaps more definitely need) love and support, and I'm one who values relationships, sexual or not. But I don't see why, in your equation, it has to be structured so that the woman provides the money and the guy provides the emotional support and love. Relationships can be (and in my experience work best) when it's a two-way street in as many regards as possible. A partner is different from a pimp.

And in the interests of full-disclosure, I should note that I've spent time both as the primary bread-winner in my family and as the basically domestic support person, (as well as lots of time where we both do it) and that's something that has switched on and off over the years, depending on whether I or my wife are heavily or lightly employed, and whether or not our jobs are controlled in hours or overwhelming. We used to have a joke that as soon as one of us started making 100K a year the other could stop working permanently, until we took a look at things and decided we were both trying too hard not to get close to the threshold :)

[Joe Zop]

"the only other reason I could see for a man to specifically target sex workers is to exploit them"

Well, let's not forget the fact that you're talking about women who are open to sex and who presumably have the abilities there to make a man happy -- that's attraction enough for the sex-oriented or starved :)

And remember that VT's quixotic quest is for a no-strings-attached open sex relationship where he's given affection (and also the control to walk away at any point, which I find more problematic.) But of course you're right that there's far more to a healthy relationship than sex.

[Dickhead]

I have no problem in theory with the man staying home to take care of the kids and the woman being the breadwinner (although this is the ONLY situation where I have no problem with it). In practice, however, it tends to be a different story, at least in this country. If this is happening, it is likely because the woman can earn substantially more money than the man. That in itself causes problems in a lot of relationships that I've seen. Whether it should be this way or not, it represents a sign of failure on the part of the man.

Two things control a relationship: money and pussy. The woman already controls the pussy. If she controls both the money and the pussy, the man becomes a mouse. I didn't invent this system and I'm not saying I like it, but that's the way it is. Theoretical disagreements are sure to come flying at me, but in your gut, you know it's true.

[Joe Zop]

Well couched, DH :) and I'll rise just slightly to the bait. I agree with you that the money earning thing causes trouble in lots of relationships, since men's programming still tells them they must hunt and provide, and that not to do so is a failure. We've had countless centuries of both genetics and social structure telling us so, and that's not something easily or quickly overcome.

That said, I don't believe it has to happen like that, and I know several couples who have no problems at all in a scenario where the man earns little or less, and none of these guys are geldings. The trick is that the guy has to be doing something he loves to do and feels is worthwhile in order for his self-esteem to stay high. (It helps if there's a potential pot of gold at rainbow's end, whether or not said rainbow actually exists.) And the social status of the jobs can't be dramatically different. In other words, there must be some way to at least be an equal.

If you substitute "worth" for money then I more or less agree with your equation. Many men control relationship by defining who is and who isn't worth something or is worth nothing, very often using money as the big stick, and women's self-esteem is often tied directly into their mates' definition of their worth. (Obviously, this is a two-way street, too, and women can do the same thing, particularly when the guy's earnings can be attacked.) I'd also note that guys tend to spend a lot less time intentionally trying to control a relationship in a scenario where we don't feel as though we're holding "worth" trump -- we basically tend to think either we do or we don't. Women are the ones with the interpersonal training and skills, the better ability to shade and highlight, and it's little wonder we're apt to get played for fools in a relationship, since we basically are fools. :D

I think that's one of the basic attractions of prostitution -- I've got the money, so I get what I want. To use your equation, in prostitution money becomes a way to control pussy, though pussy still can still control the amount of money involved.

[Dickhead]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joe_zop
men's programming still tells them they must hunt and provide, and that not to do so is a failure."

And I am lot more successful at it if I only have to provide for 45 minutes. DH

"The trick is that the guy has to be doing something he loves to do and feels is worthwhile in order for his self-esteem to stay high."

Or be a musician, or pretend to be a musician. DH

"it's little wonder we're apt to get played for fools in a relationship, since we basically [i]are fools."

Pussy tends to cloud one's judgement. DH

[The Virgin Terr]

dickhead, u r a great big dickhead, but a funny one at that. instead of a musician, my dream is to be a famous activist. it keeps my self esteem from completely dying. everyone needs a dream, or their lives become drudgery. amazing so msny people r content with that. of course, a lucky few actually get to live their dreams, in which case their lives r actually an adventure. but i don't just dream because i want fame, although after all the rejection i've faced, any validation is welcome. i dream because to me this world is a nightmare that must be changed. and i dream because i've been inspired by the stories of those who have come before me, and done the seemingly impossible, and whose examples of courage and faith in themselves and their causes has lit within myself a fire which wasn't there previously. one goes through life being beaten down and loses hope, the fire gets extinguished, one needs extraordinary inspiration to re-light that fire. but once relit, one can't return to the hum-drum existence previously experienced, one is commissioned to follow in the footsteps of those previously mentioned, my spiritual forefathers. to do less is to dishonor them. and besides, i'm just plain fucking tired of being a mouse. it's boring and humiliating.

RN, if people r laughing at u, they're laughing at me even more, since i brought masturbation up as a topic, and it consists of well over 90% of my sex life, so the laughs on me. and don't worry about my relationship choices, i'm actually a big boy now, and i'm not looking for anyone fucked up to "save". but we all need to be needed as well as have someone on whom we can depend on or need. given my political orientation and beliefs, i have a good idea of what i want from a relationship and i think the
sort of woman with whom i'm most compatible. u might even fall into the category yourself except for your jealousy and relative conservatism (relative to me).

[Dickhead]

VT, yeah, I think if you work on that activist story, you can probably get laid with it. I recommend saying you are "working on saving the _________ (insert favority cuddly animal here) from ____________ (extinction, exploitation, not receiving the full marginal product of their labor, etc)." Should be good for lots of pussy, especially if you hang around left-wing college campuses a lot.

DH

[Joe Zop]

Hah -- is it that Brazillian, DH? You've definitely been in fine fettle of late.

[Dickhead]

She dropped the class because she had to travel too much. Buncha heifers is all that's left.

[The Virgin Terr]

sorry about that stream of consciousness rant yesterday, and thanks for not flaming me in response. sometimes i get carried away.

the comedian george carlin jokes about how we aren't going to destroy the planet, just ourselves. i agree, except along the way we're taking alot of other species along with us. i want to be an activist for personal freedom. when i referred previously to modern governments being the most oppressive, i meant post-civilization, although with modern technology they may be worse now than ever before in their ability to cast a broad and dark shadow, a pervasive presence, whereas centuries ago even if they were more barbaric, their powers were more limited. but i suppose technology cuts both ways in that the internet for example empowers individuals.

[Joe Zop]

VT -- well, there are certainly a fair number of folks working on the personal freedom side of things, and being an activist by and large simply means going to it. I agree with you regarding contemporary governments' abilities to monitor people, but that also goes in both directions, as we're better able to monitor government on a basic level than ever before as well, and also to influence, since current forms of government, for all their control by various forces, still have more entry points than oligarchic systems of the past. I'll take that over a jackboot in my face any day. (The worry, of course, is that monitoring turns darker -- I still find it hard to believe that we've passed Orwell's dark year by almost two decades and how prescient he was.)

But, to not leap off too much from our designated topic -- given DH's prescription regarding control issues, is it any surprise that we constantly see scandals regarding sex and politics, including a fair number of prostitutes being involved (in cases literally all across the world) given the that men with power also want to assert that power in a sexual way? While screwing the country may give a certain heady thrill, that doesn't mean it has the same visceral effect as actual screwing. Not, by the way, that I generally care in the least who politicians are buggering, as long as it's not me, and I'm generally in favor of them working out their frustrations thusly as opposed to via legislation.

[The Virgin Terr]

jz, i wouldn't put it quite the way u did. i don't see "men of power" asserting their power by buying sex. they are just doing what most of us would if we could, men i mean, which is having consensual sex with very attractive women, women who arouse us with their overpowering beauty. the thing is, if sexuality was destigmatized and of course decriminalized as well, it would no longer be a black market, many more would participate, and it would be much less expensive to customers, much safer and psychologically appealing to providers and potential providers. fewer people would have to resort to masturbation, like poor me and RN, and there would be much less poverty among women struggling to raise kids alone, thus lightening the burden on society to financially support them. in fact, for women like RN it would be killing 2 birds with one stone because not only could she support herself well, if she wanted to pay very attractive men to satisfy her i'm sure she could easily afford to. hey RN, would u pay me to ravish u orally? sheet, i'd pay u for the privilege.

[The Virgin Terr]

my dream is to become a professional activist by attracting financial supporters to my cause, which is their cause also, for which my work and life would be dedicated. the prostitution cause is perhaps the most appealing because it is both radical and doable in my opinion, as it's an activity which large numbers of people engage in, and much money involved. it's radical because it comes close to the root of what ails humanity in my opinion, which beyond ignorance is a neurotic fear of the power of passion resulting in an unhealthy subjugation of that passion. i sense i 'm gifted with words, at least in writing, which could be of great use as an activist, and i possess great conviction in the righteousness of the cause, but i'm burdened by a great sense of despair regarding the odds of success, despair that persuasion alone is an inadequate tool for changing people. it's also discouraging that there is so little organized activity currently for decriminalization of prostitution in the u.s. my strategy for getting started involves developing a relationship or relationships with other(s) who are already involved or wanting to get involved who share my passion for this activity as well as compatible overall beliefs and values regarding such things as religion and personal freedom in general. i need such partner(s) for personal psychological reasons, perhaps mostly for moral support, or perhaps mostly for practical support as someone who could assist me in areas in which i'm deficient, such as personal relationship skills and practical thinking, someone as well grounded and able to handle day to day affairs as i am gifted in envisioning and articulating the big picture. perhaps most importantly i need someone to bolster my faith in myself. as a lifelong "loser", i need to believe that i can yet be a winner. i guess u could say i'm looking for a soulmate, a relationship such as i've never known, who will unlock my thoughts so that i may share them with the world. someone who actually wants to listen and can provide the proper sort of feedback so that i'm not constantly getting bogged down by the impression that i'm not getting through. someone with indomitable will.

tactically, my dream for beginning outreach involves something like civil disobediance, except done with an eye towards generating sensational publicity, so as to gain the attention of as many potentially sympathetic people as possible, and then to inspire those people by my own eloquence, passion, and commitment, to become involved themselves and creating or greatly expanding a (pre-existing) organization of advocacy for prostitution rights. that's a long, long way from materializing. right now it seems more like an unrealistic dream i engage in as a means of postponing accepting the reality of myself and my life's circumstances, which are that i'm a nobody with no realistic prospects for positive change.

[Dickhead]

Hey VT, man, don't call yourself a nobody. You are a unique individual just like all the other six billion people in the world.

[Joe Zop]

My point in saying "assert their power in a sexual way" wasn't at all that there was any abuse involved in the process, simply that having sex is a natural male perk of success, all the way from animal structures where the "leader of the pack" gets his choice of (or in some species, all available) mates, to being pursued because of riches or power. Yes, it's hilarious that judges want to be spanked for being "bad" and I know that many execs go the submissive route as a way of completely giving over control, but how it manifests itself is, to my mind, irrelevant and individual. Guys want to be movie or rock stars because they "get all the girls" and political or business success, which revolve around power, are no different. In the case of politicians, I do definitely see some irony because of their position as those who safeguard public safety and morals, but, hey, I'm a champion of human inconsistency, generally.

And VT, IMHO you've got the equation backward. Become the activist, and the supporting partner will become apparent, because you will be manifesting the ideals they seek, and you're also likely to find like-minded people involved in your cause, as opposed to the other way around. Activism starts with activity, and one must invest time and demonstrate effectiveness before the money is going to flow, unless you either know someone with big bucks whose cause it is or have an unusual degree of personal charisma and can convince folks to go on faith. It's difficult to become a professional activist without first having been a very active amateur, unless you hire into an existing structure.

I think the key is defining what you mean by change, both in activism and in your life. The act of following a dream and of being true to your beliefs is itself an act of making change, and it's important to note that the organizations RN mentions are relatively recent on the cultural landscape, so the battle is still young.

[Fedup]

VT - Regarding your desire to become a top activist. No one is going to follow a self professed "loser". Who do you want as a leader? Churchill or PeeWee? Learn to respect yourself and your opinions, or no one will ever pay attention to you. This may be a chicken/egg problem however.

RN - Still no dick, eh? Here's some info for you. If you're somewhat attractive then most guys already want to fuck you. This is not your problem. Your problem, as you mentioned, is actually "how do I get rid of him?". Much like the old adage... "I don't pay a hooker for sex... I pay her to leave when I'm done." What's the population of Perth? If it's less than 250 000 then you're screwed (or rather, not getting screwed). With a population that small word is likely to get out that you're playing, and all the negative BS that goes along with playing will haunt you.

During the course of my job I see many different attractive ladies (from 18 to 40) that I'd like to fuck. The reason I say nothing, nor do I flirt, is because in this climate of male bashing and feminist shit, I don't want to get arrested or have them complain about harrasment. I'd reciprocate if the woman started, but I'm not about to stick my head out and get it chopped off.

My suggestion to you, RN, is exactly as the others said. Go out to dinner/movie/pool whatever, explain to him (earlier in the night) that under no circumstances do you want a boyfriend (make sure that you're crystal clear), and them take him home for the night. If he still get's clingy, then you're perfectly warranted to tell him to fuck off (with no worries of his emotional wreckage).

[Joe Zop]

Perth's population (as one of the basically handful of major cities in OZ) is well over a million.

And Fedup, I think your commentary on job stuff says it all in terms of why that's rarely a place to allow yourself to look -- even if, as very often happens, there are women looking for the same thing. And given issues that swirl around, even having the woman be clear about things isn't necessarily safe, as the story can change if things go south.

[Dickhead]

FU, me, I mess around with the women I meet at work. Where else am I going to meet people and see them in an everyday context so I know what they're really like, instead of what they would pretend to be like on a date?

I figure it'll backfire and cost me a job some day, but I can always find another job.

One time I lost a job that way already. It was after work and we were talking in the break room about who was Polish or Irish or whatever. Many people were saying, "Well, I'm half Irish," "I'm half Italian," whatever. One gal said, "Well, I don't have any Irish in me at all." I said, "Do you want some?" That's all it took for me to be asked to leave.

Since then I quit worrying because I could slip up at any moment despite my best intentions, given that I am a

Dickhead

[Darkseid]

BTW, RN, do you work in a brothel or do you work freelance in the street scene? And which would you prefer?

[The Virgin Terr]

thanks everyone for comments re. my last post. i thought they were all pertinent. it remains a dilemma how 2 achieve greater self esteem, courage, faith, etc. in oneself. having this forum, which is kind of a support group, is great.

[The Virgin Terr]

i want 2 turn this discussion towards activism. RN, how big a part of your life is prostitution activism? do u network much with other activists? what do you all do or propose to do? do u hold meetings, publish newsletters or other materials? belong 2 any formal organizations? anyone talking about challenging the law in court?

now i want 2 ask for a little free psycho-analysis from everyone here. probably one of the reasons i fail alot at relationships is because i'm emotionally needy, relationship starved. i think this repels alot of people but it's who i am and i'm comfortable with it, i just need to find people who are also, because i much prefer deep authentic relationships 2 artificial, shallow ones. this also means i'm severely limited in the number of people i'm compatible with, since intimacy requires having much in common if it is 2b a healthy intimacy, and there aren't alot of people who share my views and values. i've been corresponding for a few years now with an ex prostitute current activist whose autobiography i read. we share much in common in our views of religion and relationships and indignation over the way society is. i want 2 become much closer 2 her and become her partner in work. she is reluctant 2 become more involved with me now as she is busy with alot of stuff but asks that i be patient. i'm being very patient so as not to alienate her but it isn't easy. what's your advice?

[The Virgin Terr]

i should add more 2 the preceding message. i believe she's sincere. i've revealed alot of my heart 2 her and i think she's responded. i've made it clear that i want a close personal relationship also, not as lovers, as she is in poor health and already very much in love with her long-term soulmate, but as very close friends, the way families should be. i have alot of respect for her as an intelligent, creative, compassionate, honest, courageous and determined individual. i very much wish for a closer relationship with her, but i fear i'm deluding myself.

[Dickhead]

VT, for free (more rhymes):

1) You are deluding yourself.
2) You need to do something to boost your self-esteem. I suggest working out, especially strength training.
3) Say something to every attractive single woman you see, especially while you are doing routine things like shopping.
4) Stop putting women on pedestals. They squat to piss, for chrissakes.
5) Activists of any kind are very high maintenance. This applies to both you and the women you seek.

You would probably be a bit more successful with women if you were a little bit more of a

Dickhead

[Joe Zop]

VT -- to add to DH's very good advice, I think in particular the advice about saying something during routine activity is a good one.

I have a (female) friend who is very emotionally needy and relationship starved. She is also thereby a self-fullfilling prophecy, in that as soon as she finds someone who could be "the one" she grabs on tight and drowns the both of them. It's the rescue syndrome. The other person, who may well think she could be "the one" as well, is suddenly basically given an all-or-nothing kind of choice of either going in really deeply, really quickly, or backing off. By and large, the latter choice is what happens. When we talk about it, she says she knows she's scaring people off, but just can't help it because she wants so much to have a soul-mate. This is a pattern that's existed for many years, and in her one successful long-term relationship (the real love of her life, who she ended up stupidly dumping over the most inane thing) she took her time, restrained herself from going to fast or demanding too much too soon, and let things happen how they happened without trying to control them.

I have a lot of emotionally needy friends (my wife seems to collect them) and one thing I see in common is that they focus too heavily on their own needs in a relationship, and make the meeting of their needs (and schedules) be a kind of test for the partner, which invariably leads to disaster. There's a regualr pattern of measuring and judging based on what needs you might have. I think the proper approach -- especially for the emotionally needy and relationship starved, is the opposite, focusing on what the potential partner might need/want out of the relationship, fulfilling their needs first, and setting up a structure where you acknowledge that they're going to get more out things that you. (This might not be true, but it's a good defense mechanism against that everwhelming sense of need.) Keep the demand level low, and just figure out if you like being with the person for them as opposed to because they're a missing piece of you.

And before I get jumped on -- that's my advice for the relationship starved and emotionally needy, not necessarily for all relationships, though I think the kind of emotional measuring of needs met tends in general to damage things, and a bit of selflessness can go a long way. Few of us can manage to actually not be selfish in any event, which is natural, so we're generally safe on that side of things, but putting the focus anywhere but on your own needs can only help the process.

[manofkosice]

vt, you say you are corresponding with her.

How often do you see her face to face?

If it is not often (like every month minimum) then you should maybe concentrate on other women because you can't build up anything in her when you don't see each other regularly.

It's important not to build up one woman as "the one" especially if you are not yet in a relationship with her, you make yourself look like a loser, and women want to climb upwards not down.

[Darkseid]

VT, I would suggest seeing several women at once because there may be a woman who is better, less conceited, and unmarried than the activist. This would give you several to fall back on and it would raise your self-esteem at the same time. If you are just seeing one uncommited girl, you are setting yourself up for disappointment because all your hopes lie with that one girl and if it doesn't work out then you'll be crushed. If you see several, then you may find one that is better and if the one you are seeing leaves you, it won't matter because you'll have 2 or more others. Also, women are scared to death if you declare you want a long term relationship immediately after you meet them. Like anybody, they want to test your waters before jumping in. They want to see if they are comfortable around you, if you are compatible both physically and emotionally, and if they see themselves with you for the long haul before declaring you as a boyfriend or soul-mate. All women are like that but American women take longer because they are less trusting than foreign women.

[Dickhead]

Love and religion are two very dangerous, expensive, addictive drugs with horrible long-term side effects.

The "3 Fs" according to Dickhead:

Find
Fuck a couple of times
Remember Forever (but don't fall in love)

[Joe Zop]

... but in both those cases the ravages of the addiction are only felt by those who are no longer immersed in the habit. If you can manage to stay in love or in belief, then things work pretty well. Unlike DH, I'd not advise anyone against love, and if religion works for them and they can manage not to feel they have to constantly tell the rest of us, then goody for them on that count as well. I'm in favor of whatever people can use to find happiness, as long as it's not directly causing the opposite in someone else.

[The Virgin Terr]

thanks for the replies. i've tried often complimenting attractive women i meet, many don't appreciate it, and for those who do, what does one say next? it's not a particualrly effective tactic. jz, i know your advice is sound. regarding the comments of some others, it seems my original letters weren't read all that closely. i'm not seeking a sexual relationship with her, but sort of a soulmate relationship based on common interests and needs besides the erotic. i guess i'd like to convince her to become a mentor, and that if she does so i could become an effective advocate for her cause.

i'm lazy. in more detail, i dislike expending effort for unworthy objectives. i want to work at what something i'm passionate about, because if i'm not, i hate having to work. and i want to do it my way. but i don't feel i can do it alone, which is why it's very important to team up with others, both for moral and practical support. on the personal level, i also just need someone to share my mind with, someone i can relate to, which seems very hard to find.

RN, how many other people do u share your work passion with? r they all sexworkers, r they all women? do u know any clients who want to get involved?

[AGL]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RN


Is it any wonder? You are suggesting that Terry should have a few girls as "spares"! If I found out the guy I was seeing was screwing five other women as "back-ups"...I would be gone in a flash! It's downright insulting. If American women are less trusting than others, maybe it's because too many American men are players...hmmm?


RN - surely you are not suggesting here that AW are not guilty of "having back-ups" are you? i think it is fairly understood that women "drive the bus" so to speak when it comes to who makes the final call in any sort of male/female connection.

i witness the double standard all the time among my single female friends (and i do wholeheartedly mean platonic). they sit around and talk about men being the dogs but they all, at one point or another, are out with a different man every few days. and when i question them on this and why is it good for the goose and not the gander they seem to all have it reasoned out in their collective minds that it is different for them.

well i don't know, perhaps it is. at least from a sexual standpoint. but i for one refuse to walk around in life apologizing for being a man and being made the way i was created. for goodness sake this is not some global male conspiracy to corrupt women and go-a-runnin. it's the drive in us plain and simple.

but having said that i will say that my female friends are all fairly promiscuous. they love to sit around talking about their sex and for some reason they include me in the conversation (just lucky i guess - and no i am not gay).

but i would also point to recent relevant facts that are coming out about women and fidelity. seems that they are at the 50% margin on women vs. men on infidelity. cheatin' just as much as their male counterparts....

-agl

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
agl,I don't see anything wrong with either men OR women screwing everything that moves, so long as everything they screw knows where it stands.

OK. I have now modified my philosophy from "if it moves, screw it; if it doesn't then eat it," to: "if it moves, screw it but let it know exactly where it ('she' in my case <:)) stands."

Shouldn't be too much of an adjustment. However, being fairly short, if I am screwing them they are probably not standing. Some of the more accomodating lasses may perhaps be squatting a bit. Just another reason I like Latin America, where I am relatively tall. And, another reason to adopt the metric system, since when I say I am 170 cm, I not only seem European but taller as well.

Anyhow, I am much taller when I am lying down!

[Joe Zop]

"i've tried often complimenting attractive women i meet, many don't appreciate it, and for those who do, what does one say next? it's not a particualrly effective tactic."

VT, the tactic isn't to get to the next step, it's to be comfortable with the first so that it becomes part of your overall makeup. And there are compliments and there are compliments -- I've never had a woman get upset or not appreciate it, for example, if I compliment her shoes :) or bracelet or somesuch. And actually, my approach isn't so much a direct compliment as an expression of interest, which is not only less confrontational but a compliment to her sense of style or taste, and for the most part women are more comfortable and happy to get that kind of compliment than "you're gorgeous" from a stranger. This approach also has the advantage of providing what to say next -- where did you get them/it, they look like they would also work with such and such an outfit, or are they as comfortable/uncomfortable as they look, blah blah blah. And she ends up talking to you, since you're asking her questions.

Just small talk is the aim, nothing else. Part of the trick is precisely not to in any way imply "my god you're gorgeous, I'd do you in a heartbeat, let's go find a room" or "you're the one I want to spend eternity with" because, well, if that's the aim, you want her to want to do you, which means you have to be interesting in some way. (Not that, to save Dickhead some time, the direct approach doesn't have its merits as well, of course.) Getting to the point where you're comfortable engaging attractive women in casual conversation without need of an immediate dive into "she could be the one" will simply translate into more confidence in talking with women and expressing the things you truly want to express.

And I'm basically giving advice that's worked for me -- I was painfully shy growing up, used to joke that I never actually spoke to a non-family-member until college unless it was in a classroom. I'm still not all that comfortable at social functions in small groups of people I don't know, but I'm told no one can tell or believes me when I say that any more, so I'm at least masking my fears, plus I regularly speak in front of large groups of people with complete ease. Now I have to reverse the process and relearn how to shut up and enjoy silence, and I've been working on that, just not on this forum :D although that's going to start happening starting Friday when I head to Thailand for the next few months and have to actually pay by connect time.

As far as the woman you're referring to, my advice is don't convince her to be a mentor, but just ask her to explain something about the cause. And then do it again. That is generally how mentoring relationships get formed, not through some formal agreement. Don't ask for the committment, pursue the knowledge you expect out of the process. Particularly for advocates, the work is the pole where the relationship is tethered.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
LMAO Dickhead! You're a funny bugger :)

You don't have to change your philosophy at all. "If it moves, screw it; if it doesn't then eat it", but be sure to tell it that you won't be back tomorrow. And don't tell it you love it unless you mean it and if you do mean it, then don't spin the same shit to other 'its' at the same time.

Now I've confused myself...

I never do ANY of that shit. I am an honest, straight forward, up front Dickhead. Well, I don't tell them I WON'T be back tomorrow but I sure don't tell them I WILL. Let 'em guess. And I have said "I love you" to three women in my life and I meant it every time. Now I am no longer looking for love as I am emotionally bankrupt. But I make a great one-night stand because not only can I eat pussy as if it were a taco combination plate, but I make the greatest breakfasts, ever, before I show you politely to the door.

And, I don't date more than one woman at a time unless it is in the very early stages. Nor do I screw married women, nor do I move in on another guy's girlfriend. It is too complicated and I am too lazy. I am a very overt Dickhead, not a lying, cheating, prevaricating Dickhead. I say, look, I'm a dickhead, here it is; take it or leave it. Mostly they leave it.

"Don't spin the same shit to other 'its' "; say it ten times fast without stopping. I bet it sounds better with an Aussie accent. Almost anything does.

But, yeah, I am hilariously funny. That is why the Irish always win even though they always lose. That and the fact that "quit" has no Gaelic translation (true fact).

[Darkseid]

It seems that the activist isn't returning his affection partly because she is married. And RN, what I meant by him seeing several women at once is that he should keep dating, maybe set up a several dates a week until he finds one that he like AND that returns his affection instead of pursuing one that isn't interested. I've been in that situation in high school and it is like banging your head against the wall because while you are extremely "sweet" or nice to her, she accuses you of being a stalker. If this is the case with VT in which the activist isn't interested in him then this isn't worth working for and he should work at someone else. Pursuing women that aren't interested in you only crushes your esteem. If you date as many women as you like, (or men in your case RN), then it avoids the disappointment of being alone because one of them would be interested in you. The one that shows the most affection should be chosen and worked on. The rest who show less affection or are dating you for alterior motives should be turned away.
And RN, I have been in many situations in which I dated WOMEN who dated several men at once and I felt like part of a lineup. Most of the times I get rejected because I am not tall or I have less money than the financial planner. I don't see these women complaining because they get what they want in a man without the disappointment of not being chosen. VT, you should date several at once and BE the choser not the one who has to be chosen. This does raise your esteem a lot and makes you feel wanted and appreciated even with AW.

[The Virgin Terr]

laziness makes me a bit if a dickhead too. i think i'm lazy partly or wholely because so often effort seems so utterly pointless. for example, trying to reason with the religious about the absurdity of their beliefs. the sheer level of stupidity which is requisite to believe such nonsense in the first place is staggering. how can one combat it? unless we somehow evolve technology which allows for improving the critical thinking ability of the brain, logic and reason are impotent tools of persuasion with many people. but i'm going 2 try 2 begin making a greater effort here in this forum 2 expound on my thoughts, even though i hate expending effort at anything which does not yield at least the promise of a reward.

so i should expand on what i said earlier regarding the futility of complimenting women in mainstream society. clearly, the motive behind the compliment is sexual, if directed at the physicality of the complementee. since mainstream society trains women 2 react negatively 2 aggressive or assertive come-ons, and discourages men from engaging in such, they generally don't work unless one uses the subtle and very indirect approach advocated by jz, which isn't suited 2 my style. that's why i like prostitutes so much; they want and welcome the aggressive, no games no bullshit approach. society has a problem with this because it has always equated sex with commitment, and still does. the idea of using or engaging in sex for short term gain or fulfillment without commitment 2 one's partner is anethema 2 the mainstream, which is y prostitution is criminalized and stigmatized.

by the way jz, are you planning on enjoying the company of prostitutes while in thailand? stupid question, i know. wish i had the bucks to go there.

[The Virgin Terr]

RN, 30 core activists is great, absolutely fantastic, but what's needed is an organization of thousands. somehow, someone needs to find a way to energize the masses of closeted and isolated individuals who participate in commercial sex with varying degrees of shame and get them 2 shed their negative feelings and despair and instead feel hopeful and empowered and angry about being perceived and treated like criminals and second class citizens. also what's needed is for clients and providers to work 2gether, and for clients 2 get out of the closet as well, so as not 2b so easily labeled and dismissed as "predators and perverts". my dream involves doing exactly that in a big way. 3 letters perhaps prevent me from doing so, the 3 letters which distuinguish 2 words with very different meanings: pathetic and sympathetic. i fear that having 2 pay for sex carries a huge stigma of being pathetic. if i was confident of being able 2 overcome that, i think i would do it.

[Darkseid]

It is not that you are lazy VT, but the religious people are stuck glued to their beliefs and would never change their ignorant ways of thinking and it is hopeless to argue with them. Any change to their beliefs is equated to eternal damnation to them (like that's going to happen). You CAN'T reason with the religious and they are always going to try to force their beleifs on everyone thinking they are servin God. This is why they change the American laws to fit their religious beliefs. The law is one way to force people to follow the ways of religion and abstinence from non-commitment sex! We do not choose to make prostitution illegal, heck, I never voted for criminalization of prostitution but I always rally for it and get locked up for a few days whenever I picket their for the rights of prostitution. This democracy is a joke in that matter and allows the prudes to get their ways and lets them impose their abstinence upon us. We are looked down upon by the religious and so are the AW. Maybe this is part of the reason AWs hate being complimented. They are being complimented on something that religious people who rule this country frown upon, their sexuality and sexual attractiveness. This makes compliments of this type offensive in this society of prudes so it makes them feel ashamed of themselves and makes them feel like "s****" (I hate that double standard word for women who love sex which exists only in this country and no where else. There is no Portugese word for it).
I know, this may seem like an unconventional way of putting this but it's true of this Puritanical society and I blame the prudeness of it for the reason AW are so bitchy. AWs feel that they need to compensate for these double standard by being money grubbers which is totally wrong. They think they need an equalizer to these double standards of shame so they demand other rights like divorce laws that favor them (alimony) or the right to have dinner and dates paid for. Sex is made so shameful in this society that AW think they are doing you a favor by having it with you.

[Darkseid]

VT, don't listen to those pathetic religious activists that call us names like "perverts". This ONLY happens in the United States and other such puriatn countries. These countries make up ony 20% of the world and that includes the US, Middle East, and India. The rest of the world which is 80% does not think the way we do and if you go to Brazil, it is normal to pay for sex and EVERYBODY has done it at least once in their lifetime and they don't get persecuted for it. Only in religious countries like the Middle East and the US do you get that stigma of being a pervert or loser for paying for sex. I don't think of myself as a loser but sometimes I need to get some tension out of me so I go to clubs or personals to find women to have sex with or if I find that they are scared of me because I come on too strong, I feel the need to let it out by going to a brothel or a prostitute then my chances of getting a non-pro increases because they feel less uneasy toward me and that I am not just trying to meet them for sex because I am no longer trying desperately to get some. Unfortunately, in NYC, cops and nosy body neighbors always shut the brothels down, even the private independent numbers so occasionally I go to Canada. Montreal Canada is a great place to release my sexual tension. I also seem to have higher batting averages in other countries because women aren't shamed by sex and therefore they don't feel cheap for it, unlike here in America.

[VilunyaChert]

RN> Tie them up in red tape.

Kinky!

[Joe Zop]

RN -- I don't disagree with you on your main point, which is that clarity is necessary for an organization to be effective. That's the only aspect in which I really believe in the too many cooks equation -- rallies of thousands, while they do not make laws change, serve to underscore the points being made in private, and give weight to them. So they can still be an important aspect of the equation, and not a complete waste of time. They serve a similar function to bringing $$ into the equation -- they represent votes. I think the idea of one specific organization doing all the talking, which at times powerful and focussed, can also be a detriment, as opposed to multiple groups with similar but not the same messages. Political change comes about by a sense of popular support, and a crowd is by its nature an awkward beastie. I agree completely that coordination and focussed messages are important, as the powers that be need to hear the same thing over and over until it gets though, but I also think one must accept a bit of off-point messages and outbreaks from supporters as part of the process, and an important one as well. The nature of popular causes is that they have several variations of thought, and the mistake many activists make is spending too much time worrying about this or that person spouting off. The bottom line is that more noise, whether precisely on message or not, is usually a good thing (though obviously at times that can also end up not being true.)

And VT, the answer is yes, I will no doubt seek out Thai sex workers, since they're so available and inexpensive there and since I'm going to be there for ten weeks, but unlike some folks on the board that's not the main agenda for my trip, as I'm going to work and to explore a bit. Of course, that's rather like saying that dessert isn't the main reason for the meal -- it might be true, but it doesn't mean you're not going to have it.

[The Virgin Terr]

RN, all the things u mentioned about how to change the laws by "playing their game" have some utility, but i think more boldness and defiance r required. something like someone breaking the law and flaunting it and making a firm moral stand, showing at least some people that the moral high ground is with freedom advocates, not the pious puritanical prohibitionists.

here in america as even folks in australia are probably aware of, we have alot of gun nuts, millions as a matter of fact. these gun nuts also belong in huge numbers to a lobbying group called the NRA. i believe they literally have over a million members, dues paying members. the washington lobbyists they pay for are extremely effective at stifling gun control legislation. that's what i'm talking about when i say an organization with numbers. an organization that supports it's leadership which in turn acts as an effective voice for their concerns. i don't expect anything near as big or effective as the NRA can be created on behalf of prostitution rights, but even 1/1,000 that much would be a great improvement to what there is now.

by the way, anything going on with that boy of yours?

joe, i hope u'll be able to continue checking in with us at least a couple of times a week while in sex client's paradise.

darkside, i am ashamed that i have to pay for sex. doing it as a matter of convenience i wouldn't be ashamed of, but having to do it is another story. i'm ashamed that i lack the charm or other qualities necessary 2 coax attractive lovely young lasses into bed without the impersonal lure of cash. this shame is something i must overcome by overcoming my social awkwardness, or by becoming more comfortable with the idea that money isn't the only reason some prostitutes work, and that being with me they get more of a reward than the money.

[Traveller]

Joe,

One day, between other days of misbehaving bound to happen, we should maybe have a lenghthy, serious session of philosophical talks. I am not kidding really.

I like your views mostly - but there are of course grounds for quarrel too - at least a bit. Might at least be good exercise before the last standoff bound to happen with RN - tough but exciting one.

You choose the ground :-)

[Dickhead]

Well, sometimes I pay for sex and sometimes I get it for free. If I got it for free more I would probably pay for it less, and if I got it for free less I would probably pay for it more. I have decent social skills and absolutely no sense of shame or shyness, but what I find as I get older is that there's not enough unattached women to go around who meet my minimal standards (not overweight, non-smoker, IQ above body temperature, breathing). I could probably get laid more for free if I were willing to screw married women, but that is against my belief system (cheating and stealing, plus I might have to also lie at some point).

I don't go around telling the whole world that I like to chase hookers, but all my close friends are certainly aware that I do it. Some, I can sense, do look down on me for it somewhat, but I don't care. Sometimes I get a speech like, "Come on, you could find a girlfriend if you tried harder, went out more, drove a nicer car," whatever. Well, I don't really want a "girlfriend." That just hasn't worked out for me in the long run. Women have a nasty habit of wanting to change and perfect their man. I have two problems with that. Number one, if I need all this changing and perfecting, I become insecure that she even likes me to begin with. Number two, it's never enough, and it never stops. Oh yeah, and number three: when we first start going out and having a good time, it's "fun" to go out drinking. Once I have a "girlfriend," then I "drink too much" and "we need to stay home and (insert least favorite activity here)." No, I drink the same amount as I did when we first started going out, which is the same amount I drank twenty years ago, which is a lot, so what's your point?

Oh yeah and number four: I smoke weed and I've been doing it for 33 years and if you don't like it, the door is over there. That was "fun" too when we first started going out but now we have to get "serious" and what if "someone finds out"? Hello?? That's why I fucking TELL everyone straight out that I do it. I don't care if anyone finds out. They can't send me to jail for it in my state.

What if "someone finds out" that I use hookers from time to time? I don't care. I'm not running for president and if my employers find out and they fire me for that, I was looking for a job when I found this one. I don't do it where it's illegal anyway; they CAN send me to jail for that in my state. I've been in jail, and I didn't like it. There's no pussy or booze or dope (well there probably is after a while) in jail.

So to summarize: IF there's a woman out there who ISN"T fat, DOESN'T smoke and is halfway intelligent, aware, and interesting, and DOES like to fuck and suck ALMOST every night and WON'T try to change me but likes me the way I am, I feel I have a lot to offer. If not, I can go to Latin America and fuck ten women for the price of what it would cost me to have a "girlfriend" for six months. And, I can do what the fuck I want when the fuck I want.

So, what I'm basically saying is I'm a

Dickhead

[Joe Zop]

Traveller, I'm always up for a good pointless philosophical session, most especially if there are solid grounds for friendly quarrel -- no fun going at it if you both agree on everything, and it most certainly doesn't sharpen the mind or senses. I see you posted in the Cambodia area -- are you in SE Asia?

And of course we all know that men hopping on planes all over the world who read WSG are dreaming of being the one to have that standoff with RN. Just nobody local to her it seems, alack, alas, and alas :)

And VT, it appears I'm going to be needing to be online for a variety of purposes while I'm away (I've agreed, among a host of other strange and perhaps idiotic things, to correspond with a couple of grade school social studies classes while I'm in Asia, sending travelogues and digital photos and answering questions -- and, no, that will decidedly not include the sex trade, as that's a bit too much education for those kids) so I'll no doubt check in here as well. If nothing else I feel honor-bound to give back some field reports to the folks in the Thailand section who have been kind enough to help educate me as to what's currently what.

Of course, I say all that before I sink into the slow rhythm of things there, where there's no hurry to do much of anything, which is so much of why I'm going, to see if I can work well under such circumstance or whether I'll simply spend a few months watching, thinking, and perhaps less than occasionally being a misbehaviorist.

[Dickhead]

OOooh I think you MUST be saying that you are a smoker. Can't see what else it could be given your previous statements. And, I interpret your use of the word "unfortunately" as saying you wish you were not a smoker. Well, tobacco (nicotine, primarily) is a drug and a danged strong one, which conflicts with your oft-stated "I don't do drugs." Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you said you were slender and I do believe it is obvious your IQ hits triple digits (and then some).

Nevertheless, smoking doesn't affect me at all over the internet, so let me proceed to say that I agree with what you say about MANY men (although not me) not wanting their woman to "look sexy" once she is "their" woman.

I think here in the US, at least, couples in relationships breathe a huge sigh of relief at some point that they are now well locked into a relationship and can now proceed to get fat, dress like shit, fart in front of their partner, etc., etc. This complacency has occurred in all my relationships. My feeling is that I have surrendered somewhat less to this syndrome since I was not "putting on the act" to begin with. I mean, I'll never get fat and I dress like shit from day one. But, not putting on the act to begin with has perhaps limited my potential relationships. Although, I would argue it has only prevented relationships that wouldn't have worked out in the long run anyway.

I keep thinking that if I just act naturally, the right woman will eventually come along, but then I forget that in my case, acting naturally is being a

Dickhead

[Dickhead]

Weeeel, no RN, smoking is not in your job description and I would think it would reduce your potential client base. By this I mean that a smoking client would likely not care if he got a non-smoking hooker, but that a non-smoking potential client (such as myself) might care if he got a smoking hooker. Also, if you are an activist trying to fight stereotyping, wouldn't your "it's part of the job" position feed into these stereotypes?

I can relate exactly to your "If they don't like it they can all fuck off, but of course they all DO fuck off"! That would be my "here it is; take it or leave it and mostly they leave it."

We are getting nowhere fast here but I think I want to bring up the role of the media and the large corporations in getting impressionable young hookers addicted to tobacco. Let's carefully examine this statement of yours about drinking wine, giggling, and dumbing down. Is that not the exact role that the mainstream media and the heinous peddlers of the ADDICTIVE weed (marijuana is definitely not addictive in my opinion; I do not use it on a daily basis although I have been using it for a long time, and I often go for long periods without it and experience no "cravings." Also, I believe that the tobacco companies deliberately add additives to their product to make more addictive) want women to play? Compliant, suggestible, and subjugating themselves to the desires of the more economically and socially powerful?

I would like to raise people's consciousness about the inverse relationship between tobacco use and economic power, and the reasons that powerful yet slimy interests may have in perpetuating this. There is also an inverse relationship between tobacco use and educational level and one has to consider some possibilities related to this.

Give it some thought?

[Darkseid]

RN, about the illegalness of prostitution, yes, I do blame the church for it. The church is what fuels the prudity in America and other countries but the US and Italy takes the Catholic teachings into heart the most.
Italy and the US both have their cops shut down and raid brothels and makes sure there are no prostitutes left standing in the steets or in the yellow pages. Cops go to these places undercover, find out if these places are brothels (and some go for their services before shutting them down) then call their other homo cops to shut the places down.
The most arrests in the world for prostitution is in the US according to a statistician in Holland who did a survey in every country. He also did a survey for marijuana arrests and the US also came out on top.
The church brainwashes americans into being prudes then these prudes threaten the politicians to make sex, prostitution and porn illegal or else they won't vote them in. The politicains then advertise that they will eliminate prostitution as though they are doing something good and advertise that the other politician is lax on that policy. I vote for the one supporting sex, but unfortunately, the one against sex gets voted because this country is full of brainwashed zombie prudes that are influenced by the Church.

[Darkseid]

About the relationship part of the conversation in this post, I agree with DH that women do tend to try to change their man and they let themselves go.
When my ex-fiancee, Nury, turned American influenced by a feminist she met at school, she tried to stop me from going to clubs every Friday and Saurday night. She also wanted me to spend more time with her on weekdays also so she wanted me to only go to kung-fu class only once a week instead of 3 times a week. I constantly battled her over her trying to change my lifestyle because this is who I am.
I love training and having fun and I was not about to give that up for her. She seemed to have been supportive of me before she met Martha the feminist and became a lazy person that let herself go and became abusive. Perhaps she wanted to win my heart then turn around and change me. Since I didn't want to change, she didn't like it and even tried to assault me because I happen to go to class on days in which something trivial to everyone but herself happened. In fact, it was not even an anniversary or the day we first met or kissed, but she started making special days for every little event that happened and expected me to remember all of those days. When I got home from class, she gave me a dirty look when I got home and asked, "Do you remember what happened on this date? It was the date you bought me the first pair of shoes (or something of that sort). How can you have forgatton? Is kung-fu more important than I am?" After this, I forgot the date of another trivial event that happened like the first day we went shopping or something then she got mad and threw thing at me. I ran back out of the house and called the cops but all they did was file a report and didn't come to my house. I think she made up all those holidays to give me a hard time and to make me stay home with her. She also let herself go with the advice of Martha, the feminist, and stopped going with me to kung-fu classes and the gym.
It seems she wanted to live the lazy overweight life and wanted to drag me down with her and also turn me obese. Perhaps it is true that she was afraid of losing me like the reverse case that DH mentioned in which the guy didn't want the girl to wear sleazy outfits because he was a jealous neanderthal who was afraid of losing his girl. Then the girl lets herself go. Instead, my ex-fiancee was the jealous buffoon who was afraid of losing me because I was muscular and that some other better looking woman would take me away.
This problem always happens in exclusive 1 on 1 relationships and that is why I am into open relationships and I date several women at once. I strive to have at least 2 dates a month some of them are from the personal or from my night club goings. The jealousy factor is what makes the problems that DH mentions, which is about possessiveness. In a 1 on 1, one feels that he possesses the other and vice versa, and this causes more problems than open relationships which have problems caused by marriage laws or moral laws imposed by church. I really don't give a damn what the church or state says about polygamy and if it were legal, I would practice polygamy and allow my wives to marry other husbands as well. That way, women won't have to change their man and they can find a man that has one feature that another man lacks and have both of those men. The men can do the same with the women. No need to change anyone in this scenario and everyone can be who they are.

[Joe Zop]

Darkseid, it sounds to me as if this is less about the 1 on 1 relationship structure and more about getting involved with women whose insecurities are allowed to run the relationship. Emotional abuse is no different from physical abuse in that it can only continue if one allows it to -- I've had relationships where people (and I'm speaking generally here, as I believe this extends beyond male-female close relationships) started playing those "your behaviour is a reflection on me" games and my response is, if that's how you feel then enjoy looking in the mirror, because that's all about you, not me, and I'm gone if this continues. And then I am if it does. (Let me be clear that I'm willing to stick around if they are willing to try to change, and work with them on that, but it's more work, as one constantly has to remind them of the line, that they're slipping back into old behaviors, etc.) If someone wants you around, not only do you need to be aware of their rules/needs, but they need to be aware of yours. In my long-standing relationship, both of us have our foibles and insecurities, but one of the reasons it's lasted as long as it has is because we both recognize that they're ours, not our partner's.

And RN, I understand what you're saying about stress, but I've got to tell you that anyone who smokes automatically moves to the back of my relationship list, unfortunately. And I've siblings, otherwise very bright, who do so, and it's no reflection on intelligence. Had a girlfriend one time who was a smoker, and I simply couldn't stand kissing her, despite that fact that she was simply brilliant and enthusiastic about that, let alone the whole cigarette after sex thing, where she'd be happily puffing away and I'd be choking. The stress you're putting on your body is nothing compared to the stress you feel, and I can't believe that you, as someone who's already had a cancer scare, can ignore the reality of the risk you're throwing at your kids (and since I don't know your smoking habits, here I'm not referring to second-hand smoke issues, but simply the heightened risk of you not being around for them because of the health risks.)

[Marcos]

Originally posted by Dickhead
...
I feel I have a lot to offer. If not, I can go to Latin America and fuck ten women for the price of what it would cost me to have a "girlfriend" for six months. And, I can do what the fuck I want when the fuck I want.



Amen. I'm beginning to collect some pearls of wisdom here and there, have to say that some sections of the WSG are a great source.

[Marcos]

On the subject of smoking, RN said it would cost too much for her to quit, due to the high cost of treatments, etc.
I think in fact the only way one can quit smoking is free and fast, cold turkey. I did that almost three years ago, after some 15 years of puffing, at the very same time that I was under strong psychological stress, being abused by someone.
I'm not a person of very strong will but I guess my motivation was to bring something under control (the smoking habit) while I couldn't be in control (or at least I tought so) of the other, bigger problem. Time has now passed and I never want to go back at smoking, I also succesfully passed the test of occasionally sampling cigarillos and some weed. I think my body has now lost any affinity with nicotine and tobacco aromatics, of course it took a while.
Now RN I think that given the fact that you have the will to (in no particular order) be an activist, write here on the board, don't give up on your kids and go ahead with your life, you can also add this extra challenge to your to-do list, wait for a motivating situation to begin it and give it a shot.
Chanches are you will succeed more easily than you think.

[Dickhead]

Exactly, Stoly. Congratulations. And RN, here's some more motivation: If you quit, I will look you up when I am there in the spring and give you a good long root. But if you don't, I won't.

[Dickhead]

Actually, there are two things you HAVE to do: pay taxes and die. I was just offering my services in light of your current situation!

I wasn't aware that "Got a light?" was the world's best pick up line. I thought it was "I'm hard if you're wet!"

[Traveller]

Joe. pointless philosophical discussions are my favourite pastime - I am lucky I have a colleague who has is the same way too. And bottom line - probably they are not at all pointless.....

I am not in SE Asia, been misbehaving a little in the land of smiles and Eastern Cina a couple of times. I just tend to read posts on several groups here, and I am a bit (er.. very) opinionated against political correctness, as opposed to common sense and being nice to your neighbour......

RN - hey catch the crooked smile in that one about the standoff. It's a given it would be a friendly one - and if you won't have one with Joe, then.....? :-)

And yes, I smoke like a chimney and it does not embarrass me. Stupid as h... but I still hold the misconception that we live in a free world (whenever did that occur??)

[Fedup]

I'm with Dickhead... just say "no" to smokers. Besides the fact that smokers are killing me as well (in so many different ways... such as having to watch you have a lung removed due to cancer), smokers also taste like shit. I love to snack on pussy and smokers just don't taste the same (just as I'm told girls won't give blow jobs if a guy has been drinking coffee). As soon as I see a smoker I take 15 to 20 IQ points right off the top. Sorry RN... but saying that everyone else is doing it just makes you one of the Lemmings headed for the cliff.

Traveller... It's a free country for me too. Masturbation is offensive, thus you can't do it in public. Many people find smoking offensive (especially when I have to constantly wash otherwise clean clothes/myself just because they/I reek of smoke) as well... so why is it allowed in public?

To bring this back to topic... A hooker would have to be plenty hot for me to pick if I learnt she smoked.

[The Virgin Terr]

traveller, i think u got that misconception the same place we all do: from public schools and from the mainstream establishment. some of us however eventually wise up to the truth.

dickhead, smooth move there with RN. so u've been a pothead for 33 years now? i was under the mistaken impression u weren't even that old, probably had u mixed up with fedup or someone. i didn't begin smoking until i was around 35, and didn't begin smoking regularly on a nearly daily basis until i turned 40, and discovered by accident on my own that weed is a good anti-depressant, and cure for insomnia. that was 4 years ago. i smoke no more now than i did then, which is only a little pinch once or twice a day, enough for my purposes, and thus a very affordable self-medication in spite of the outrageous black market price. learning the reality about pot has just been one more reason to distrust and hate the establishment.

RN, all guys are dickheads deepdown. won't be the first time u've screwed one.

fedup, when u say that masturbation is offensive, do u mean that from a personal viewpoint or are u just mouthing social convention? do u masturbate? feel ashamed? do u think others ought to? masturbation is probably the most common human sexual activity, engaged in by probably over 90% of adults. is it offensive period, or only if done publically. same question goes for partner sex, is it offensive in public? if so, why? i'm serious. i think humans the most perverse sexual beings in existence because of this phenomenon of shame and repression humans attach to it. do u think we should be ashamed of being sexual beings? if not, why make any effort to hide it by banning it in public?

[The Virgin Terr]

i'm reading a new book about the evolutionary biology of sex, which some of u may also find interesting since we're all interested in sex and i imagine some of u are into science as well. evolutionary biology has to do with the study of how various species adapt and compete to pass on genes to succeeding generations, and explains for example why women favor successful mates while men prefer beauty. this book, DR. TATIANA'S SEX ADVICE TO ALL CREATION, is mostly about the extremely weird sexual adaptations to be found throughout much of the animal world. learning this field of science is helpful in understanding human sexual behavior and overcoming repressive socially conventional ideas such as those surrounding prostitution. there's one little anecdote from the book which is quite funny . a female chimpanzee that was raised in a human household masturbated to a copy of playgirl, looking at the centerfold of a naked guy with a big schlong. she'd be great fun to have at a party, don't u think?

[Dickhead]

I am 45, VT. I started drinking when I was ten and I started smoking pot when I was twelve. I have also taken LSD about 150-200 times. I don't smoke every day now because I can't afford it. When I run into something good I buy it and smoke it until it runs out, and then I stop for at least two weeks. Come to think of it, it's been about two weeks right now and I just got paid today. Getting paid once a month really sucks. But yeah, it's a good anti-depressant for many people although I've also heard the opposite. I liked it for the opposite reason; I'm pretty hyper. And yeah, it's great for insomnia, from which I suffer from time to time pretty badly, although it hasn't been too bad the last couple of years.

[Joe Zop]

Fair enough, RN. And for what it's worth, I've got a sister with a 160+ IQ who's a smoker, and another couple sibs who aren't that far behind her, so intelligence isn't exactly a dividing line (depending, of course, on how you define that.) It's a terribly addicting drug, and let's just leave it at that. Regardless of what some online test shows, your intelligence shows through clearly in your posts, and it's decidedly not average.

And, um, hate to mention it, but regardless of past success or lack thereof, your system hasn't been producing much in the realm of desired results of late, has it? Might be time for a new approach, and there are other come-ons that don't result in that particular array of health risks.

Traveller, be careful -- rumor has it RN's quite distracting if she wears that PVC catsuit while arguing...

[The Virgin Terr]

lester grinspoon is an m.d. on the faculty of harvard i believe who has written extensively about the medical and therapeutic uses of marijuana. there are very many, u'd be surprised how many. his friend the famous astronomer carl sagan was a pothead who claimed that pot helped him think about the cosmos more creatively. and the greatest jazz musician of all time, louis armstrong, was also a bigtime head who thought pot was fucking fantastic.

one thing i've never done and really want to do is trip. someday.

[Dickhead]

Yes, I'm familiar with Grinspoon. He actually went to undergrad with one of my former history profs, a brilliant guy by the name of well I can't say but we used to blaze up together before his class. I haven't tripped in about ten years because the recovery time is at least 48-72 hours and I don't have that many days left in my life. But, I wouldn't rule out doing it again. I believe it expanded my mental capacity. For example, even though I've always been good at math I could never understand calculus until I studied it while I was tripping. Then it made perfect sense. I also read the Bible, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon while I was on acid. I had read the Bible before, but not the others. This was when I was about 15 or so. This experience was instrumental in forming my deeply held belief that all religions suck equally. I am an equal opportunity Dickhead.

It is my belief that pot improves music, and food (I am a former professional cook), and sex, and in no way interferes with functioning. I have driven at least a quarter of a million stoned miles without incident. I took all my graduate and professional exams stoned. I was especially stoned when I took the GMAT and I scored in the 98th percentile. I smoked my way through college with a 3.99 and grad school with a 4.0 so I think my brain is intact.

Now, drinking will probably kill me; I just don't know WHEN, plus the death rate is one per capita in any case.

PS, RN, I don't smoke pot around people who don't like it. I have no problem with that. But, I do have a problem with women (it's always women) who say I shouldn't even smoke it when they're NOT around.

Anyway, this is not a dope board but pot is a great complement to PUSSY. I will say I think FU's IQ comment was a bit off base and I agree with JZ that it is more a case of cigarette smokers being junkies and not dummies.

[Fedup]

Dickhead/JZ - There's an established community base for support/treatment of nicotine addiction. When a person says they're quiting smoking they always get gobs of support. When you tell someone you're quiting crack they have a totally different view of you.

RN - Perhaps I was not that nice... sorry, but I'm rather militant when it comes to smokers... my grandfather died of lung cancer and gave my grandmother emphysema in the process.

VT - My monkey has been spanked more times than I can count. I meant public masturbation, not the type done in the privacy of your own home (where smoking should be done).

I too am a frequent smoker of the fine Herb. Alcohol is very damaging and I plan to be rid of it completely in the coming years. Pot makes everyday experiences come alive and certainly doesn't have the health consequences of alcohol. And sex on weed is second to none... it's like tantric +++. Without drugs Hollywood would not exist.

Back on topic... Any advice from you veterans on my coming trip to Cuba? I'm new to this sort of action (much different than the nudie bars back home). Yes... I know there's a Cuba board, but I do value the opinions of those who frequently write here.

[Dickhead]

Well, being an American I'm not FUCKING ALLOWED to go to Cuba, but have a great time.

[Traveller]

Dickhead - so much for living in a free society.... But anyway it seems you sorry US residents may still get to Cuba via most other countries - and I bet you won't think of asking uncle Sam's permission when thinking hard about it....

RN, haven't you noticed that in most parts of the world, more often than not, and throughout history, people indeed have done their best to ban sex in most forms and circumstances - sanctioning perpetrators with anything from jail to flogging, stoning, burning in hell, public scorn, whatever.... But for some reason it has in practice more often than not been directed at women having sex..... strange...

Joe, one of my other favourite pastimes is actually being seriously distracted - it would definately bring more fun to it :-)

[Dickhead]

Yes, I'm aware that I can go to Cuba from Méjico or The Bahamas or Canada or wherever but I deem it a risk not worth taking since prostitution is illegal there and I have yet to go so many other places like the Netherlands Antilles where it is legal. Actually, it is technically NOT illegal for US citizens to GO to Cuba; what is illegal is spending money there. Kinda rules out a lot of things.

[Traveller]

DH, I don't really get your point on that one. In most countries in the world, it's not technically "legal". In the countries that legalised it, it has little or no charm (don't know about the Antilles, though).

But nevertheless, in most countries it is tolerated. And except Sweden (no I don't live there thanks) only fundamentalist muslim countries actually mess up johns (sometimes).

What I guess is the risk in Cuba (or anywhere else) is the corrupt police thing - wanna make money? Girl screams I'm only 17, or that guy paid me for sex - seldom happens, because the "law" will most of the time set you back a few $$ and then jail the b*tch. Deservedly, if you did not treat her in any unfriendly way. So the girls won't pull a trick like that unless you were a big time stupido flashing money or treated her unfriendly. And if they don't - what is the cop gonna do?? The girl is not giving you away, and definately not telling you paid for sex (that would in most places put her in the slammer as a hooker) - you are lovers right??

[Dickhead]

Traveller, I seem to recall you are Belgian or German but let me assure you that prostitution is most definitely NOT tolerated in the US and they bust Johns all the time. In my area, they put your picture in the newspaper or on "John TV" if you are busted for solicitation. Not too good for one's career if one is a public employee as I am, and especially not if one is in my line of work.

Prostitution is completely legal in Costa Rica, for example, and I don't know what you mean by it therefore "holding little charm."

And as far as "what is the cop going to do?": in a Third World country with a repressive dictatorship, whatever they damn well please.

[Traveller]

DH - sorry, oops just let me get that foot out of my mouth first..... guess my comment was a bit without "nuances" - in addition to the muslim fundamentalist countries, and good old Sweden of course you also have the "land of the free" (John TV??? Yikes. I bet Italian or French TV makers would go to jail for making such stuff....)

Actually, I like a lot of things about the US, and I enjoy going there - although shopping for tail has not been on the "to do list" there. Comparing certain aspects of human freedom with fundamentalist regimes labelled by the powers that be as kingdoms of evil is not meant as an insult to the US as such - as I said it is in most aspects a wonderful place.

However, it comes to mind that the common denominator of the US and its most opposed adversaries these days - fundamentalist muslim countries - is that both seem to want to mix religion and government. And both exploit the "God with us" slogan made immortal by the Germans during WWII......

Point is, where lawmakers and the powers that be maintain this mix, rather than letting religiously motivated moral issues rest with the clergy, you get among other things anti-prostitution legislation. I have more sympathy for the Latin/catholic approach (your misbehaving is a matter between you and the clergyman in a confession :-)

I agree of course that in a repressive dictatorship, the cops may do whatever they want to you, and they don't even need an excuse. However, keeping clear of the real taboos of that dictatorship, your encounters with cops will be for money extortion purposes only. That can take a big toll on your bank account...... but for all sakes of course you have to steer clear of the real taboos (which, interestingly, only apply to ordinary people and those not under protection of the powers that be - similar to medeival Europe, when criminal law only applied (as a matter of law, not only as one of fact) to commoners - not to the nobility...)

And I appreciate that misbehaving in places where it's legal may well be nice - I was thinking mainly of the issue discussed here previously of the difference between "legalised" as in regulated and controlled, rather than "not criminalised" (and thus not subject to interference by authorities).

[Joe Zop]

But I think DH's point about Cuba is a very good one -- whether or not the foreigner is at risk in the trade, the locals and the workers definitely and substantially are, which is one of the reasons it's not on my list. Needing to find casas where the owners turn a blind eye and basically falsify things, women who seriously are at risk of being "re-educated" -- that's not someplace I want to risk/support, really, when there are other options. There are plenty of places, such as Thailand, where I've just arrived, that prostitution is simply less a risk for all involved.

That said, there's no question that some mongers really like the sense and risk of the illicit, and it goes without saying that Cuban women can be hot as hell :)

[Traveller]

Joe, the sense and the love of the risk of the illicit is - no surprise - among the favourite pastimes too.

However, the whole world of mongering is one of chasing an illusion (and a tickle).

Your observations about the "Cuban problem" however bring about some thoughts - what you express is a concern for the local sweeties who have to bear the burden of all kinds of hassle and misfortune due to our lustful exploits.

I totally agree.

But this brings us all to the heart of this discussion group topic - in my mind "the morality of prostitution" has nothing to do with the "morality" of mongering as such, but with how we (johns) affect the lives and feelings of the girls we encounter.

I hate to think I could be the one who screws this girl who hates it and does not really want to be involved in the act at all - or is scared out of her mind that the cops will be at her later on. But also, trying to give the girls the "boyfriend experience" (why do everyone mention the girlfriend experience as it was a one-way thing), while knowing that it is going to end at 10 am in the morning, and worst case the girl will be crying and stuff -

Got to admit that I am doing my share of it and beyond - and might even sign up for a "heart of darkness" tour as well for the fun of it - but it all leaves you with question marks all over....

[The Virgin Terr]

more than 700,000 people are arrested in the u.s. each year for marijuana; more than the total arrested for all violent crimes combined! i'm unaware of the statistics for prostitution related arrests, but knowing how big city cops routinely go on "sweeps" in areas that streetwalkers work, i wouldn't be surprised if those numbers are in the 6 figures as well. america is a fascist country that somehow maintains a mythical image as a bastion of freedom in the world. travellers' comments were right on the mark. i also agree totally with him regarding the issue of decriminalization versus legalization. why would anyone want to be regulated by "authorities" who are both ignorant and hostile? that's what you have with legalization.

i've questions for our resident female, our "token" representative (i'm kidding!). RN, have you ever considered contacting former clients who were among your best sexual partners to satisfy your current desires? did you ever consider lowering or eliminating their fees when you were seeing them since they satisfied you sexually?

i have an intriguing idea for everyone's response. what do you think of clients who would pay a sexually responsive woman for "lessons" on how to pleasure a woman? i imagine there are more than a few men who would honestly do so. women sometimes complain about what lousy lovers we are. it seems to me this is an angle of prostitution worth exploring further. a way for more men and women to find more common ground and open communication with one another.

[Joe Zop]

Skinless, good to see you're still lurking, and RN, had his posts not unfortunately been deleted, you'd have been able to read his very truly Conrad-esque reports from the backroads, train-stations, and $3USD hotels off the beaten track in Thailand. From the romance of romance to the romance of anti-romance, eh, Skinless?

Traveler, I quite agree with your perspective, and here's one where I do disagree a bit with RN in that it is my problem to some extent. If I am furthering an immoral scenario then I don't see how I can't bear some culpability, on some level. That's like saying, to use an old example, that my buying Nike apparel despite the conditions their workers were facing has no bearing on things. I definitely vote with my dollars in terms of what I buy and don't, and my responses sent messages -- on some level -- to companies when it's combined with adverse publicity, etc.

For example, last night I was in one of the Bangkok bars, and was being come on to by a youngish worker there. Neither she nor the mamasan would get specific on her age or show me her ID card, (saying "old enough, old enough" which means nothing as far as I'm concerned, particularly in this cultural context) so I declined to pursue things. It was clearly no problem for her or for those who employed her, it was obvious that she was hardly new to the scene and that there were hardly any likely consequences in the event she was, say, seventeen as opposed to eighteen, but limits are limits and scruples are scruples. (We could reference here our long-ago discussion on the absurdity of this versus that number for legality, but to me it frankly has nothing to do with numbers per se -- it has to do with who is and who is not considered a consenting adult, which is the only category I'm at all interested in considering.)

To approach this whole issue from a completely selfish perspective -- my best and most natural :) way -- I'm after sexual companionship, but I do not want my needs/desires to have consequences for someone else, as that would have emotional consequences for me. Thus, reasonably safe sex is important, comfort of both parties is important, and some degree of basic human respect and care is important, in whatever way those involved define that, even though it's simply the care of two people interacting and not anything directed personally to me or her, as we may well not really know each other. In the case of the 'boyfriend experience' for me the key is simply the same thing -- be completely up-front about what is what. It's the experience, it's not the reality, and there's no reason why the two can't exist in those terms. I abhor the idea that I'm with someone who's an unwilling participant in any manner -- as much as I love, for example, the Thai soapies, I really dislike how it's done -- me picking someone anonymously from behind a glass lineup with the woman having no say in the equation. I know that all have signed up for the equation, but it still is something I personally still find problematic to some degree.

And VT, I can't possibly quantify how much I've learned from sex workers, but it's a pretty constant education from my perspective. I ask, they answer, and it's pretty simple and straightforward since it's often 'here, or here' or 'this or this?' If I take someone with, say, RN's number of encounters, then I'd darn well expect that she'd be able to articulate clearly what does and doesn't work for her, and that, since this is an encounter with minimal emotional overtones, that she'll be reasonably honest and straightforward about those things, as there's no point in not doing so. And I've no problem doing the same about what does and doesn't for me...

[Traveller]

Joe, we seem to be mostly of the same mind on this topic. I don't agree about that age stuff (letting authorities determine what is "age of consent") - I actually prefer to make up my own mind about that - although that mind mostly decides that girls under 20 don't really have anything to do in the business if they value their mental health. But I am willing to accept that the sterotype don't work with all - I have met 25-year olds who could not cope with it and 17 year olds who most likely could if treated nicely. I think it is all about being a bit sensitive about what one is doing.

RN, the "Heart of Darkness" tour was the stuff Joe referred to in his last comment to Skinless - Skinless' epic story of his tour of the wild parts of Thailand. Great story - and great adventure too.

And, I have a feeling that your position on the matter of how we affect the girls' feelings may be reflecting that you are, as we have all observed from your posts, a well-minded, reflected and strong person with a clear idea of how you view the mysteries of the world - whether you consider yourself that way or not. Most of the girls we encounter in our misbehavings are not up to that standard.